Students Talk 4, San Juan, 15 September 1968
Krishnamurti: May I talk for little while? And then perhaps, if you are willing, you can ask questions and talk things over together.
It seems to me one of the major problems of our life is how to bring about a total and complete action in our life. Our life, as it is, is broken up, fragmentary — we are scientists, engineers and so on — specialised technologically, and inwardly also we are different fragments. We are at moments pacifists, at moments aggressive, brutal, and at other times tender, quiet, and so on. So there is in our life, both outwardly and inwardly, a constant cleavage, a constant fragmentation, a breaking up of a life, which being contradictory, bring about in itself confusion, pain. We are drawn by one desire, by one pleasure opposed to another pleasure, and so on. This I think is recognisable; one can observe this if one is sufficiently interested. It is there, this fragmentation going on. And each fragment has its own activity, its own action. That is also noticeable. And hence our life is a constant fragmentary, destructive and contradictory existence. I think that is fairly clear, isn’t it?
Questioner: Yes.
K: And one asks oneself — what a lovely morning it is going to be — one asks oneself if it is at all possible, not theoretically but actually, to lead a life that is always whole, that is always non-fragmentary; whatever its activity is, it is complete, not broken up, contradictory, opposing, resisting, and so on. I think that is an inevitable question when one observes the fragmentation that goes on in one’s life. Now, can we proceed from there?
Q: Yes.
K: I hope the question is clear.
I am pulled, one is pulled in different directions and there is a deep sense of frustration, a deep sense of inadequacy to deal with the total of existence of life. Is this somewhat clear? That is, one is a politician, according to certain party, or a communist, a socialist, a Catholic, a Protestant, with their own particular beliefs and all that frightful mess. So one asks, can one live a life that is completely whole, completely — I don’t like to use the word ‘integrated’ because it is not an integration at all — a life that is non-fragmentary, that is flowering always without a break, without a fragmentation, without a cleavage. If the question is clear, then what can one do? One’s life is broken up — the office, the home, the ambition, and so on and so on — broken up. And can one lead a life that is so complete there is no contradiction at all in it. Now what do you say to that question? Not a spiritual life and a mundane life, not a life, a religious life and a secular life, and so on, so on. There is a challenge, and how do you respond to it?
No answer?
Q: I think that only through silence one can find what we are talking about.
K: I don’t quite understand that, sir.
Q: Through silence.
K: No, no. No don’t use a word, sir, if I may suggest, that one word, it doesn’t cover everything. One must go into it a little more in detail, not just use a universal blanket that will cover up everything.
What makes for contradiction? You understand? Here I see a life broken up — I am kind, if I am at all kind, in a family and brutal in the office, and so on — I am broken up.
[Sound of P.A. equipment]
First of all, one has to find out what is the cause of this fragmentation. Why I am one thing at one time and at another completely different. Why? What is the cause of this fragmentation, this breaking up.
[Sound continues] No?
How do you find out? By what process do you, if I may ask — we are talking quite friendly, there is no teacher and the disciple here at all — one has to be both a teacher…
[Loud buzz]
One has to be both a teacher and a disciple to oneself, so there is no teacher and disciple here or that sense of authority, and all that rubbish. So, how does one find out what is the cause of this fragmentation?
Q: [Inaudible]
K: No, no, you are going back to yesterday. If I may suggest, forget yesterday.
Q: We want first of all your opinion about this cause.
Q: No.
K: You want — first of all, the gentleman says we want to know your opinion. [Loud buzz]
[Pause]
The gentleman asks, he wants to know my opinion, first. You know, we are not dealing with opinions. You can say, its your opinion and my opinion and his opinion; opinions have no value at all. You can leave that to the politicians and to the intellectuals. But here is a thing that you have to find out. You have to find out, not I find out and tell it to you. We can go into it together, explore it, but if you say, ‘Well, I’ll wait till you tell me,’ then there is no fun in it.
[Sound continues] Qu’est-ce qu’il y a?
[Long Pause]
Q: How am I going to look for fragmentation if I don’t know the whole?
