K School – Adults Discussion 2, Ojai, California, 27 February 1983
Krishnamurti: Won’t you come in…? Oh. Are you all right, sir, in that corner?
Questioner: Sure, I’m fine here.
K: How many inches, sir?
Q: This morning, early, it was three and a quarter but probably now almost four. One night. So for two nights, it’s almost six inches.
K: Goodness. It’s almost tropical, it was, last night. Well sir, what do we discuss? Discuss, not I talk alone.
Q: I believe we have one more question that wasn’t raised yesterday.
David Moody: Krishnaji, I was thinking about the question of thinking together. It seems to me that this particular group of people associated with the school and your teachings has maybe more trouble than most in thinking together. We have not only the ordinary difficulties that ordinary people have in thinking together but also, what this group of people has in common is exposure to the teachings, which… Of course, part of the intent of those teachings is to help us to think together and yet it seems to me that, for many of us, the impact of those teachings — because we only partially understand them — it seems that for many of us the impact of those teachings is to bring about a tremendous sense of uncertainty; a deep uncertainty that appears in connection with all kinds of issues.
K: I understand.
DM: That very uncertainty, for one thing it makes thinking together difficult.
K: Yes.
DM: And also, that uncertainty has an effect in the school. Then there arises… then people become aware of that uncertainty, and in the face of that uncertainty a reaction comes, a reaction of certainty and the need for certainty — perhaps even more than is found among ordinary people. So it seems that in thinking together we have all the problems of ordinary people, plus a big dose of uncertainty, plus a reaction against the uncertainty. And generally (laughs) it’s not always easy to think together; we’re not highly skilled in that, I feel.
K: So what’s the question?
DM: What is the way out of this swamp? How can we become skilled — all of us — in thinking together, not only in small, practical areas, but deeply?
K: You mean one-minded?
DM: Yes.
K: All right, sir, let’s go at it, shall we? Right? Shall we go at it? Yes sir?
Q: Sure.
K: What is… What does it mean to think together? Together — are we ever about anything together? Or always there is your opinion against my opinion and so on. Is there being together? Not sharing the work together. Right sir? Am I asking the right question? So what does it mean to be together? And then we can go to *think* later. Q: Doesn’t it have to do, basically, with my intent, if I know what my honest intent is? My intent to be of one mind with…
K: No, without intent.
Q: Without intent?
K: What does it mean to be together? We build a house together, we wash dishes together, and so on at a physical level, sharing a common responsibility in doing something. Is that being together? Or *together* implies a much deeper issue, not a problem. *Together*, what does it mean? Not cooperating together — that’s fairly simple: to do something, we all cooperate around it. But the quality and the feeling of being together. Not about something — you understand? — not for something or against something.
Erna Lilliefelt: Are you saying that the object does not bring about the togetherness?
K: No.
EL: The building of the house; the house is not the purpose of the togetherness.
K: No, no. No, that’s all very, very superficial.
EL: So the school per se does not bring about the togetherness.
K: No, no, no. I don’t… at least, I wouldn’t think so. It is so. If the object brings us together then the object is far more important than being together — the feeling of it. The object attracts you and me and we work for that object.
EL: So you’re asking: is it possible to be together without an object?
K: Yes. What does it mean to be together, first?
Mary Zimbalist: Krishnaji, doesn’t it imply a particular sensitivity to the others in the group — or the one other, two other persons — whatever it is?
K: That is, again…
MZ: So that whatever you address, that sensitivity to the others’ concern or others’ point of view is brought to bear on that subject.
K: To be together, what does that mean? I’m not asking doesn’t it bring us something, bring us together, sensitivity and all that, but I’m not going in… at least, I’m not talking about that. What does it mean to be together? That’s what I want to find out. Husband and wife, girl and a boy, are they together? *Together*, what does that mean, sir? You… Cooperate together. I am talking of the feeling of together, not the attraction to the object — not the work, the school, this or the other — the feeling of doing — not ‘doing’ — the feeling of being together.
Q: It seems to have to do with not having resistance or fear.
K: You see, that means I must do that in order to achieve that: I must be free from fear and so on, in order to be together.
Q: Well, then there’s already something in the way.
K: But then we… yes. I’m asking something, if I may: what does it mean to be together? Or we are always running parallel to each other and we meet together at certain points; like the railway train, they have points but they are running always parallel. Leave that for the moment. Apparently, that seems rather difficult.
DM: I don’t think so, sir. I think you’ve made it clear already.
K: Yes.
DM: You’ve said being together per se without an object, but togetherness… together because it’s together not because of an object. It implies, perhaps, oneness.
K: Yes, oneness… Don’t, that brings another…
DM: I know (laughs).
K: It is not: I am together with you, but rather I have the feeling of being together — you know, the feeling of it. Is this difficult?
DM: I don’t think so. I think what you’re describing takes place among us all, from time to time. You’re describing the condition of good friendship; among good friends this takes place naturally.
K: Again that… Don’t bring in other…
MZ: Not in order to do something; you’re not being a friend in order to do something, you’re friends.
K: Of course not, then it’s not… The house is burning and we’re all working together to put it out. Right? The object brings us together. I’m asking: is there a feeling, without the object, without a goal, without the school, without… — you follow? — the feeling of it.
DM: That would be a feeling that arises directly from the human contact itself rather than from the occasion.
K: No, not even human contact. You see, you’re… Again, same thing in different words.
DM: I don’t see that, sorry.
K: Ah, I thought…
Mark Lee: What else is there, then, if there isn’t…? If you don’t have the basic human contact, what other kind of a relationship would you have? How could togetherness be there without that, at least?
K: You see, the very word *together* implies two different people. Right? I don’t know if I’m making myself… The word itself is divisive. No?
EL: Yes.
K: When you say, ‘Together,’ there is already a separateness which brings us together.
EL: Well, is that feeling of the need to be together…?
K: Ah! You see, none of that. If you — now, wait a minute — if you didn’t use the word *together* or *oneness* and all that kind of stuff, what would you express it, how would you express it?
(Pause)
Q: Krishnaji, in some way, if I could use an example, maybe even like driving a car, that in some way one is together with that car.
K: You see, you have already separated the car from yourself.
Q: But in some way there’s no separation.
K: No, I’m trying to say, sir, could we forget the word *together*, which has inherent meaning that we are separate then we come together. You follow? Right? You are separate, I am separate, then we come together. That word per se, in itself, is divisive. Now, move away from that word.
Q: Perhaps it is only saying what it is not. Could we approach that way, instead of using words like *together* and *oneness*?
K: Is it a mind, a feeling, that there is no division? You understand what I mean? Is that possible?
EL: Well, the feeling of the need to be together comes from the division.
