K School Discussion 7, Brockwood Park, 10 June 1973

*Identification: This is a discussion between Mr J. Krishnamurti, students and staff, at Brockwood Park, on June the tenth, 1973.*

Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about?

Questioner: Could we continue, as we said, that habit comes when we don’t… I mean, we become bored because things become habitual to us.

K: I don’t quite remember what we talked about.

Q: Well, could we take from…

K: What would you like to discuss this morning, talk over together? Come on, sirs. (Pause) Silence. All right.

I was talking the other day with some friends and we were concerned about the mediocrity of the schools and the world in general. Except for a few exceptions… (is something going on there?) …except for a few exceptions we are rather mediocre. You know what that word means?

Q: Ordinary.

K: Ordinary, middle, neither hot nor cold, neither black nor white, just the average, middle — in Latin that word means middle. And why education should make us so ordinary — not extraordinary, but very, very ordinary, common kind of people that schools turn out, or rather the education turns out — or the society turns people out, with their influence, churches, guides, gurus and all the rest of it — why the world and ourselves have become so extraordinarily common. Would you like to discuss that?

Many: Yes.

K: Does that interest you?

Q: Yes.

K: Why?

Q: Should there be any reason for interest?

K: Shouldn’t there? Are you interested in talking about it and going into it, finding out why we — you and I, or X and another, and ourselves — why we are so ordinary, why isn’t there a flame burning passionately for something? Not for some mediocre thing, like becoming a prime minister or becoming a general or becoming a very rich man, or just wandering over the world without anything, denying everything and limiting oneself in one’s action because you have thought so much about action that you are paralysed to do anything.

So that’s a question that should be of tremendous importance, because we have to bring about a different kind of world, a different kind of civilisation, a culture. Not the blueprint according to some capitalist or communist theory, but actually bring about a different human being who is not ordinary, who is not… who hasn’t got… or rather, who has tremendous passion. Not for guitar playing or violin playing or becoming a great businessman or anything of that kind, but tremendous passion to live a life that’s entirely different from that which we now live. Has that any meaning to you, that question? Shall we discuss it, shall we talk over it together? Tungki?

Q: Yes.

K: Don’t agree just casually because you’re bored with something else. That interests you?

Many: Yes.

K: Right. Are you ordinary? You know what I mean by ordinary? Mediocre. Those words, you see — mediocrity, ordinary, common — have a derogatory meaning, a rather pejorative meaning. You know, that means a rather unpleasant meaning, rather an insulting meaning. ‘Oh,’ you call me, ‘you know, he’s a mediocre man’ — it’s rather condemning. I’m not using that word in that sense at all. I’m just using that word to find out if one is actually. Not somebody tells you you’re mediocre therefore you accept that mediocrity, but for yourself to find out why one is so ordinary, why one is, in the ordinary sense of that word, ambitious, greedy, envious, wanting position, prestige, and want to be known and, you know, all that tommyrot that goes on. All that is within the field of mediocrity. At least I consider it so. Now, is one, you and I, mediocre? We’re not using that word in any condemnatory sense — right? — in any derogatory sense, in any sense of condemnation, just seeing for oneself if one is a second-hand human being. (Pause) What do you say?

Q: It seems almost impossible to think of oneself as… and realise that one is second-hand without it having a slightly derogatory meaning.

K: No, I just want to see what my face looks like. I don’t say, ‘Well, it must be straight or it must be long or short or…’ — just look without any condemnation. Come on, sirs, discover.

Q: It is simple to look out, but to look in is…

K: No, don’t… Tungki, don’t tear it to pieces yet — we’ll do that a little later. First see if Tungki — I’m not talking… you understand? — quite impersonally — if Tungki or me or you is mediocre, common, ordinary — you know, little quarrels, little ambitions, a little desire to be powerful, dominate, be attached to somebody or fight for one’s position and so on and on and on. I feel all that belongs to the area of commonness, of ordinariness. Now if you say, ‘Well, I am a bit like that’ — honestly — right? — then what shall we do? You understand my question? I look at myself, not only in the mirror but also look at myself as I am, just to see what I am. I don’t want to change it, I don’t say, ‘Well, I must be different from what I am,’ but first I must look at myself as I actually am. Not theoretically, not ‘I wish I were like that’, but actually, factually what I am. And I see — if I am — that I’m very ordinary, no dignity, no respect for anything except for my own particular images that I have, to which I pay respect, ordinary desires, yielding to certain influences and resisting others, wanting to be famous and notorious or a little more… — you know? — trying to better myself. I feel that is the very essence of mediocrity. Right? Now are you like that? Be simple, you know, look, be dreadfully honest. And I find I am like that, one is like that. Then what shall I do? You understand my question? Come on, sirs, discuss with me.

Q: But I don’t see… I mean, yes, I am like that but I don’t see a clear picture of how it is.

K: You see more or less vaguely, don’t you?

Q: Yes.

K: That’s good enough.

(Pause)

Look, Tungki, don’t complicate it, old boy, keep it very simple. I’ve ordinary desires. Right? They are complex but they are ordinary, like everybody else — the middle. Aren’t you envious, wanting position, saying, ‘By Jove, I’m not clever but I must be clever’ — you know? — ‘I don’t know what to do but I must…’ etc., etc., etc. Now, if one sees that, what will you do? I see I’m mediocre, ordinary, second-hand, common, vulgar. All those are words without any sense of condemnation. They are just the words being used as they are described, certain facts in a dictionary. They are nothing else. I am that. I see that. What shall I do? Come on, sirs. Come on, Tungki, you…

Q: I couldn’t see it. When I’m in me then I couldn’t see it.