K: How can I know the fragmentation if I don’t know the whole. That is not… is that the question, sir? I am fragmented, there it is. I go to the office, there I am brutal, I am envious, I am ambitious, I am competitive — right? — and at home I am very quiet, very gentle, dominated by my wife or I dominate her, and so on and so on and so on. There is a fragmentation. Right? We are asking why is there such a fragmentation, what is the cause of it?
Q: The opposite of… [inaudible]
K: The questioner says we live in opposites. But why?
Q: [In Spanish]
K: Ah, no, no. That is not an answer, is it: there is no love.
We are examining. If you say there is no love then you can’t go any further. We are examining, exploring why we live in duality, why we constantly swing from one to the other, the opposites, why we live in a corridor of opposites — why?
Q: There are circumstances in life we have no control of.
K: We have no control over circumstances in our life. That is true but that is not the question.
Q: Looking for satisfaction.
K: Oh, no. Looking for satisfaction. You see, please, may I suggest something? Before you give an opinion, which you are, find out why one lives in fragmentation, what is the cause of it.
Q: [Inaudible]
K: Duality — but why?
Yes, sir?
Q: Every new situation requires us a new set of responses, and I look at every situation differently.
K: New set of responses. Sorry.
Q: Really we don’t know.
K: We really don’t know.
Q: [Inaudible]
K: Wait, please don’t guess. Don’t guess; then we are lost.
Q: [Inaudible]
K: No, madame, écoutez — I mean, wait a minute. Don’t guess, don’t try several things and find out it is not so. When you say, ‘I really don’t know’ — as it has been suggested — right? — I don’t know what is the cause of it. That is the only right approach, isn’t it? I really don’t know. That would be a fair statement: I really don’t know why I live in duality.
Now, I don’t know, but how am I going to find out.
Q: [In Spanish]
K: Madame, that is not… [laughs]
Q: We are born…
K: You see, we are all again guessing.
Q: Is thought the instrument to find out the actual questions?
K: Do you give up this game? [Laughter]
Q: Maybe one of the causes is that our actions and pursuits are self-centred.
K: One of the causes of this division is we are self-centred. I really don’t know.
When you don’t know, what do you do? Let’s proceed from there. I don’t know, you don’t know, why we live in this contradiction. Now, when you say, ‘I don’t know,’ how do you then proceed?
Q: Find out.
K: Wait — to find out — how do you find out?
Q: [Inaudible]
Wait, wait ,wait, please go slowly. How do you find out? By thinking?
Q: [Inaudible]
K: Wait. By thinking — right? Now, what do you mean by thinking?
Q: Analyse the whole problem.
K: Analyse the problem. Wait, wait, sir, slowly — analyse the problem. The problem is division, contradiction, the fragmentation. I have analysed it. I see my life broken up. And I am asking why. And you say think about it — right? — use thought to find out. Right, sir? Thought. Now, what is thought? Before I say I will use it, I must go into the question of what is thought. Thought, obviously, is the response of memory. Right? No?
Q: [Inaudible]
Q: There is a lady, a young lady here who says that one of the causes may be our fear.
K: No, sir, forget what we are talking, for God’s sake. You’re not… You make a statement and block yourself. You are not prepared to examine, to explore. Therefore don’t make a statement.
There is a gentleman said there: the instrument of investigation, of analysis, is thought. And will thought uncover it? Therefore it may uncover it. Therefore I have to find out what thought is. Right? What is thinking?
Q: Going back to experience?
K: No, no, please just… don’t guess. [Laughs] Do look at it. What is thinking? I ask you where you live — please listen — I ask you where do you live, and your response to that question is immediate because you know, you are familiar with the street, with the number and so on, you answer it instantly. There is no interval between the question and the answer. Right? Now, if I asked you a little more complex question, there is an interval between the question and the answer. Right? What takes place in that interval?
Q: Mental activity.
Q: Thinking.
K: Mental activity. That is thinking. Now, wait — what takes place there? I ask you what is the distance from here to New York, and you don’t know or you have been told, you have forgotten it. Therefore what takes place?