K: Yes. Because I am divided, I’m separate from you — as an individual in my thought, in my thinking and opinions and so on — then there is the need that I must be together with other people. I cannot live in isolation, therefore I make an attempt to be together with you. And I don’t like the word *together*.
Now, let’s move away from that: think together — think. Is your thinking separate from my thinking? Or thinking is common to both of us. You may be a great scientist, I may be a clerk in the supermarket — right? — but I think and you think. So there is no individual thinking.
MZ: Would you say there’s a great or any qualitative difference, though?
K: No, wait. Listen to this first: there is no individual thinking.
MZ: Well, that’s in a way like saying there’s no individual breathing.
K: No, leave… You see, you are going back to something superficial. It’s much deeper. Right sir? Do we agree… do we all of us see that you who are highly educated: professors, doctors, PhDs and I, a supermarket — what do they do? They collect the things and put it in a bag.
EL: Checkers.
K: Checker. I’m a poor chap there. I think and you think. You may express your thinking more elaborately, more learnedly, more knowledgeably, and I may not, but I still think and you think. Right sir? So there is no individual thinking. Would you agree to that? (Laughs) I know, this is…
(Pause)
Thinking is common. Right? You think — because you’re an American, educated, better faith and so on, you will express your thinking differently from me who lives in a small village in India; but I also think in my own way. So my thinking is not separate from your thinking. Right? So there is no individual thinking. If we establish that — I mean, not intellectually but actually — then the togetherness disappears altogether. No?
DM: If we establish that, yes. (Laughs)
K: Ah, that’s just it. If I think, and I have been conditioned to thinking that my thinking is separate from yours — right? — and you are conditioned to think that your thinking is separate from mine, then the idea of *togetherness* comes.
DM: Right. The activity of thinking is common.
K: Yes. Is common.
DM: The content is different.
K: May be different.
DM: And you’re saying the activity…
K: Of thinking.
DM: The activity is primary. The activity is more important than the content.
K: Than the expression, for the moment. You express it, sir. You are thinking in a different way, because you’re a PhD — right? — and I’m not a PhD, I’m just an ordinary little man. But I think in my way…
DM: Yes.
K: …and you think your way.
DM: Yes.
K: Thinking is common to both of us.
DM: Right.
K: Therefore your thinking is not yours and my thinking is not mine. You see, this is very difficult to…
Q: So then when we are not together we’re not thinking, we’re just asserting our thoughts.
K: No sir, after all… I don’t quite follow your meaning.
Q: Well, it seems implied that if our thinking is common…
K: That’s all I am saying. Therefore it’s not yours or mine.
Q: Yes.
K: It’s very difficult to accept this.
MZ: Krishnaji, I don’t think anyone could possibly not accept — anyone, anywhere — that everybody shares the activity of thought.
K: That’s all I’m saying.
MZ: Well, that’s…
K: But go a step further.
MZ: But…
K: G o a step further: therefore it’s not your individual thinking.
MZ: No, but you immediately get to the content. And this is where we think…
K: No, I’m not bothered about the content.
MZ: I know, but the rest of us perceive that as a difference.
K: That’s what is the block between us: I’m not talking about the content.
MZ: Well, agreed. I think everyone agrees that…
K: Do you all agree?
MZ: …the activity of thought is common to all human beings.
K: Therefore, what does that mean? It means, obviously, that there is no individual thinking.
ML: But then where…? We have this conflict, Krishnaji? The conflict is still there…
K: Wait, wait.
ML: …between the individual thoughts.
K: Because I consider my thinking is mine: my opinion, my judgment, my experience, which are all based on thought — right? — and that thought is mine; as an individual it’s mine. Right?
MZ: Isn’t that content?
K: That is my content.
MZ: Yes. That we think is individual.
K: My content is put together by thought and your content is put together by thought. So you assume your content is different from mine.
MZ: Yes.
K: I assume my content is different from yours. But the content is put together by thought.
MZ: But you…
K: Wait, wait. First follow that: the content is put together by thought. No? So since thought is common to both of us, common to all humanity, why do we give importance to content? The content becomes important in expression. No?
MZ: More than expression, Krishnaji.
K: Expression in activity and so on, which is expression of the content. What’s the difficulty?
EL: But that’s where the difficulty arises: the differences in the expression.
K: So… Naturally, you express it in one way and I… But the expression is not important. To us, expression is important.
MZ: But what is thought without expression?
K: For God’s sake, what are you all fighting me for?
MZ: Well, thought is its content.
K: No Maria, first let us… Don’t go off on the content. Do we all see — as a fact, not as an emotional something — as a fact, that thought is shared by all human beings? Right? And that means what? You say that easily. You agree to that easily. But what does it mean?
Q: Is that common thought active in some way that is not individual?
K: No sir. What does it mean? When you say it’s shared by all human beings, what does that actually mean?
EL: Nobody owns it.
K: Nobody owns it. Therefore it’s not yours and it’s not mine. If that is established as a truth, I mean actuality, then from there move. What’s the difficulty?
Q: The difficulty is that this thought leaves residues in individuals and then they think that that residue is the truth, and then their truth is in conflict with somebody else’s truth.
K: Sir, all right, let’s push a little further. Thought is limited. Right? Would you agree to that? Because thought is based on knowledge and knowledge can never be complete about anything. Einstein — right? — he is limited. Though he thought a great deal about our… his thinking is limited. So all thinking is limited. And from that limitation you say, ‘My thinking is separate from yours.’ Put it differently: thought is fragmentary — right? — is divisive.
What’s the difficulty? No? Is this the first time you are hearing all this blah?
( Laughter)
EL: No Krishnaji, I think what you’ve said up to now is self-evident, but… (laughs).
K: Wait a minute, sir. If it is self-evident then what is important? What is the continuation of a fact? The continuation of the fact that we all share our thinking and thought is limited and therefore that which is limited we give importance to as the individual. Right? Right sir? Are you…? You are not with this.
Q: Not completely, no.
K: Why not? (Laughs) Sorry.
Q: When you say thought is limited, it isn’t clear to me what is meant by that.
K: All right. Action born of thought, that action is limited. Right? Action is limited.
Q: I don’t know what you mean *limited*?
K: It’s not whole. It’s not complete. It’s not — to use another word — *holistic*. It is fragmentary, because knowledge is fragmentary. Knowledge depends on experience. Right? Of course. Science… Every scientist has whatever he’s capable of gathering, through experiment, through experience, and that knowledge he adds to the previous… other scientists and so it builds up. But what he has built up is still limited, is still not complete. And therefore, out of that incompleteness, thought is. So thought is incomplete, if you like to put it that way. Right? So whatever action is born out of that incompleteness is still incomplete — action is incomplete. And, out of that incompleteness, I have created the image that I am separate from you — in thinking. Right? Of course, this… Being incomplete, I think it is necessary for completeness that we do… that you and I come together. Either sexually, or in different ways. So when we come together it is still incomplete. Right? I’ve got it. Right?