K: But my dear Tungki, don’t complicate it, old boy, just… Aren’t you — what?

Q: I think one has to be true to oneself first. You have to be true to yourself first.

K: I’m suggesting that. Look at yourself first.

Q: The problem is when I look at these things, like you’re saying, these ordinary things, I see that I don’t have to be them or that I am not them, but I can’t maintain that seeing.

K: Aren’t you all making it rather complicated, the beastly thing? Come on, Professor of English, what do you say?

Q: One disregards the factors of mediocrity, you know, if one sees.

K: Do you first see it?

Q: It seems like there’s a comparison in that, saying that you are mediocre.

K: I am not comparing, judging, condemning, evaluating. I see I’m just ordinary. Right? That’s not condemnation, that’s not comparison.

Q: But the very thing, to say ‘ordinary’, must be compared with what is generally…

K: No. I follow the herd, I follow the rest of the world, what they are doing. Only I slightly give it a different meaning, colour it a little bit more, complicate it a little more, put a different kind of coat round it, and I feel I’m slightly different from the rest of the world. That’s nonsense.

Q: It seems like if you have a desire and you call it ordinary, it’s moving away from it.

K: (Laughs) This has become quite… You know, sir, what it means, ordinary?

Q: We’ve all been educated to be ordinary.

K: That’s what I’m questioning. Are we being educated, not only here but in all the universities and schools and… you know, are we all being educated to be ordinary? I may have a specialisation, I may be the most marvellous artist, but I’m just ordinary inside. You follow? I’ve got a technique, I’ve got an artistic thing, but I am envious, I want to have money, I want to be recognised, my pictures must be hung in every museum, I must be known the world over as the great… — you know? — that is ordinary, though I have a special talent for painting, or for music or whatever it is.

Q: What then is extraordinary?

K: I don’t know. We’ll come to that. First, do we see what we are? Come on, my lady, don’t go to sleep. Don’t let me talk, you… This is supposed to be a dialogue.

I realise looking at myself both in the mirror there in front of me when I am shaving, combing my hair, I see outwardly what I am, physically. And also I see inwardly, looking at myself without any comparison, just seeing, I see that I am a very ordinary person. Ordinary. Now I say to myself, ‘What has made me ordinary?’ Why am I like everybody else? Only I’ve got longer hair or shorter hair, I’m a little more clever, a little less… — you follow? — but still I’m along in the same pattern, in the same field, but only I have a special corner, perhaps little more cultivated, but it is in the same field. And I say to myself: is it possible that education has done this? Education meaning culture. You know, culture — the culture of two centuries of Christianity or five thousand years of Hindu culture. Has that made me ordinary in this way? Is this ordinariness — if we can use that word, commonness — the product of the culture in which I live? And I may react against that culture and I think I am out of the ordinary, but the reaction is still the ordinary. I wonder if you get all this. So I say to myself it may be culture. That is, education makes me conform. And also my own desire, my own feeling of insecurity, insufficiency makes me dependent, makes me like everybody else. I have the ordinary desires, I want a wife, sex, pleasure, money, position — you follow? — I’m all that. And I say to myself, ‘I see this.’ The next is: is it possible to break through all this? You understand, Tungki?

Q: Yes.

K: Have I made myself clear now?

Q: So, the ordinary you mean is the attitude?

K: No, not only the attitude — the way I live, the way I think, the way I feel, my attitudes, my aptitudes, my temperament, my inclination, my urge are all just like everybody else. Not that I am saying, ‘Everybody is wrong, I must be different’ — I’m just like everybody else. And I say that is mediocrity, vulgarity, commonness. I’m not condemning it, I’m just seeing it. And then I say to myself: is it possible to go beyond it? Though the culture is making me mediocre, the schools, the colleges, the universities, the priests, the church, the governments, you know, everything around me is making me conform, adjust, making me common, like the rest of the gang. The gang may be five, forty, fifty million or more, but it’s still this — we all live on the same field. And I say to myself: is it possible to break through this? Are you asking this question? No, don’t say yes — you are not. (Laughs) I’m sorry, I must push you to this. Don’t sit there just… gone to sleep. You’re faced with this, aren’t you?

I was once talking in India about this problem of mediocrity and a lady came after me, she was an American, she said she was terribly insulted. She was so furious she nearly slapped me. And she said, ‘What do you mean by calling me mediocre? I am not. How dare you!’ I said, ‘I am so sorry. If you are not, you are not.’ (Laughter) That’s the end of it. You follow? But she was so upset thinking she might be mediocre (laughs) and she got angry in order to cover up that mediocrity. You follow? So don’t get angry with me.

Now, how do you get beyond it? Which is, is it possible for your mind and your heart, your whole being totally, both physically, psychologically, intellectually, to jump out of that field? You understand? Come on, sir, this is a dialogue. What will make you jump out of it?