Q: I believe there are a series of hypotheses…
K: There are no hypotheses, sir. I don’t know, therefore I begin to look into my memory, don’t I? Thought begins to examine the store of memory. Right? They say, ‘Well, I have read somewhere that it is so many miles from here to New York,’ and I ask people and at last I answer that question — it is so many miles. Right? That is what we call thinking. Question, an interval before the response, in that interval a great deal of enquiry, analysis, asking, expecting, waiting. Right? That is what we call mental activity, reasonable or unreasonable. Right?
Now, and then I ask you a question which you don’t know the answer. Right? What takes place then? You can’t appeal to your memory. Right? You can’t say, ‘I’ll find out’ — nobody can answer you. Right? So what takes place?
Q: Imagination.
K: Imagination? I can’t imagine something of which I don’t know.
Q: It might be inspiration.
K: Intuition — that might be a guesswork.
Q: Inspiration.
K: That might be a guesswork.
Q: We become quiet.
Q: Searching.
Q: There is a question we don’t know. We know thought won’t get it.
K: No, sir, look…
Q: Can we proceed?
K: I am showing it to you. Follow it step by step, you will find out for yourself. I ask a familiar question and you answer it immediately. I ask another question, which is a little more complex, a little more difficult, and you take time over it. In that interval of time you are cogitating, thinking, watching, looking, asking. Now I am asking you what is the cause of this fragmentation, and you don’t know. If you knew, it would be according to your memory, wouldn’t it? Right? So, you say, ‘I really don’t know.’ That would be a most honest answer. I really don’t know. Right?
Q: Maybe it is inborn conditioning.
K: Oh, God’s sake. That’s again a statement. That doesn’t…
Q: [Inaudible]
K: Wait, wait madame, attendez, wait a minute, have patience.
If I don’t know, what do I do? I can’t go to a professor and ask this question — right? — I can’t look into any book, and no book will tell me. I have to find out because it is a very serious question, because if I can change this whole activity of life which is fragmented I may live differently, entirely differently. So I, as a human being have to find out. I can’t depend on anybody. Right? It may be their guesswork, it may be wrong, it may be false. I don’t know if you are following all this. So I must find out.
Now, how do I proceed to find out?
Q: Maybe we could compare.
K: Oh, no, sir, that is still thought.
Q: A man’s life may stop being fragmentary.
K: Well that is too simple, sir — it may. ‘It may stop,’ means it never will.
Q: I just look what I am doing at the moment.
Q: [In Spanish]
K: So when you say you don’t know, is thought still in operation? You understand, sir? I don’t know; I want to find out and there is nobody that is going to tell me. And I won’t let anybody tell me. Because they may be utterly wrong; they generally are. I have no faith in anybody because all of the people whom I have trusted — the priests, the philosopher, the politician, the communist, the socialist — they have all failed.
Q: [Inaudible]
K: So I must find out, and it must be true under all circumstances. Wait, listen to me. Please do listen. So I am not going to ask anybody. And I don’t know why I live a life which is so broken up, and I want to find out.
Q: [Inaudible]
K: I am saying, how are you going to find out, madame?
Q: I’m not going to ask anyone.
K: All right. Now I am asking you how you are going to find it.
Q: Can I observe myself? The way I observe that tree, can I observe myself, without any identification, interpretation?
K: Madame, we are not asking how to look at yourself, but when you don’t know a very important, vital question, the answer of it, what do you do? Do you give it up? Wait, wait, you don’t give it up, do you? When you are hungry, tremendously hungry, you don’t give it up. And if this question is not as serious as hunger — you follow? — then you will give it up, you will say, ‘Well, I don’t know. I don’t care.’ But it is a tremendously vital question.
Q: Sir, is it established that this is some way a materialistic…?
K: Materialistic?
Q: Yes, sir.
K: No, no, sir. No, sir, it is not materialistic. I don’t know what you mean by materialistic.
Q: [Inaudible]
K: Yes, sir. Look, my brain, which is the storehouse of memory — right? — of experience, of knowledge, that brain has no answer now. Right? I have used that brain before to find the ordinary answer, depending on people and so on, but now it fails. So what am I to do? I have been a communist, a socialist, a fascist, a religious this and that, and everything I have been through, fragmentation, one after the other, and I say, ‘What a stupid way of living.’ And yet I go on. I want to find out why I live a life of fragmentation, broken up, everything, and I can’t ask anybody, nobody. I have to find out. Right? What am I to do?