EL: The idea of *togetherness* is incomplete, in itself.
K: Entirely.
MZ: Because the two pieces are, of themselves, incomplete.
K: Yes.
MZ: You add two incomplete things, you still you don’t get a complete thing.
K: No, it’s clear. It’s clear. Right sir? I’m also learning, as we go along.
(Pause)
Are we together in this?
( Laughter)
You s ee, that’s why I object to the word *together*.
MZ: But again, if you use the word *holistic*, you’ll keep adding incomplete things together; you’re never going to get a whole. At least… I see that.
K: No, that which is incomplete cannot be made complete. That’s a different matter; don’t let’s enter into that.
DM: Krishnaji, we all agree to this, more or less, abstractly.
K: Not agree. You can’t agree with a fact.
DM: All right, as a fact. But…
K: Ah no! Not ‘but’. You cannot agree with… or disagree with a fact — it is so.
DM: All right, it is so.
K: Ah, no!
DM: Listen sir… Krishnaji, when the activity of thought operates and it produces its content, the content does not have the intrinsic appearance of incompleteness.
K: Oh, yes sir.
DM: No, that’s the difficulty, sir. As we discuss this, we can see the fact — that, yes, anything thought produces must be incomplete — but at the moment when thought is producing its content, that content does not display own incompleteness. It does not appear in itself.
K: What are the things thought has…? What are the things… Sorry. What is the content made up of? When you say ‘content’, what is it…? What’s the content?
Q: Partly experience.
K: Tell me — what’s the content?
DM: It seems to be a crystallisation of the past.
K: That doesn’t explain to me anything. Now, just tell me what the content is.
EL: Pictures.
MZ: Memory. You’ve said it a thousand times. Memory. All the things you…
K: Content is… No, that is the… Please, tell me. The content of this house, this room, is all the furniture, this, that, those candlesticks, the lamp, the flowers, the people sitting in it, the beam, the content. Right? So tell me what’s the content of your…
(Pause)
Yes sir?
ML: That’s not difficult, Krishnaji.
EL: Same thing.
K: Tell me.
ML: Well, it’s the memories, the experiences, who we are, our thoughts.
K: Yes, go on; tell me.
ML: All the things in this room, and so on.
K: No, not ‘so on’. I won’t accept it. No, please… I don’t know. Please, I actually don’t know, when you use the word *content,* what you mean by that word. And what is the content?
ML: You mean those words don’t describe it clearly enough?
MZ: Isn’t it the record of every single thing you’ve either read or seen or experienced or heard and been taught or whatever your mental faculties have absorbed from birth or pre-birth, if you want? All that ragbag is in our head.
K: No, sorry, it doesn’t mean anything to me. You have not described it to me.
DM: Krishnaji, may I? Generally, speaking generally, it’s an awareness of relationships with a lot of different people — which includes a lot of obligations, a lot of problems, conflicts and so on — that, coupled with a lot of emotional overtones.
K: Go on. Give me some more.
DM: Affection, disaffection, anxiety, all the rest of that. That’s basically it.
K: Yes, that’s all… No, no, I don’t know what the rest of it is. Don’t spin it over.
DM: The emotional overtones, sir, is what I mean.
K: I don’t understand it.
DM: I’ve said it (laughs).
K: You see, I’m pinning you down and you refuse to…
DM: No, I’ve described it, sir.
K: No.
ML: What is incomplete in this description, Krishnaji?
K: Sir, you’re experts at this. What is the content? What is my… your content?
Q: There’s pleasure, the drive for pleasure.
EL: There’s pain, too.
Q: And avoidance of pain, of course.
Q: It’s some kind of a residue, a habit, which I call upon because I think it’s true.
K: Yes, go on, sir — residue, habit.
Q: Yes.
K: Is that all?
Q: No. There’s more to it. I think that it’s true; I take it for reality, or I take it as actuality or something like that.
DM: What do you mean by *content*?
K: I don’t know. You used the word.
(Laughter)
MZ: Everything that has ever gone into your mind. You can’t want an inventory.
K: You are all so vague, that’s what I’m objecting to.
EL: Maybe it’s vague because there’s nothing real in the content.
K: That may be, but you still act from that content.
EL: Well, maybe that’s the difficulty.
K: Therefore, find out what that content is.
(Pause)
Q: It’s also the feeling of *me*.
K: I don’t know what that feeling is. You see, you’re all so damn vague. Sorry to use the word *damn* but… (laughs).
Yes sir!
EL: Maybe there’s nothing there at all.
K: Yes sir.
Q: But whatever is in there is possessed, is what you own.
EL: But that’s nothing.
K: What do you say, sir? You don’t know what the…? (Laughs)
Q: Well, it isn’t clear what question you’re asking.
K: I’m asking a very simple question which you are complicating. (Laughs) A simple question: I say what is the content?
MZ: Of what?
K: Of… You used the word and therefore I’m sticking to that word. The content of my… No, it arose: thinking… If I express it, it’s finished. (Laughs)
MZ: Well, you’re asking the question and…
K: He asked that question.
MZ: Well, the content of… There has to be…
K: The content of myself, the content of my consciousness, the content of my brain, the content of my mind. We used the word. Thought has put together the content. Right sir? Would you agree to that? Yes sir? You’re all… (Laughs) Thought, sir…
Q: See, when you say, ‘Thought has put together the content’…
K: Of course.
Q: …then you already assume you know what you mean by thought.
K: I’ll tell you what thought is. We are going in. We have said thought is the outcome of or the reaction or the response of experience, knowledge. There’s no knowledge without experience. Agree? That knowledge is stored up in the brain as memory. I’ve read Shakespeare and I know when he talks about Julius Caesar, what he means by Julius Caesar, Othello, or various characters in that play or in other plays. That is, I have accumulated knowledge about Shakespeare and his plays, it is stored in the memory, in the brain as memory and I repeat that, which is thinking. Of course.
Q: Well, that isn’t the only kind of thinking.
K: Wait. That is still thinking. It may be varieties of thinking, m ultiple forms of thinking, b ut it’s still thinking. I have read Shakespeare, you have read Keats; or you have read psychology, which I haven’t. The content of your brain is the memory of what you have read, which is your knowledge. To that knowledge you add more experience, more… but it’s still knowledge. And out of learning that knowledge you think. If you had no knowledge, you can’t think. Right?
(Pause)
So the content of your brain is all that you have read about psychology. My content of my brain is all that I have learned as a Hindu — right? — that’s part of my content: knowledge. Right? And what else?