Q: First I have to see that you’re ambitious and…

K: Sir, you’ve gone… I’ve talked about it ten minutes. I said look at yourself, watch yourself, see if you are. If you say, ‘I am not mediocre,’ be quite sure that you really understand what that word means. You can say, ‘Well, I am not mediocre because I’ve got a talent to be…’ — I don’t know what — ‘I’m a very good guitar player,’ ‘I’m a marvellous writer.’

Q: But you are not taking about that world and the physical ordinariness, but the other.

K: Yes, sir, even the physical — the whole. Don’t… I must discuss… One day we’ll talk about yoga. Not now, don’t get excited, but we’ll talk about it. Because if we divide the physical, the mental, the heart… Take it as a whole, not break it up. Look at the whole of you and look at yourself, whether that totality of you is mediocre, common, ordinary. You understand? Just the whole of you.

Q: Sir, it would seem like the initial reaction of looking at that, you would begin immediately to think about what isn’t mediocre, and move towards that — which is also mediocre.

K: No, first see that. Don’t have a reaction to that yet. I said that.

Q: That’s where it would require something that isn’t mediocre to see it.

K: No, just to see that, and then the reaction we’ll examine afterwards.

Q: It seems like these are all parts of me, not the whole of me.

K: Is the whole of you different?

Q: Well, I feel a separation. When I look at any one of these, if I say, ‘Well, am I this, am I that?’ then I feel apart. No, it’s not different right then.

K: Go on, sirs.

Q: It seems that in a certain sense even for me to ask a question creates a division, an automatic fraction.

K: No. The asking of a question, does it create division? I ask. I say to myself: yes, when I look at myself totally — if I can look at myself totally, which is quite an art — and is there any of me which is not mediocre, somewhere in me that is something extraordinary, or am I the result of all the ordinariness of the world in which I have… the poor thing has been born?

Q: The very ‘me’ is the essence of mediocrity.

Q: Yes.

K: Don’t… Yes, sir, all right. Now what will you do? We have described it, we have looked at it in different ways. Now the picture of you is there, right in front of you if you want to look at it. And you say, ‘I’ll look at it.’ Then what is your reaction when you look at yourself? What is your reaction when you find that you are really mediocre?

Q: I feel I’m not satisfied.

K: Why? You want to be different?

Q: Yes.

K: Now, just a minute, you want to be different from the actual, which is mediocre. The very desire to be different from the picture which you have is part of the mediocrity.

Q: But that just seems to add to it.

K: So what will you… Now — you follow? — watch it. One observes oneself and one sees that one is mediocre: following somebody, being told what to do, conforming, imitating, being attached and saying, ‘No, I must not be attached, it’s terrible. I am lonely, I must be loved.’ You follow? I see… one sees that. Then the reaction is to be different from that. Why is there this reaction to be different from that?

Q: You are not looking wholly.

K: No, no. No, just look at it. Don’t say ‘we’re not’ — look. The reaction exists — why?

Q: I feel trapped when I see that.

K: So, seeing that you say, ‘By Jove, I must be different. I don’t like that. I don’t like that image. I don’t like that field so I’m going to get out of it.’ Right? No?

Q: That’s the reaction.

K: That’s the reaction. We’re talking of the reaction. Now, the reaction to be different is part of this commonness, isn’t it?

Q: Yes.

K: Are you sure?

Q: Yes.

K: So you see your reactions and the actuality are part of this, in the same area. Now stick, stay there for a while. I am attached and I say to myself, ‘I must not be attached, it’s terrible.’ The reaction to attachment is this feeling to be different because attachment breeds pain, etc., etc., and I don’t want it and I want to be different. The desire to be different is still part of the same field. You’re still in the same field only a different corner of it.

Q: It’s a different attachment.

K: Right. Now, then what will you do?

Q: Find some way to detach myself from it also.

K: Go, look, take it slowly, sir. What will you do? You see the picture of yourself, which you say is quite ordinary, is quite common, it’s just like everybody else — and the reaction to it is wanting to be different, which is still the same. You see that. Then what will you do? What is the next step?

Q: Trying to do something.

K: Trying to do. Your reaction is trying to do something, which is still the same thing. Q: Wouldn’t you ask the question: what reacts?

K: Wait, sir, just don’t… Go step by step, you will find out for yourself. I see the picture of myself and I react against it.

Q: I keep reacting against every new one that comes up.

K: So, which means what?

Q: It is these reactions that are controlling me.

K: Which means what, sir? When I am reacting each time to another reaction, what does that mean? What does that signify?

Q: You don’t accept it.

K: Doesn’t it signify that I didn’t see the truth of the first reaction?

Q: Sometimes I try to avoid reacting actively by doing nothing, but I see that doing nothing is just as much of a reaction.

K: I know. Of course. That is, the picture, the reaction, and saying to myself, ‘I’ll do nothing.’ Which means what? What has taken place? You have cunningly thought about it. Thought has prevented you from any action. Right? But thought is mediocre. No?

Q: But, sir, if I can’t see what I can do, I can’t do anything about it. If I have a…

K: Sir, look, sir, I see myself and I realise I’m a very ordinary person, with a lot of pretensions, poses and determinations, like everybody else, and images I have about myself, like everybody. And when I observe that, my reaction is, ‘Oh, for God’s sake, this is terrible, I must be different.’

Q: I may just say, ‘Well, this is rather…’ — I don’t think I would say that, sir. Perhaps that’s a mediocre reaction, but I think I’d just say, ‘Well, this is rather horrifying, but that’s what I am.’