Q: You have to meditate.
K: Wait, sir, wait, sir, wait, sir. We are doing that now, we are doing that. [Laughs] We are meditating now but you refuse to do that. I won’t use that word.
Q: Self examination.
K: No, madame. We have examined.
Q: And a lack of harmony in ourselves.
K: Lack of harmony in ourselves — that’s not an answer.
Q: [Inaudible]
K: Unknown — you are quoting me. Please don’t.
Q: I think the answer is look for divine inspiration.
K: Look for divine inspiration — wait a minute.
I am a non-believer — suppose I am — and I can’t look, for inspiration. You believe because you are conditioned — as a Catholic, as a Hindu, Buddhist, and you look according to your condition for that inspiration.
We are meditating — please follow this slowly — we are meditating, we are very carefully going into it step by step.
Q: How can you seek something not using your mind?
K: I am going to show it to you, sir. You are going to find out.
Q: We are using the mind by meditating.
K: No. Oh, for God… That is why I didn’t want to use that word ‘meditation’. That is a very difficult word — it means something entirely different. But we will use it for the time being in order to understand this immense problem, sir. You follow?
Q: If you can’t find the answer to the problem you just have to live with it.
K: You are living with it now. [Laughter]
You see, one of our difficulties is you are not used to this kind of… you want to disperse. We are learning to observe. We are learning to observe how in our life… all our life is fragmentation. That is very clear. We have different desires pulling one against the other, different pleasures. We are peaceful at one moment, war-minded the other, aggressive kind, and so on and on and on — we believe, we don’t believe, despair, hope and so on. We live in contradiction and in opposites. I say to myself, why? Why do I live this way?
Q: [Inaudible]
K: Just listen to me for two minutes, sir. Why do I live this way.
Q: Sir…
K: Madame, would you just give me two minutes? Let me talk for a little and then you can ask.
Sir, wouldn’t you be better sitting here instead of in the sun?
Q: [In Spanish]
K: Would you mind waiting two minutes or five minutes till I explain something? Then you can ask questions.
My life and your life is in fragmentation, broken up. We lead a dual kind of life — say one thing, do another, think one thing and feel something else. This contradiction, this duality, that is the life one leads. And I say, I am asking, why? Why is life so fragmented? And I can’t answer, ask anybody, because their own life is fragmented. They will guess, they will say it is your conditioning, it is God, it is society, it is this, it is that. I can’t ask answer anybody, ask anybody. Therefore I have to find out for myself. And it must be true, not changeable at another, under a different circumstance. It must be absolutely true. Right?
Now, how do I find out? I really don’t know, and I have used thought as an instrument to find out, always my life. All my life, I have used thought, thinking, asking, memory, knowledge, experience — all that I have used to find out. And here I can’t rely on my knowledge because knowledge says, well, I don’t know. Knowledge says that is the inevitable way of life, and so on. So there is no dependence on knowledge, on experience or on what people say. Therefore I discard all that completely. And, now what am I to do? How am I going to find out what is true?
[Pause]
Q: Sir…
K: Look, sir, do wait, wait. Wait, give me two minutes more, sir, please. Patience.
How do I, now, look on this fragmentation? You understand my question? I don’t know, but there must be right answer. What has happened to my mind now?
Let me put the question differently. Probably most of you are conditioned to believe in God, which you call spiritual. And if you really want to find out, not repeat, not have faith, not say, ‘It is so, look…’ — if you really want to find out if there is such thing as God, you have to discard all belief, haven’t you? You must be free of all belief to find out. Right? You must be free of fear to enquire, to give your life to find out. Now, in the same way, I want to find out the truth of this matter. And what is the state of my mind that has discarded authority — you follow? — that has discarded asking somebody else to tell me, that has discarded knowledge. Because knowledge is always in the past, and this is a question that must be answered now, not according to terms of the past, but now. Therefore I must discard knowledge as a means of enquiry. Right? And I must not be frightened to find out what it is. There may be no answer at all. That may be the way of life — you follow, sir? — contradiction. So I mustn’t be frightened. Right? I mustn’t be frightened. There must be no fear of any authority, including my experience, my knowledge or other people’s knowledge. There must be complete freedom to enquire. Now, what is the state of mind that is free to look? You understand my question?