Q: Emotional things.
K: Yes. Go on, sir, tell me. I don’t know. Tell me. I’ve discovered one thing: that is, the content of my brain — all that — is what I have learnt: from psychologists, from scientists, from gurus, from books, which is my… the knowledge. So expand that knowledge.
Q: Expand that knowledge?
K: Expand that knowledge.
Q: You mean add more facts?
K: Knowledge. I know I am afraid — that’s knowledge. I know I’m anxious. I know I’m seeking pleasure. Which is all — go on, sir — knowledge. I am afraid of death, which is the ending of my… whatever it is. No? And the superstitions, the beliefs, the ideologies, the suppositions, the hopes, the successful achievements and the failures and the depressions and anxiety, and the belief in God or not the belief in God, but I do believe in Jesus — right? — and so on; all that is my content, which has been put together by thought. Thought has said, ‘By Jove, I’m afraid of the snake. I’m afraid of losing my job. I’m afraid of my wife. I’m afraid God may not exist, because in him I’ve put all my security.’ Right? And so I believe that Jesus is the son of God, some blah I believe, some illusion I stick to. That’s all the content, which you can call consciousness, or not. You can use different words, but that is the content of what I am: my name, my form, my habits — all that is me. Right? No?
DM: Yes sir. We said that.
K: That’s all I’m saying.
DM: No, but we said that, sir. We said all that.
K: Oh, you did not say all that.
DM: Most of it.
K: Oh no, you did not.
MZ: We didn’t say those words, but we said things that accumulated.
K: Ah but… No, I wanted detail, not generalised…
MZ : We could talk till Easter and not…
Q: Give a list for months… (laughs).
MZ: Yes.
K: What?
MZ: We could talk from now till the 4th of July and not make it complete. I mean, this is an infinite…
K: It’s complete to me now. When I say, ‘It is complete,’ when thought… I realise the limitation of thought and all the things that thought has gathered and put together in my brain as the *me*, my consciousness. That’s all I’m saying.
Q: But then a person has their content, their consciousness, and another person has theirs and, like David said, they realise that thought isn’t complete.
K: Sir, but… But sir, just listen: to realise that. Do you know what that means? Really realise the fact that thought is incomplete. I’m an American. That’s put together by thought. And because it is limited, it must create conflict. Right?
Q: Right.
K: Therefore I’m willing to fight the Russians, the Koreans, the Indonesians or whoever it is. No, this…
DM: Isn’t there another factor in this?
K: All right, tell me.
DM: Mixed up in this content, in this consciousness, in thought, there is also a factor of perception.
K: I haven’t come to that yet. I don’t know what you mean by *perception*. Perception can only be when thought is not.
DM: I don’t mean anything very…
K: Ah. Now, we go off to something else. That’s why I don’t want to…
DM: But see, to me it’s not something else; to me it’s part of the very difficulty. If it were just a matter that my consciousness is thought and thought is limited…
K: Sir, to realise that my thought is limited. You understand? What does that mean? The realisation of an enormous fact? It’s not just, ‘My thought is limited.’
DM: Krishnaji, I’m aware that my knowledge is limited.
K: No, I said thought is limited.
DM: Thought is knowledge.
K: Thought is knowledge, therefore…
DM: I know knowledge is limited.
K: Wait sir. Wait sir. Look into it. Therefore all knowledge is limited — right? — whether the Einstein knowledge…
DM: Yes sir.
K: …or the Bible knowledge or the Jesus knowledge.
DM: But knowledge is not all I have. I have more than knowledge, haven’t I? Haven’t I also…?
K: I don’t know. I am saying, sir — just a minute — I am saying the realisation that thought is limited — the realisation not just the verbal statement of it — is an enormous thing. Therefore, any action born out of my limitation — out of limitation, limited thought — must inevitably create conflict.
DM: But it doesn’t seem as though my action is born out of thought. It seems as though my action is born out of something larger and better than thought.
K: I don’t know about that. I don’t know. First, I must be clear and not live in an illusion. I must be very clear that my thought is limited and whatever it does — right? — whatever it does is… will be limited, incomplete. Right? The feeling of it, sir — you understand? — is something… not casually say, ‘ I understand it.’ It means I… Well, I can tell you all that, but what does it mean to you?
(Pause)
DM: Sir, it seems to mean that my action then must come from… must be born from perception rather than thought.
K: I don’t know anything about… Therefore… You see, you are insisting on perception.
DM: Yes sir. Exactly.
K: But I don’t know anything about it. I only know the content of my…
DM: But I do know something about perception, or I feel I do. I don’t mean *I*, sir. One feels one does know something about the perception.
K: I know about it, too, but I’m not entering into that for the moment, till I am quite clear that thought is limited, and the consequences of that limitation is enormous. Which means I have no nationality, no God, no security, because I have sought security through thought…
DM: Sir, I may say, ‘I do have God because I perceive God. I see God directly. I’m directly aware of God.’
K: Ah, that may be an illusion.
DM: It may be.
K: Therefore, I… ‘may be’ is no good to me.
DM: Anything may be an illusion.
K: No, I don’t say anything may be. I am just saying anything created by thought — and God is created by thought, out of my fear and so on. You understand? So I have to find out if there is an action which is not born of thought. Is there a perception independent, totally divorced from…? Perception — you understand? — thought. You are following all this?
DM: Is there an action divorced from thought?
K: Of course. Because I see thought, being limited, must create conflict in action. You act in your fragmentary way, I act in my fragmentary way. So we must live in conflict.
DM: So I say, ‘Fine, I won’t act from thought. I’ll act from perception.’
K: Therefore, what do you mean by that word *perception*?
DM: That means I see, I see what is the case. I’m not thinking about it or concluding it. I see it; it is so. And from that I act.
K: It is so. But if it is so that thought is limited — right? — then what is action without thought? Is there such a thing?
DM: Okay, I’m saying, ‘Sure there is’ — we all do it all the time.
K: What?
DM: We act from perception rather than from thought.
K: I don’t understand your word *perception* then.
DM: From what I see, from what I see directly, rather than concluding it.
K: Wait a minute, sir. Wait a minute. You see directly that thought acts in one way. Right? You perceive that, don’t you? But that perception… has that perception changed the movement of thought? That’s all I’m asking.
DM: You see, Krishnaji, I could say, ‘I always knew that thought was limited. I never relied totally on thought.’
K: Then what do you rely on?
DM: Perception.
K: What do you mean by *perception*?
DM: Seeing what is actual, what is really the truth.
K: What is actual? Is God actual?
DM: I may say it is.
K: Why do you say that?
DM: I may say, ‘Because I perceive God directly. It’s not just something…’
K: And then I’m lost.
DM: But this is what…
K: I may perceive God as an illusion, but I still think God exists.