K: That’s good enough. (Laughter) When you say, ‘This is horrifying,’ that’s a reaction. (Laughs)

Q: Well, perhaps I don’t say that, but I have that, I have this mediocrity and I see it.

K: Now, if you see it — and you can only see it clearly when there is no reaction.

Q: But what else could there be?

K: *Un instant*, madame. I mean, we’ll see it presently. Not ‘what could be’ — we’ll see what happens.

Q: Well, the problem is I am thinking about it.

K: That’s it — you are thinking about it. Look, sir, I think that whatever I do is going to maintain the corruption of the society in which I live. I’ve thought about it a great deal. I’ve thought what shall I do, what shall I not do, if I join that, if I do this, if I do that, I’m supporting the war — you follow? — my thought has created a position in which I can’t act. I say to myself: whatever I do I am supporting this rottenness. Right? So thought has prevented me, prevented itself from any action. So I’m paralysed. And that’s part of my mediocrity. Before, I went around chasing, now thought says, ‘For God’s sake, don’t. If you do this, if you do that, if you do the other thing, you will support the war, you’ll support the present business world, the economic world, etc., etc.,’ and thought has built a fortress of inaction. Right? In the same way, thought is the very essence of mediocrity. Leave that for the moment.

That is the picture I have. I see myself exactly as I am, without any reaction, if it is possible. And it is possible when you say, ‘Now, I will look at it. I will see exactly what it is’ — not react. I won’t say it’s wrong, horrible, it’s terrifying, I must change. I must look at it in order to learn about it. You understand? If I have a reaction I can’t learn. So learning is non-mediocrity. You’ll shake your head, you people. If I have a reaction I can’t learn. So, if the intention is to learn, I won’t have any reaction. The intention to learn about mediocrity — learn all about it, keep on learning — then there won’t be any reaction.

Q: If you make that statement you close the learning because you don’t know beforehand whether there will be or there won’t be a reaction.

K: I’m going to find out. I said that. As I am moving I am learning. As I am moving I am learning. But if I have a reaction I have blocked myself. You get it? Right? So I watch. I see the picture as I am, which is ordinary. I am learning. I don’t have a reaction but I want to learn. What has produced this extraordinary thing? Is it society? Is it education? Is it the inevitability of human nature? And is the origin of that mediocrity thought? Come on, sir, you don’t…

Q: As I listen to you I find myself suddenly being tremendously concentrated in listening and as I look at that I find that it’s thought that’s causing me to do that.

K: When you are listening you are very concentrated, and that prevents you from observing?

Q: Yes. I mean, I can feel the reactions to it in my body.

K: Sir, when I ask you look out of the window, does that paralyse you from looking out of the window?

Q: No.

K: No. In the same way, I say just look at yourself. Perhaps you’ve never done it, but try it. It doesn’t mean, ‘Oh, I’m going to concentrate’ — just watch it. Relax and look at it.

Q: Part of my mediocrity is that my reaction to when you speak is that I become concentrated.

K: That’s part of our training.

Q: You’re saying that actions can occur and I can be watching them happen without being involved in them.

K: Sir, look, sir, I said, we said, one said that to learn about mediocrity any reaction blocks you, the mind, from learning. Learning is the most important thing, and when you realise, when the mind realises that the most important thing in life is to learn, then the reaction won’t take place, because the greater pushes aside the lesser.

Q: So you’re asking me to continually ask.

K: No, sir. I’m not asking you anything, I am pointing out: first observe, realise, see if you are mediocre. If you say, ‘Yes, I am quite ordinary,’ then a second later or a minute later you have the reaction to it. That reaction prevents you from learning about that mediocrity, because it is a distraction, it blocks you from observing. I have said this; I won’t go into it. So, now my mind, the mind, is not reacting but wanting to learn about mediocrity. Right? Right? Don’t be… I mean, don’t… Wanting to learn.

We went into the question the other day about learning. Right? You’re all… Learning, we said, is different from the acquisition of knowledge. The acquisition of knowledge is necessary but learning is a constant movement in which the past doesn’t interfere. The past being knowledge. That is, I observe myself and I say, ‘Yes, I’m quite ordinary,’ and the realisation of being ordinary is either the previous knowledge which labels me as ordinary or I’m going to learn about it. To learn about it my mind must be free to look. It cannot look if there is a blockage, as a reaction, as wanting to change what I see. Right? So all that goes because I want to learn — that’s become the most important thing. Now I say, ‘Now, why am I mediocre? I want to learn.’ And I learn only when the mind can observe freely the picture which is me, the ordinary entity. And I look and I’m learning. I see in learning that thought is responsible for this mediocrity. No?

Q: No, I don’t see that.

K: You don’t see that. Good, I’m glad. Tungki’s ready, you know — why don’t you say…

Q: Thought is the mediocrity.

K: Why do you say that? She says thought is mediocrity. She’s agreeing with the speaker. Why do you say it?

Q: Because it’s the entity that’s preventing you from seeing, from learning.

K: She says that thought is ordinary. I say, why? Don’t answer for her, let her answer it.

Q: Because the thought isn’t separate from the thing that it’s thinking about.