Don’t answer me, please.
Q: Could you repeat the question?
K: [Laughs] Repeat the question. I can’t repeat the question. I will put it differently.
Look, sir, I have lived a life depending on others — what people say, what the Church has taught me or what the authority has told me about this and that. And here is a problem which no authority can answer. Right? And I don’t trust any authority, because they have lead me up the wrong path. So, what is the state of my mind that has refused to accept what other people say, or what my own feelings, my own intuition — you follow? — because that may also be very deceptive. Right? I have no fear, because I don’t care if there is… if I have to suffer, this is my way of life. That is, I accept it. So I am not afraid. So I say to myself, what is the state of the mind which is not afraid, which is not accepting any authority, or looking for some divine superior intuitive answer? I refuse to do all that. I say to myself, if I… I have done that. Then what is the state of my mind that has done this.
Q: Naked pure state.
K: Yes, therefore… Wait, wait — you are saying it is completely denuded of all influence, conditioning, fear. Right? Now, wait, if it is that, will there be any contradiction? Will there be any duality? There you have the answer.
Q: [Inaudible]
K: No, do please — don’t answer me — look at it. You are then living at a different dimension. Therefore to find out anything fundamental, as this answer to this issue, is not to be afraid, not to ask, tell me please what is the answer, not to be frightened, whatever it is. Now can you do it? If you cannot, you must lead the dualistic life, a contradictory, painful, sorrowing life.
You see, we don’t like, unfortunately, to be put into a corner like this. We want to find an easy outlet, easy way of escape. So the question is, why do you live this way? You understand, sir? Knowing very clearly now what is involved in the dualistic life, knowing that one can completely get out of it — right? — by not being afraid and so on, so on — what will you do? Just go on playing as before?
Quelle heure est-il?
Q: Midi vingt-cinq.
K: Midi vingt-cinq?
Q: [Inaudible]
[Pause]
K: You know what meditation is? I am afraid you don’t. Or you have read about it, some book or other, and it is too bad. The actual meditation is this, what we are talking about. To empty the mind of the known as fear. Right?
Do you want to talk about something else?
Q: Yes, sir. You mentioned yesterday the case of Russia and Czechoslovakia. Don’t you think that mankind and in fact all life on this planet cannot fail to be destroyed, or at least civilisation practically abolished, if the nuclear arms race between the superpowers is not stopped and the process of disarmament started at the earliest possible date?
K: Don’t you think, the questioner says, if the superpowers don’t stop hating each other, competing with each other for world’s market and all the rest of it, we are going to be destroyed. That is the question. Now, how are you going to stop Russia or America from preparing for defence, as they call it? Would you tell me? Russia, with it’s three million men in arms, and America with so many millions, how are you going to prevent it? There is tremendous vested interest, isn’t there, in the army, in the officer, at the Pentagon, at the Kremlin, tremendous vested personal interest. No? Do you mean to say the admiral or the general is going to give it up because there must be peace in the world? Right? What do you say? So what will you do? Please pursue this question to the very end, if you are not tired.
How are we going to prevent this division that is going on in the world — in two great powers, superpowers, with their spheres of influence, with their vested interest? Think what they have invested in armaments, and so on and on. What are we going to do? This division will exist as long as the citizens of those countries or other countries feel patriotic, nationalistic. Right? No?
Q: [Inaudible]
K: If you hate the Russians and love the Americans, if you feel nationalistic — my country first and everybody else second — so it must begin, this, as you cannot depend on these great powers to end wars, it must begin with us. No? The minority, you know, the few who feel this very strongly, the minority has always moved forward and brought about a different position in the world. But we are not willing to be the minority. Which means — follow; it is very complex this thing, it isn’t just: there you are. It is very complex. Now, the speaker personally is not a Hindu — that is a terrible thing, ugly thing, to call oneself a Hindu. But he has a passport, Indian passport, otherwise you couldn’t travel. And if one uses the aeroplane, the railway, the stamp, you are supporting war. Right?
No? What do you say — aren’t you?
Q: We pay taxes and they go to the war.