EL: Aren’t you still interchanging the word *perceive* with *thought*? You’re no place other than you were before, by just changing the word.
MZ: Can we start with something lesser the gods?
ML: Yes. That’s the problem.
DM: Yes. All right.
MZ: We could see it was raining this morning.
K: What?
MZ: We could all see a fact: it was raining this morning.
K: Of course, of course.
MZ: Would you call that thought or perception?
DM: I perceived that, sir. That was a perception.
K: Now, you actually see God?
DM: No, no, no. I actually see that it is raining.
K: Of course.
DM: Therefore, I don’t go outside without an umbrella.
K: Of course not.
DM: So that’s action based on perception rather than thought.
K: No sir. You see rain actually; we all saw it together.
DM: Yes.
K: That’s a fact. Now, what is a fact to you?
DM: What is.
K: No, no, don’t move away. What is a fact to you? A fact. The fact was: it was raining. Now, what is a fact to you?
DM: I don’t know if I understand the question.
MZ: How do you define a fact, as opposed to a thought? What is a fact? It’s an objective thing, isn’t it? Or it may be…
K: Yes, of course. A fact — like that’s a fact.
DM: Right.
K: I perceive that’s a fact.
DM: Right. Yes sir.
K: No, no! I know what you’re getting at. I’m not going to budge from… (laughs). That’s a fact. If I’m an artist, I translate that fact into some imaginary thing and paint it. But that’s still a fact. Now, is God a fact as that?
DM: Asking me personally?
K: I’m asking you.
DM: Of course not.
K: Of course?
DM: Of course not, sir.
K: Ah, that’s all right then. We can move away from beastly God — let’s get off it.
DM: But see… Somebody help me out here. I can’t do it by myself.
MZ: Well, many people would think they perceive something which they would call ‘God’ and they think of it as objective and outside of themselves, not a reflection of their thinking.
K: No, no, these are all words. I don’t… They mean nothing to me. You see, either we… I perceive God as an illusion, but I still believe… hold on to God.
MZ: That’s rather rare. Most people who hold on to God don’t perceive it as an illusion.
K: But if I… I said, ‘If I perceive.’ For God… What are we talking about? I am merely pointing out something. Let’s begin again. Thought is neither yours nor mine — right? — it’s shared by all humanity. Therefore it is not individual thinking. But now it has become individual thinking. Mr Reagan thinks in one way, and ‘Mr Reagan thinks…’
MZ: That’s an illusion.
K: …unfortunately. So that we have accepted as a fact. Right? I perceive that as a fact. But I also perceive that’s not a fact, it’s just an opinion of a conceited old man. Not… I’m not talking of Mr Reagan or anybody — it’s a conceit.
EL: You mean that anybody thinks is a conceit?
K: No. When I translate thinking as mine, different from yours, and I cling to my thinking as mine — right? — I have given to that thinking individual importance, which is a form of conceit. I’m sorry… Of course, it is. A form of arrogance, stupidity, whatever you like to call it.
Q: Well, then that leads to the other problem that David talked about at the beginning: that exposure to the teachings seems to leave people in a feeling of uncertainty so they can’t assert any action.
K: No sir, naturally, because I have been holding on to some belief, to some idiotic illusion, and that has given me great satisfaction, certainty, security, protection, faith. And you come along and say, ‘Look, that’s all rubbish,’ naturally it gives me great uncertainty.
Q: It doesn’t seem to work… It isn’t uncertainty as uncertainty, it’s a certainty in uncertainty.
K: Certainty in…
Q: People are sure that they cannot tell, cannot know, cannot see, cannot do, cannot act.
K: Of course, of course, that’s their obstinacy — yes. They refuse to move out of their enclosure.
Q: So the solution to that then is to say, ‘Well, this isn’t thought, this is perception. Now I’m certain again.’
K: Ah…! You see, why do you use the word *perception*?
Q: Because that word is approved; it’s not a *thought* which is a bad word.
K: Sir, please sir, look. Have we come to the point when we all see the fact — the fact — that thought is not… is common to all mankind?
Q: Yes.
K: What does that mean, sir?
Q: It means that I don’t own my thoughts, and that I can’t assert them.
K: No, no, no, the feeling of it, sir.
MZ: It means I may be wrong.
Q: Right.
K: No. The vastness of the feeling. You understand? It’s no longer my petty, little self.
(Pause)
You see, sir — just a minute — we have taken over an hour to come to a very simple question? You understand? Why?
(Pause)
Why sir? (Laughs) Sorry to bombard you.
Q: Why has it taken so long to…?
K: To see a very simple fact?
(Pause)
Either I really — I’m not talking about you, sir — either I don’t want to see it or I cling to my own education — you understand? — my own condition and I say, ‘That’s all right. I accept that condition. I live in that condition and whatever you are saying, just…’ — you follow? — a part of that conditioning. Or I move away and say, ‘What are you talking about? Let me understand you.’ I’m not talking about anybody in this room. I’m just saying: why is a simple fact that thought is shared by all human beings and therefore it’s not my thinking, individual thinking. You understand, sir? Why have you taken so long? And see the consequences of all that: consequences of individual thinking, thinking it’s mine. Right? You are following what I’m saying?
And to see the illusion of that and say, ‘That’s shared by all of us.’ And the consequences of that sharing. That immediately breaks down all barriers. You understand? As my… as a Hindu, you as a Christian, I am a Buddhist — you follow? — I am a scholar, you are not. You follow? The whole thing we move away from totally in a different direction. I don’t know if you follow all this. Now, to see that and to realise it, to feel it, to have it in your blood, seems apparently takes a long time. And I said, ‘Why?’ You saw the fact that this morning it was raining, that’s a fact. You saw it. Right? Why don’t you see with equal rapidity, equal naturalness, this fact?
(Pause)
I know several lawyers in India, high, you know, supposed to be… They’re very educated, they’ve been to Cambridge, Oxford — you know, all the rest of it — and they’re as superstitious as they make them. (Laughs)
MZ: Krishnaji, can one ask you something?
K: The contradiction — you understand? — and they don’t realise the contradiction. And if you point it out to them, they don’t see it even. They say, ‘That’s there and this is here.’
(Pause)
MZ: But sir, can one ask you why the perception or the seeing of this very simple, basic fact, that I think we all do see about thinking…
K: I doubt it.
MZ: Well…
K: I question it, Maria. Don’t say, ‘Well…’
MZ: Well, may I finish the question and then you ask…? What in that seeing is so partial that there isn’t this dissolving quality, so that we no longer go on thinking in this mode, or thinking in the way you define it?
K: Isn’t it because you don’t see the fact as you saw the fact of rain?
MZ: Why don’t we?