K: That isn’t good enough. Come on, you said thought is ordinary, thought is common, thought is what makes… I said that and you said yes, you agreed. Why?

Q: Because thought is made up of prejudices, ideas and jealousies and all this.

K: Yes, so what? You see? Go on, Gregory.

Q: Well, that’s blocking you from seeing because if you…

K: So you are saying, are you, that thought is responsible for this mediocrity because thought is made up of attachment, detachment, wanting, not wanting.

Q: While I’m thinking I see I can’t observe. I am sitting here and I am thinking, and I’m seeing that while I’m thinking I’m not observing.

Q: It’s not separate from the jealousy or the…

K: So… No, you’re just putting down.

Q: I think it is the action of thought which is mediocrity, but the thought itself is just a process, you know?

K: Yes, Tungki, I understand that.

Q: So it cannot be mediocre. It is an equipment.

K: ‘Is an equipment’ — who is employing the equipment?

Q: Well, that is the one which is mediocre. I mean the concept like, sort of, ‘I must be better’, that is an action of thought which we… we take for granted it is so, but either you are told by people you should be competitive, so that is the one which makes mediocrity

K: Yes.

Q: But thought itself is not.

K: So you are saying the thinker is different from thought?

Q: No, I’m saying that the element, the axiom…

Q: I think he’s saying about wrong thinking, probably.

K: The content?

Q: The axiom which we take for granted.

K: What do you mean ‘axiom’?

Q: The thinker is the content of the thought, of thinking. It’s part of the whole field.

K: So the thinker is… No, the thinker — are you saying? — is the content.

Q: The thinker…

K: …is thought.

Q: Yes.

K: Yes, that’s all, old boy — stick to that.

Q: But I think he says that thought is being misused and thought itself is not…

K: Thought is being misused — right?

Q: Yes.

K: Who is misusing it?

Q: Thought.

K: Thought. So thought is misusing thought?

Q: Well, I mean, there is this mechanism which goes through the process of thought, but there is also one which wants to go in a certain direction. Let’s say I want to go to Winchester — thought uses the knowledge to go there.

K: No, but before you go to Winchester, thought has said, ‘I’d better go to Winchester.’

Q: That is, if instead of going to Winchester that thing which says, ‘I would be better,’ that is the mediocre, but not the process.

K: Ah, I see. I got it, I got it — you’re saying the process of going to Winchester is not mediocre — that’s a process — whereas the desire, the thought to go to Winchester may be mediocre because it wants to have fun in Winchester. Right? Is that what you’re saying?

Q: Yes, but…

K: Stick to that, that’s good enough, old boy, don’t complicate it. So you are saying that going to Winchester, which is a process of going, is normal, but — I think you’re right in this — but the desire to go to Winchester may have its origin in commonness.

Q: Yes, that’s it.

K: Yes, old boy, that’s it. But that very desire is still thought, because I want to have fun, I want to… this or that.

Q: I would categorise it as something which is different than the thought process. It cannot… I don’t think it is the same.

K: Look, look, Tungki, the other day, if I remember rightly, we said thought is from the outside.

Q: Yes. In that if I…

K: Wait, wait, wait. Not ‘if I’ — don’t agree so quickly. Dr Bohm pointed out at lunchtime — do you remember? — he said for the Eskimo thought means ‘outside’. In Eskimo language thought means outside. Rather interesting. You understand? Got it, Tungki? Whether thought, going to Winchester, or thought of having fun, is still the same.

Q: If you’re going to Winchester, it’s like a necessity — you just go to Winchester, all right — but the moment you start thinking that I’m going to have fun…

K: Going to Winchester because I need a pair of shoes is all right because I need it. But going to Winchester in order to have this because I want to have shoes that look very smart and… — you know?

So where are we?

Q: At the moment you think that you are going to have fun, when you get to Winchester then you don’t have fun, you’re just repeating something you felt back at Brockwood.

K: That’s right, that’s just it. So you see now — come back — I want… I see… No. Learning is one thing and acquiring knowledge is another. Learning about mediocrity, in learning about mediocrity I naturally accumulate knowledge about mediocrity. You understand? Oh Lord, come on, sirs. Are you tired this morning?

Q: What do you mean by accumulate knowledge about it?

K: In learning I accumulate knowledge. Look, I’ll show it to you. In learning about mediocrity I acquire knowledge. That is, I say, ‘Is it schools that have made the mind mediocre?’ In looking at it, in learning about it, I see, yes, the schools, with their teachers, with their profession, with their… — have made my mind mediocre, like the rest of the gang. Now that’s knowledge, isn’t it? That means I’ve come to a conclusion. Right? Right? That’s knowledge, isn’t it?

Q: At that point.

K: At that point. So from that point I move.

Q: But then learning must stop…

K: Wait, wait — do it, don’t theorise about it. For God’s sake, you all theorise, full of it. In observing mediocrity, learning about it, I see very clearly education as it is does make my mind — by conforming and so on, so on, so on — ordinary. I have in observing, learning, there is this — seeing, yes, schools have done this. Right? So that has become the knowledge.

Q: The fact.

K: The fact. Right? From that fact I move. I don’t say, ‘Yes, that’s so.’ Leave that, quite so, be free of it to move further. You understand what I mean? I am working, you’re not.

Q: These thoughts…

K: Sir, have you understood? Don’t go off to something else.