K: You pay taxes then you support the war. So what are you to do? Are you not going to pay taxes? Not travel? Not buy stamps? I know people who have done this. They won’t travel, they won’t — you follow? — so they limit their activity to a very small field. I don’t know if you are following all this. So, it would be absurd not to pay taxes because you are going to prison if you don’t. It would be absurd if you don’t buy a stamp, because you cannot write letters — and so on. Whereas if we say look, don’t let us give importance or emphasis to secondary issues, like the stamp, the tax and so on, but let us get involved in the primary issue, which is not to be nationalistic, not to be — whatever it is, you know — patriotic, respond to colour prejudice, all the rest of the mess that one indulges. And that requires a great deal of intelligence, not say, ‘Well, I won’t be nationalistic’ — that means nothing. To consider this whole problem one has to be greatly intelligent, which means greatly sensitive to all the issues. Not say, ‘Well, I won’t be a nationalist’ — I mean, that’s nothing.
[Pause]
Any more questions? Sir?
Q: Sir, let’s say I am in conflict… [inaudible]
K: Wait, sir, let me… What is — the questioner says what is your position, what is my position if the country or the army calls me, drafts me or conscripts me to join the army and I don’t believe in killing — is that it? Is this a trap for me? [Laughter]
Wait, sir, wait, I was only joking. Wait, wait, wait, wait.
If you don’t… if you are really serious that you don’t want to kill — right? — don’t want to kill, not just verbally say, ‘I don’t want to kill,’ but really mean not to kill, you have to live peacefully, haven’t you? Right? Don’t kill animals, for your food, for your — you follow? — don’t kill. Don’t kill by word. Don’t say, ‘He is an awful man, he is a stupid man.’ You are killing, verbally, you are killing with words, with gesture, with thought, in the office, in the church, everywhere you are killing. So if you really don’t want to kill, you have to begin a life which is really peaceful. But you won’t, you see. You listen to all this, you will give lip-service or listen quietly but go back home, you’ll do the old things all over again. Therefore you are supporting war. Right?
Q: Very many Puerto Rican young men object to the draft.
K: Sir, there are a great many people objecting in America and I am sure they are objecting in Russia. I do not know if you read that article by Sakharov. He is the top, one of the top scientists in Russia. He is objecting to a great many things that the Soviet government is doing. Probably they will squash him. So, this is going on right through the world, sir. It isn’t just Russia or America. In India, the public opinion, that you must be a nationalist. And when I talk in India about not being a nationalist they say, ‘Go and talk to other countries, not here.’
Q: In order to see our fragmentation it is necessary to give attention to this fragmentation… [inaudible]
K: Right, sir.
Q: Will you please clarify what is the disciple of attention, which keeps me in meditation…
K: Wait, I’ll do it. Are you tired, mentally, any of you?
Audience: No.
K: You are too eager to say no, because what we are discussing is very serious and therefore a mind that is serious can’t just say, ‘I am not tired,’ it has to be tremendously active.
The question is: I am not aware, I am not conscious of my fragmentary life, and I can only be aware of it if I become very attentive to my life, the way I live. And what is attention — that’s the question, sir, isn’t it?
Does this interest you?
A: Yes.
K: All right, sirs. But please do it, not just… don’t just say yes and just drop it.
What does attention mean, to attend? Is it an intellectual process?
Q: No.
K: No, don’t say no, please, do… I am talking for a while and then you can chip in afterwards.
What do we mean by attention? Not the soldier’s attention but actually what do we mean attention, to attend? When do you attend? You attend only when you give your mind and your heart, your whole being to something. Right? [Sound of child] When I listen to the cry of that child, if there is any form of resistance to that child crying, to the noise, I am inattentive. No? You don’t see this. When one gives attention, the implication is that your nerves, your body, your heart and your mind completely give that to something of which you want to be aware. Right? And we never are. I do not know if you have ever done it, to give attention, let us say to that tree, which means what? To give attention means not to describe the tree, not to be caught in the verbal statement of that tree. I don’t know if you are following all this. If I use that word ‘cypress’ it is a distraction, isn’t it? Which prevents me from giving my complete attention to look at that tree. No? To attend means to attend intellectually, emotionally, nervously, with your eyes, with your ears, everything that you have, to attend, to look. And we have never done it because we live in fragments. Only when there is a tremendous crisis in our life, then we may perhaps give attention for a few seconds, and then go away from it, escape from it.