K: Well, that’s what I’m asking.
MZ: Because…
K: No. Look at it. Don’t answer it immediately. If you have a toothache you act. Apparently, this is not an actual fact; it’s a playing with it.
MZ: But the way we see this is limited because…
K: Do you know what it means?
MZ: …we’re stuck in it. We don’t see any other way to function.
K: Maria, do listen. Do you know what it means, the consequences, what it signifies: thought is limited?
MZ: The consequences are that thought ceases to have its hold on us, and that we use it…
K: No, consequences. Maria, you’re not listening.
MZ: You mean the consequences, psychologically, to us?
K: That thought is limited.
MZ: Yes.
K: T he realisation that thought is limited, and what thought has done with that limitation in this world — what it has done to human beings.
MZ: But you see, I think most people would say, ‘It’s true, it’s all these awful things, but that’s all we’ve got. What do we do?’
K: No!
MZ: No but this is the bind that one is in.
K: I know the… Please, d on’t… I know all that stuff, don’t just repeat that. It has no value. But the value is to inquire why this doesn’t happen. That’s up to you — find out.
(Pause)
Well sir, what? Is the feeling of togetherness brought about by thought? The necessity of doing things together, thinking together, is that the product of thought? You understand my question?
DM: Is the necessity the product of thought?
K: Yes. No, that we must think together — together — think together. Is that the action of thought?
DM: Are you saying: is thinking together the action of thought?
K: Yes. Of course. Right?
DM: Of course not, you mean?
EL: Of course.
K: Of course it is. Therefore it’s not together, ever.
DM: Are you saying that thinking together is a false phrase?
K: No, I am asking: is that question: ‘Is it possible to think together?’ — that question has been put by thought. Of course. Which… sir…
DM: To me, this comes right back to the question I was raising a minute ago: whether or not it’s put by thought or by perception.
K: All right. I perceive that we must think together. Right? That is not perception. That’s still thought.
(Pause)
Counter that, sir. The ball is in your court.
DM: Is it in my court or is it our court?
(Laughter)
K: In all your court.
Q: You said earlier that we should look at being together before thinking together.
K: No, the same thing, sir: being… I said… Please, the word *together* implies there has been division and then we must come together. Right? Right sir? That’s the implication of that word. And that implication is the product of thought and thought says, ‘Can we do this together? Can we all be together?’ You understand? Come on. So it’s still the activity of thought.
DM: That is the activity of thought, but there’s another activity which also takes place, which is the simple, direct perception…
K: Of?
DM: …of the absence of togetherness.
K: Which is what? The awareness of the absence.
DM: Yes.
K: (Laughs) You’re caught.
MZ: No, isn’t there a fact somewhere in all this (laughs) that is not the product of thought?
K: No, I’m objecting… Please, I won’t move from this thing. I am really objecting to the fact that I’m not sure that we see the total significance of: ‘Thought is not individual.’ Therefore, there is no opinion: my opinion against your opinion. You understand, sir? Then we’re only, if that takes… if there is that feeling that thought is shared by all, then we only deal with facts, not my opinion against your opinion, ‘This should be done, that should…’ You follow? All that disappears.
DM: Yes sir.
K: Yes sir. Has it disappeared with you?
EL: Including togetherness?
K: Of course. We are together… No… We are… Then there is no division. No, this is too…
MZ: It’s a hard way to run a school when you’ve got facts, and only facts dictate whatever is done.
K: Ah. That’s quite a different matter.
MZ: That’s pretty hard…
K: Ah, that’s just it.
MZ: …to see that fact and therefore the one and only action that is applicable.
(Pause)
Are you saying that, sir? Say that there is a problem, which is a fact in a school, a condition in a school, the children are doing…
K: What are you trying to say?
MZ: Well, say something comes up, in a school…
K: I don’t understand.
MZ: …which is a fact.
K: No, just quietly tell me what.
MZ: Say a child is…
K: …naughty.
MZ: …doing something: taking drugs, stealing, falling behind… whatever it is.
K: It doesn’t matter. Simple. Put it not in…
MZ: …a fact about a child or children in the school. Those can be perceived… I mean, as facts. Agreeing?
K: A child steals; that’s a fact.
MZ: All right, child steals; that is a fact. Those concerned with the school can perceive that fact. Are you saying that the perception of the fact has, by implication, an action?
K: Of course.
MZ: A correct action?
K: Yes, if that perception is not brought about by thought.
MZ: Well, that’s…
K: Of course.
MZ: …the rough part.
K: Of course, that’s what I’m saying.
MZ: Because you can all perceive the fact the child has stolen, but finding the correct action that goes with that…
K: Look Maria, may I…. My son steals.
MZ: Yes.
K: Or my daughter — I’d better stick to daughter (laughs) — my daughter steals. We all know this as a fact. How do we deal with that fact? Right sir? Tell me. Yes sir?
Q: It depends.
K: What? On what?
Q: The circumstances: why did the child steal?
K: Yes. I know, we’ve gone through that. The girl steals because for some… Mother didn’t treat her properly, or father, or this or that, there has been no affection, no… etc., etc.
Q: Well no, I don’t mean that why, but I mean what is the context that that took place in?
K: Yes. That’s… All right.
Q: All of those things matter.
K: Take all that in.
Q: Okay.
K: The fact is she steals. Right?
Q: Once?
K: There are other facts which have made her do that. Right? Put it that way, if you like: other hidden, deeper facts which made her do that. Now, how do we deal with the fact?
MZ: Without using thought.
K: Without… No, without using individual thinking. Maria, you’re missing the whole point.
Q: So the five people, let’s say, that have to deal with that fact, have to deal with it without using their individual thinking?
K: No! You see, now you have put the other way, wrong way. If I realise, if we all realise individual thinking is illusory — right? — if we all realise that’s illusion and therefore it has no reality. That’s the basic fact. Right? Right? Agreed to that? That’s the basic fact. Then I meet… we meet my child stealing. Now, you are not thinking as an individual how to deal with it. Right? Right? You understand what I’m saying? What? I can’t… Are you…?
MZ: What are you, though?
Q: But we still have the fact that has to be dealt with. (Laughs)
K: Jesus! What’s…? I’m coming to that, but first I say: do we realise that there is no individual thinking?
(Pause)
MZ: Krishnaji, in this instance, what would be individual thinking?
K: Oh, ‘She has the right to steal,’ or some kind of expression of your own thinking.
Q: ‘She must be kicked out.’
K: Kicked out — anything. For God… Don’t… Maria, what’s the matter with…?
MZ: But what… You’ve got certain facts, you’ve got quite a lot of facts because you have to understand what’s behind the child.
K: Look Maria, I said… Go back to fact. I said: have each one of us realised as a group that there is no individual thinking at all? Which doesn’t mean we all become Andropov slaves.