Q: I want to go back a bit to the thoughts being outside.

K: You were not here the other day when we were discussing thought being outside — leave that for the moment, sir.

Q: No, but I see a pertinence. When you say that, I see the thought outside me, I see I have a choice.

K: You see, you’re going…

Q: I don’t feel common when I have that choice.

K: Why do you have a choice?

Q: When I see the thought outside me.

K: No. You understand, sir? We said that in the language the Eskimos use, thought means ‘outside’. And when you observe, all your thoughts are from the outside.

Q: Yes.

K: That’s all. That’s all. And we are saying that when you observe and learn, you accumulate knowledge but you move from that… from the past to the future. Oh my. You understand this or not?

Look, sir, I examine why I am angry. I see the cause of it, and having found the cause I say, ‘I must not be angry.’ That is the conclusion, knowledge, I have learnt from observing anger. So that has become my knowledge. Now, from that knowledge which says, ‘I must not be angry,’ I move. That is, I have come to a conclusion and forever in the future, whenever anger arises, ‘I must not be angry.’ Whereas if I am free of that conclusion I can find out why, anew, afresh. You’ve got it? So when I use… when the mind uses knowledge as the basis for future action, that is mediocrity. Therefore it hasn’t stopped learning. Oh my! Come on, sirs, you’re all…

Look, you have stolen my money and I have a picture of you as stealing from me — that’s my knowledge of you. And whenever I meet you I say, ‘You have stolen’ — you follow? — that picture always comes. And so that picture prevents me from learning. She might have changed or she might want to rob me more. So I don’t learn. That previous experience or knowledge prevents me from learning further. So I say to myself, ‘All right, I have had that experience, which is knowledge, all right, be free of it to learn more.’ When I meet that person, I’m learning, I don’t meet that person with the image which I have of the previous incident. Come on, sirs.

Q: Are you saying, forget the images?

K: Yes, sir.

Q: Are you saying forget about what the person did?

K: No, you can’t forget it — it is there. Don’t move from there. Be free of it to move.

Q: Because when you try to forgive that’s just…

K: The same thing.

Q: You might ask for your money back.

K: You’ve understood this clearly? So when I function from knowledge, which is the past, mediocrity comes in. So I say, ‘Yes, she has robbed me, stolen things from me, that is a fact.’ And then when I meet her next time, that person next time, that image doesn’t project itself and say, ‘Well…’ — you follow? Whereas, can the mind be free of that incident to learn further?

So, I’ve found out several things. I’m learning, and I’ve found in that learning several things. First, the reaction to the picture prevents further observation. Right? That is the truth, that’s a fact, a psychological fact, that any reaction prevents further learning. And so as the mind wants to… is intent on learning, reactions don’t take place. That’s the first thing I’ve learnt, the mind has learnt — and move, it keeps on learning. It doesn’t stop there and says, ‘I’ve learnt that,’ and stop there. Then it says: what has produced this mediocrity? What are the causes? Is it the society, is it the culture, the family, the school? Probably it’s all those, not one thing — the totality of all that has made the mind mediocre. I see how the schools have done it, the universities, colleges, the various professors, and so on, so on, so on. There are conclusions, but the mind is not attached to the conclusions — you understand? — because it’s learning. And also I have found out — it’s being learnt — that thought is in essence is the source of mediocrity. Then I say to myself: what shall I do if I don’t think? How absurd! I must think to get up to go upstairs or eat and talk. I must have the usage of thought. There must be the usage of thought. But yet thought is the very essence of mediocrity. So what shall I do? Go on. Do you see that? Do you?

Q: I think that’s what Tungki meant when he said…

K: I’m asking you a question, not what Tungki said. Do you see… Sorry to be rough, I’m not, but I want to get on with it. You’re all asleep. Do you see that thought is the essence of mediocrity and yet thought has to be used? You follow? I’m using it when I’m talking to you, the language. And yet I realise thought, by its very nature, is mediocre because thought is the response of knowledge. Right?

Q: By saying that, it seems that, well, in a sense, in a physical sense — sorry to split that up, but you are mediocre. We all have to live on this earth. Right?

K: So what will you do? So you have to… You see thought is mediocre. Thought is what creates mediocrity. Do you see that? Are you learning that?

Q: I’m afraid not to think.

K: So how shall we learn about it? Go on, sir, tell me how to learn about it.

Q: Not react to it.

K No, no, no. I said, for me it is so. It’s a fact, not a conclusion, an idea, a reasoned-out, rationalised statement. The fact is that thought in its very essence brings about mediocrity. I see that and yet I see thought must exist to function — you follow, sir? — to wash a car, to cook, to go to Winchester, everything, thought must be exercised.

Q: We said when you go to Winchester and you say, ‘I’m going to have fun,’ or ‘I’m going to Winchester because I need shoes,’ and that’s it, so…

K: …it’s finished.

Q: So what’s the state of the mind when you’re not saying, ‘I’m going to have fun’?