Now, if one is at all serious, one wants to find out if there is a reality — God or what you like to call it — I want to find out. I don’t look to any authority, to any priest, to any belief — all that is too childish and immature. And I have to give all my attention to find out. I cannot give attention completely if I am afraid of losing my job, in finding out. Right? I can’t give complete attention to find out the truth of this matter if I rely on some belief, on some conditioning or what people have said. I have to discard that. I cannot belong to any society, to any group, to any culture to find out. Which means I must be completely alone — not in relationship, I don’t mean that — inwardly alone. Then I will find out. But if one is not attentive in that deep, profound sense of that word, you cannot possibly, the mind cannot possibly come up on that reality.
Yes, sir?
Q: Have you got in that state of mind?
K: Are you, the questioner says, in that state of mind.
First of all, why do you ask that question? I am not avoiding, sir — I’ll reply to you. Why do you ask that question?
Q: Because I think it is a little bit difficult to get that kind of state.
K: I am asking that, the gentleman says, because it is rather difficult. I don’t think it is difficult. Wait, sir, I am answering you. First of all, if I say yes, it will have no value, will it? To you it will have no value because what is the good of my saying yes? You then accept it or reject it. You might say, ‘Well, poor chap, he is a little bit dotty,’ or you might say, ‘Well, he is serious, it might be true.’ So, my statement there is such a state has no value to another. What has value is whether you can find it. You, not somebody else. And when we say it is difficult, the very word, when you use ‘it is difficult’, you are preventing yourself.
Sir, if we accept life as it is, with the misery, with the sorrow, with conflict, with such agony, if you accept it then there is no answer; that is the way of life. If you don’t accept it, if you refuse to belong to the herd, to the group, to the — you follow? — then you begin to live differently. That is absolutely necessary to find out, to live quite differently.
Yes, sir?
Q: Sir, can you improve your attention by practising?
K: Oh! Can you develop attention by practise? Practise means repetition, doing something over and over and over again. Is that attention? That is mechanical, isn’t it? So there are two things involved in it, if you are serious, if you want to discuss it seriously: there is inattention and attention. Right? Right, sir? Now, most of us are inattentive. Right? No? And we say it is important not to be inattentive but to be attentive. Then you begin to practise it. Right? But if you say, look, I am going to be aware, attentive, of my inattention — you understand? You understand, sir?
Ah, it is going to rain. Please, I am sorry.
Q: I can’t hear anything.
K: Ah, you can’t hear anything. I am sorry. What am I to do, sir? Is the loudspeaker not working?
A: No.
K: Oh, I am so sorry. What shall we do about it, sir?
Q: It’s been broken for the last hour.
K: Oh, for God’s sake! Who is in charge of all this?
[Pause]
Sir, it isn’t fair for people to come all this way and this breaks down.
Q: He doesn’t understand English.
K: Tell him, sir, in…
[Long pause]
I am afraid the thing is broken.
A: No! [Laughter]
Q: Will somebody push the cable?
[Pause]
K: Can we hear now?
A: Yes.
K: Ah.
We were saying: most of us are inattentive. You know what that means, to be inattentive. We accept things as they are — our life, the way we live, the ugliest emotion — what is, actually. And to become attentive is to be aware of the inattention, not try to become attentive. Because that involves conflict, struggle, and therefore when you attempt, when you practise attention it becomes mechanical, and that ceases to be attentive. Whereas if one was attentive, aware of inattention — you follow? — then out of that flowers attention.
Is that enough for this morning? Yes?
A: No.
[Pause]
K: You see, I have been working, the speaker has been working — this talk now for an hour and a half. He has worked but you haven’t worked; you have just listened casually. You have listened to it as a form of entertainment, as going to a cinema, and you say, ‘Well, I agree,’ disagree, it is a nice play, it was not nice, and so on. But if you also, which was your responsibility, to work as hard as the speaker, you would say now, after an hour and a half, that is enough; please for God’s sake stop. [Laughter]
[Clapping]