EL: Which doesn’t mean we do nothing.
K: My lady, you’re… Really…
Q: But it means that we are suspicious of our initial reaction to that event…
K: Yes sir.
Q: …and that we get together and talk carefully.
K: No, just… No, no, don’t talk. Just look… Have I — you see, you…? — have I realised that there is no individual thinking, with all its consequences? Have I realised that? If I have realised that and you — all of us — realise that, we will deal with the fact totally differently.
MZ: Well, would you say in this instance that the expression of individual thinking would be…
K: I don’t know.
MZ: May I say it? May I say…?
K: Yes, I know what you’re going…
MZ: Bringing to this instance ready-made opinions of previous theories held, reflections of what happened to so and so…
K: All right, all right, all right.
MZ: …all the junk in the mind that is associated with this problem — all that is individual thinking.
K: Yes.
MZ: Is individual thinking something more than that?
K: What?
MZ: Something more than that?
K: What more?
MZ: Well, I’m trying to find a division between…
K: No, you’re approaching it wrongly.
MZ: Krishnaji, you don’t let me say what I’m trying to say. I’m trying to find what is individual thinking in this instance, so that it can be seen and dropped.
K: Yes, you have stated it.
MZ: Well, I’ve stated some things. Now, is there something…?
K: You can add more to it, but it’s still individual thinking.
MZ: But it comes out of the accumulation in my mind, not…
K: Yes. All right. All right.
(Break in audio)
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
##
+———————–+———————————————–+
| ### | |
+———————–+———————————————–+
| | |
+———————–+———————————————–+
| | |
+———————–+———————————————–+
| | |
+———————–+———————————————–+
| | |
+———————–+———————————————–+
| | |
+———————–+———————————————–+
MZ : But I want to see what that means in this instance because that is a…
K: We’ll go into it. We’ll go into it the moment you realise, and the consequences of that realisation, that your thinking is not yours.
MZ: There’s a danger…
K: There are lots of…
MZ: …in that being a generality to it…
K: It is not.
MZ: …and I don’t see that I’m doing that.
K: Oh, for God’s sake, what’s the matter with her? You still cling to the old pattern.
MZ: Krishnaji, I’m not, frankly, I’m trying to find out…
K: First I said, lady, I said very clearly, very simply: have you realised the consequences and the implications, the significance of this truth, that it’s not… thinking is common to all of us?
MZ: Well, I’m trying to find out if I do see the implication.
K: I’m not… We will find… First have you found that out?
MZ: Well, that’s what I’m trying to find out (laughs)…
K: Find out.
MZ: …whether I see the implications of this immense thing.
K: Do you see it?
MZ: It’s easy to say, ‘Yes, of course, it’s obvious; I see it,’ but…
K: Find out the implications.
DM: Krishnaji, she’s…
K: Tell me what the implications are.
MZ: Well, I mentioned some of them.
K: What is that? Implications of the realisation of the truth, that it’s not… that there is no individual thinking.
MZ: Well, an implication to me would be…
K: Not to you. You see, you have reduced it already to *me*.
MZ: Well, I can’t speak for anybody but my own self…
K: No!
MZ: …my own brain.
K: You’re still…
MZ: I could make generalities…
K: It is not generality.
MZ: What I’m saying would be a generality, Krishnaji.
K: That means you have not realised the consequences of it, of this truth. If you realise the consequences of that truth, it’ll be shared by all of us. There’s no your expression of it, your seeing it.
MZ: Well, you asked me the question: do you see the implications? How do I answer that?
K: Tell me. Don’t say, ‘I see it; it is my opinion.’ Just say it. What are the implications?
(Pause)
MZ: The implication… or an implication is that certain habitual mental processes do not go on anymore.
K: Yes. Which means what?
MZ: Well, I named some of them, I can name more, but you’ll say that that’s individual thinking and I’m bringing in…
K: No. You… When you say, ‘This is the way I look at it…’
MZ: Well…
K: That’s what… I am sorry. I’ll keep away from this. You are not meeting me. Or I am not meeting you.
MZ: Well, perhaps… I’m describing what I think is fairly general, I don’t think it’s unique to me to make these mistakes (laughs), but I speak of them first-hand because it’s politer.
K: Oh God. What are you trying to say, Maria?
MZ: Well, I’m trying to explore. When you say, ‘What are the implications of individual thinking?’ I’m trying to come up with an answer.
K: No, what are the implications, significance, the meaning, of the realisation of the fact there’s not individual thinking?
MZ: And I tried to say that an implication would be that certain forms of mental action are finished, are outside.
K: Yes, how does that *finished* show?
MZ: Well, it would show that one would no longer react in mirror-like ways, out of one’s own content of mind. One would perceive a fact uncoloured by whatever has been called or what we have called individual thinking. I would perceive something objectively and directly, without bringing on my own junk to bear on it.
K: Do you agree with all of that?
DM: Yes.
K: Then how do you two — who agree with the fact no individual… — act about stealing?
(Pause)
Go on, sir. All of you — it applies to all of us — how do you deal with that fact? How do you deal with it, Maria? Not as Maria.
MZ: That’s the difficulty, you see.
K: Wait, not as Maria: your individual thinking, your opinions, your judgments; you have stepped out of that — right? If you realise the truth of the other — wait — if you realise the truth of the other…
MZ: Yes.
K: … then you have stepped out of this. Right?
MZ: Yes.
K: Then how do you deal with a fact?
MZ: I immediately run into a very difficult thing, which is that I’m dealing only with fact. There are…
K: We stated that, Maria; you’re repeating.
MZ: Yes. There are many facts involved in this. Now, at some point certain facts have a greater relevance; they are more applicable to the situation.
K: But she steals — what do you do?
MZ: I know, but one has to consider…
K: The consequences of stealing may be long.
MZ: Yes. But the facts around the fact of the child’s stealing surely have relevance in this case.
K: I don’t know. How do you deal with it?
MZ: Well, then you see…
K: You two — you agreed — how do you deal with it?
MZ: One can get into a very grey atmosphere of making judgments as to the relevance of facts: which facts really concern this situation.
K: Sir, how do you deal with it?
DM: I don’t know if it can be specified in advance. Together we look into the whole complex of circumstances.
K: Yes, there it is: she steals. That’s the end result — right? — of various incidents that brought her to that. We can discuss the various incidents — right? — the various happenings which have brought her to that, but the fact is that. How do you deal with it? How do we all deal with it, who have realised the truth, etc?
Q: We look at what is the best thing to do. We give that consideration.
K: Yes. How do you consider it?
Q: Being very suspicious of one’s own reaction.
K: Yes. How do you…? Yes, go ahead, sir. We realise one’s own reactions. All right, put those aside.