K: Find out. Find out for yourself what is the state of mind that realises very clearly that thought in its very structure is mediocre. Thought being the response of memory, knowledge, experience, accumulated knowledge, and when you act from that accumulated knowledge it’s mediocre, and yet you must function there. Right? What will…

Q: There is a difference between an action using thought or an action burdened by thought. I mean, in a sense I use these…

K: You’re still thinking, aren’t you, Tungki? You’re still saying the same thing in different words. I am saying something different, which is, thought, all thinking, whether going to Winchester, the process, the content, all thinking is mediocre because it is based on a reaction to the past, the past being knowledge. And yet that knowledge must be used. When I drive a car, speak and so on, that knowledge has to be used. So, can the mind be free of knowledge and yet use knowledge? Oh, come on! (Laughs)

I write a poem. In writing the poem I have to use knowledge. Does that make the mind mediocre?

Q: It depends on how the poem is written. It depends on in what way or process the poem comes about.

K: I’m asking you, sir. You write a poem, you tell me.

Q: In my own case, I’ve written poetry and there have been two entirely different ways in which it’s happened.

K: No, no, you’ve misunderstood. Sorry, sir. You are there using words, rhythm, free verse, whatever you do; you write. That is, writing from knowledge. Otherwise you couldn’t put it down, whatever that language be. But we are asking and saying that thought is mediocre — how will you then live a life which is not mediocre? A life which is — I don’t want to use it because… — free from the known and yet be with the known. You understood my question?

Look, I’ve thought a great deal about action, thought what to do. I say I cannot join this society, I cannot become a Catholic, a Protestant, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a communist. I cannot join the business world. Thought has investigated and says, ‘I will not, I will not, I will not.’ So what has it done? Stopped action, hasn’t it? Through thought, the mind has become paralysed. No?

Q: It depends on how you look at it.

K: Wait. I have looked at it. I said, sir — take it, take it. So what has thought done? By reasoning, by investigating, thought has produced a paralysis. Through analysis there is paralysis. Right? Right? And I’m stuck. I have learnt, I have examined, I’ve thought a great deal about this, that, that, the other, which is the process of thought which has analysed, and paralysis has taken place.

Q: What’s paralysis?

K: Paralysis — you know, when you have a stroke and I am paralysed, I can’t move, my limbs become hard and there is no movement at all. So, mentally I’m paralysed, because thought has done all this — I don’t say, ‘All right, I’ll find out, I’ll learn.’

Q: It is it the thought about the thoughts that paralyse, not the initial thought itself.

K: Thought itself, which has examined what to do, what not to do, has produced the paralysis.

Q: But the first thought wasn’t paralysis.

K: Not the first or the second, sir, the whole movement of thought brought about paralysis.

Q: But if I’d just thought ‘go to Winchester’ and done it…

K: No, no, we’ve moved away from that. Look, I’m 20 and I say, ‘What am I to do?’ If I join business, I see how corrupt it is. It sustains a rotten society. I have analysed it, I have looked into it, thought. Right, I won’t become a businessman. I see what politicians and politics are in the world — it’s corrupt and I won’t become a politician. Right? So I won’t, I won’t, I won’t. So gradually thought, by analysing what I should do, has paralysed me. Right? So I said don’t let thought do that but learn. That is, learn to find out what is the right action in living. You understand, sir? And the right action in living is not the product of thinking. Right? So what is… — I won’t go into that now.

So, learning is one thing, and learning from a conclusion — you understand? — is no learning all.

Q: You can’t learn from a conclusion. Conclusion means you’ve decided and you’ve stopped, and there’s no learning from that.

K: Yes, that’s right, that’s right — I have decided that the business world is corrupt. There, finished.

Q: You’ve closed your mind.

K: Closed my mind – because I’ve rationalised it, I’ve examined it, I see what the business world is.

Q: So you cut yourself off from the business world and tomorrow it might change, it might be…

K: No, I won’t. Tomorrow those business people won’t change, old boy. What are you talking about? Have you heard all about the corruption that’s going on? (Laughs) No, you see, sir? First of all, see the subtleness of it. You follow? Don’t say yet, ‘I must do this,’ see the complication, the subtlety, the sensitivity of it. Do you understand? Look, I’m 20, I don’t know what to do. Drugs I’ve tried, this, that, that, other things — what am I to do? I want to live a clean life, a peaceful life, an intelligent life, a life full of sensitivity, affection, care — you follow? — so what shall I do? I must earn a livelihood. Right? What shall I do? I see politics, business — doesn’t matter, whatever it is — have all the seeds of corruption in them, and I don’t want to be caught in any of those. What shall I do? Just go off by myself to some lonely island or some lonely place and drown myself with my problems?

Q: I wonder, how do I see?

K: Oh, my darlings! (Laughs) Tungki, that is not the problem, don’t go off. I am 20. You are, old boy, 21, are you? Yes, the other day we had a birthday boy. What are you going to do when you’re confronted with all this? You have thought about it, you have examined it, you have analysed it, you have said, ‘Corrupt, corrupt, corrupt, corrupt,’ and that has paralysed you, hasn’t it?

Q: So stop thinking about it.

K: So what… So how will you do… Then what will you do?

Q: Well, see when you stop thinking about…

K: Then what will you do? Go on.

Q: Whatever needs to be done.

K: Whatever he wants to do?

Q: Whatever needs to be done.

K: Whatever needs to be done? Who is going to tell you what needs to be done?

Q: You will just see.

K: So you see what needs to be done. What? Where?

Q: If for instance you’re hungry, you must eat.

K: Then how do I get that food to eat? Beg? In Europe and in England begging is not allowed. Go to India, you can live very well begging, happily, still. So what will you do?

Q: I’ll go out and inquire and look and see what’s possible.

K: Look, I become a gardener to a rich man. He’s exploiting me. I’m supporting the society. See how my reason… So gradually I’ve paralysed myself. That’s the point I’m pointing. You follow?

Q: So you become a paralysed gardener.

K: That’s it, paralysed, and I can’t do anything.

Q: I would say I join the thing. I mean, I see corruption or whatever, a businessman or a gardener…

K: So you see what I’m trying to tell you, Tungki?

Q: But in joining it, in doing it I see to sensitivity, to…

K: Not ‘in joining it’.

Q: Well, in doing something.

K: In doing you learn, not conclude and then paralyse. In doing you learn. You don’t say, ‘Well,’ sit back and say, ‘I won’t be a businessman, it’s corrupt. I won’t join the army because it kills. I won’t do this.’ You follow? You have blocked yourself completely so that you don’t act. So you have paralysed yourself by concluding, whereas learning is not concluding. You say, ‘Yes, all right, I’m going to find out. What shall I do? Become a gardener? Am I capable of it? I’m going to learn.’ And then in that learning, I say, ‘I won’t…’ I discover I’m greedy. I am greedy — not society has made me — I am greedy. I may be part of my society but I am greedy. So I say, ‘Look, the corruption begins here, not over there only, but here.’ So as long as I am greedy, ambitious, envious, etc., so on and on, I am contributing to corruption. Not – you follow? — ‘I won’t do this, I won’t do that’ — the source of corruption is here, because I’m part of the society and I’m the world and world is me.

Q: It makes you mediocre

K: You’ve got it.

What time is it?

Q: It’s only twelve-thirty.

K: Oh, only twelve-thirty. You mean you want me to go on? (Laughs)

Q: I can see that rationalising is paralysing, is blocking, but I’m not free from images myself.

K: Therefore, sir, learn how to… learn what the images are, how they come into… — learn. Don’t say, ‘I mustn’t have images,’ which is another image.

Q: But you cannot decide to not have images, you see.

K: No, no, that’s a conclusion, I said. Look, sir, I have images. You have stolen my money and I have an image about you, and from that image I act. The image is a conclusion. Right? And when I meet you next time you may be different — I’m learning. Or you may not be different. But I don’t approach you with the image that I have about you.

Q: I can see that one of the things that is slows me down right here now is something in me that’s afraid to respond or afraid to allow the reaction in the dialogue to happen, afraid to let the dialogue happen between us.

K: Yes, sir.

So I have this problem: the problem of knowledge being the image and action. The action born from an image is one thing; the action born from learning is quite a different thing. You see that?

Q: Yes.

K: Do you see it? Not intellectually see it, nor verbally, but actually see the difference between the two.

Q: No.

K: (Laughs) No?

Q: It’s very difficult because this way of learning is so loaded. Our minds demand that if we learn we have something to show for it.

K: In learning — you point out, Mr Porter points out — it’s a lonely life, because everybody is not learning, everybody is functioning from conclusions, ideals, which is the common thing to do. And if I come along and say, ‘I’m learning,’ I’m like a — you know? — nobody will listen, I’m a lonely person. Therefore, can I stand that loneliness and not go neurotic, not do strange kind of things out of my loneliness? So I learn. You follow? It is a tremendous vitality that demands.

Q: I was going to say, actually, what when you discover you cannot stand this loneliness?

K: Then you become ordinary, or neurotic.

Q: There is no other choice.

K: (Laughs) The ordinary man is neurotic. So in a mad world you are a sane man. They say, ‘My God, what…’ and you have no relationship and you feel lonely. And can you stand that loneliness without kind of going to pot, without — you know? — deal with that loneliness and not degenerate, become neurotic and cultivate neuroticism as a beautiful flower.

So you’re going to face this when you leave here. Now or in later times you’re going to face this problem. There is this insane world outside you — and it is insane — and here we are trying to point out what is sanity. And you’re learning about sanity. That’s part of your education — what it is to be sane and to see the insane. And when you leave and you have been to college, university, whatever, if you don’t or do, you are going to face this problem, the problem of earning a livelihood.

Q: What’s the difference between sane and sanity?

K: The same — sorry — both words mean, as we said the other day, whole, sane, healthy, and also it means holy — h-o-l-y — all that is implied in that word ‘sane’ — healthy, whole, unfragmented. And I see this, and you are faced with this problem. What will you do? Become a businessman because you have to earn a livelihood? Join the army because my grandfather was a military bird? Or society says you must join the army because your country needs you — and so on. What will you do? If you are a girl you have not so much that problem because you’ll get married and stuck, babies, and then you’ll say, ‘Oh, I am responsible’ — house, property. You follow? And you’ll send your children to schools where they will train them to be mediocre, join the army, and you will weep when they get killed, and that’s all. Right?

Q: Not if you keep learning.

K: I say you’re going to face this problem. So learn from now on, not when you’re thrown out there — then you’ve no time to learn, you’re already caught. So don’t get depressed about it; it’s a beastly world.

So have you learnt a lot this morning? Are you learning a lot? Learning — not having learnt, apply. Nelson, are you learning?

Q: Yes.

K: Good. Keep it, work at it.

I think that’s enough, isn’t it ?

***–*** ***END –***