Q: Put those aside.
K: Then?
Q: Then we look at what is the proper thing to do with this child.
K: Which is… Now, I’m asking: what is the proper thing to do for all of us?
MZ: But, Krishnaji, involved in that, Tom, is there not a judgmental factor involved in that? Where does that process of judgment, out of what does it come?
Q: Care for the child.
MZ: What does that mean? At some point you are…
Q: We’re concerned about what is the best thing to do with this child. They’ve stolen something…
MZ: Yes, but those decisions are based on a judgment which, it would seem to me, would be coloured by thought. It may not be one’s personal, prejudicial thought, but nevertheless one has to say, ‘This is better for the child,’ than that is better. And to separate the thinking process, the individual thinking process, the values involved in this judgment, is terribly difficult, terribly complex.
K: Not at all.
MZ: All right, explain that, sir — please.
K: What is stealing? You used the word *steal* — what is stealing?
MZ: It’s appropriating something…
K: No just go into it. Don’t answer it immediately. What is stealing? Don’t we all steal?
Q: You mean appropriate something which is not our own?
K: No, no. There is nothing our own.
Q: Yes, yes.
K: No, no. Don’t say, ‘Yes, yes.’
Q: Well, I’m sorry. Continue.
MZ: Something which society says you haven’t you a right to…
K: No, Maria, please, you haven’t… Please, don’t answer it. What is stealing? What do you mean by that word, sir?
Q: Taking something that isn’t yours.
K: That is… Now, what is yours? The toy?
Q: Yes.
K: The book? The woman? Yes sir, go into it. What do you mean by *possession*?
Q: Well, in the physical realm…
K: No, no. Physical? What do you mean…?
Q: But that’s what we’re talking about: the child steals something physical.
K: Wait sir, we’ll come to that. What do we mean by that word *stealing*? You see how we… I’ll show you in a minute. Go on, sir. I’ve got the tail-end of it.
DM: Bring it out. (Laughs)
K: No, no. It takes…
EL: Is that a suggestion that stealing is as common as thinking?
K: Of course. When we say we steal — the child steals — what do we mean by that word *steal*? What is implied in it?
Q: It’s an opinion.
K: No. She has stolen something that belongs… She has stolen my handkerchief. That’s not an opinion. She has taken away the thing which I possessed.
Q: Well, my concept is that if I take something from you that is stealing. Is it stealing?
K: As long as I possess something, in the psychological sense, there must be stealing. No?
Q: What do you mean? If I possess something psychologically, there must be stealing.
K: Of course.
Q: What does it mean? I don’t understand.
K: Explain it.
DM: Do you mean there must be stealing in the physical sense?
K: Sir, I possess — possess. Right? As long as there is the psychological implication of possession, somebody’s going to take it away.
MZ: We’re talking about objects.
EL: Well, Krishnaji , owning a Mercedes or a handkerchief isn’t psychological.
K: No, no. I’m coming to that, lady, please. I’m not so dumb as… I am just coming to that. First, am I… is there psychological possession which implies stealing? What sir? You’re the psychologist.
Q: I don’t understand the question: is there psychological possession which implies stealing?
K: Of course.
Q: Meaning…
K: As long as I psychologically possess something there is fear of it being stolen.
Q: Oh, I see what you mean.
K: And it will be stolen.
MZ: But we’re not talking about that; we’re talking about…
K: Wait, Maria, I said I’d come to that. You see, you’re all… you want to be so practical. I’m coming to that. First take the larger, than come to the minor.
EL: We’re talking about the word *stealing*.
K: No, I am talking about the act of stealing… the feeling of stealing.
EL: The feeling of stealing and the feeling of being stolen from.
K: Both, both: being stolen and… (laughs) to steal and to be stolen.
Q: So it seems like stealing and possessing…
K: Must go together.
Q: …go together, when one is going against someone else. When I possess…
K: Psychologically, where there is possession there must be stealing. They must go together, always.
Q: Does possession always mean against someone? I have… (inaudible) …against other people
K: Possession, sir: I possess my wife. I possess my God. I possess my knowledge. Right? The feeling of possession. Right?
EL: Well, that’s psychological, but I have…
K: I’m coming to that, lady. You see, you’re… (Laughs) Jesus!
MZ: It’s tough enough on the other level…
EL: It’s getting to the hard business.
K: You see, you’re all so… Dammit! You want to deal with a small thing before you have understood the large thing. So if you understand the large thing, this becomes very simple. No? What sir?
DM: Yes sir.
K: So what is the large thing? What’s the g reater? Greater, this is lesser.
DM: Where there is possession, there will be theft.
K: Yes, that’s all. Psychologically, inwardly, do I possess something? Which means attachment, which means protection, resistance, fear, jealousy, hate — all that is the consequence of psychological possession and the fear of… If I understand that — that’s a fact to me. Right? Do I possess? Personally, I don’t. You may say, ‘You are cuckoo,’ that doesn’t matter. So from that feeling — the greater — I say, ‘Now, how am I going to deal with this child who has stolen?’ Come on, sir, you… simple answer.
Sir, you are the experts; tell me what to do. If I understand the greater, in the greater the lesser includes. Right? Right? But if I approach it from the lesser, I’m stuck with the lesser. Right? Right? Agree to that?
MZ: Yes.
K: Then why did you begin with the lesser?
MZ: Because I don’t want to get stuck in the greater.
K: No, you’re not stuck in the greater. You can’t get stuck in the greater. You’ve always done this. We’ve always done this: from the particular try to understand the large.
MZ: I was only trying to understand the lesser, n ot the greater. I was only trying to address the lesser, not the greater.
K: No, I said… That’s what I’m saying: you’re always taking the lesser and trying to resolve it. I said if you do that, the lesser becomes larger and larger and larger, therefore there will be no solution to it. But if you understand the larger and then come to the particular.
MZ: Well, can we do that…?
K: We are doing it now. If you understand the feeling that possession, psychologically, implies stealing; the two go together: possession and stealing go together. Now, with that depth of understanding, how shall I deal with the child?
Come on, sirs, the ball is in your court. I’ve talked and talked.
ML: Does it mean that if I understand the greater and I approach the lesser…
K: Not, ‘If you…’
ML: All right, I understand the greater.
K: Ah! Do you see? That’s what I’m…
ML: I understand the greater, and as I approach the lesser I don’t have an individual thinking about the lesser.
K: I’m not talking about the individual thinking for the moment. If we understand…
ML: But we’re trying to approach the…
K: Sir, just listen, sir. I have understood the importance, the depth, the truth that as long as there is psychological possession, there must be detachment, there must be possession — you know, all the consequences of that, of fear. I have understood that. Do I possess? I don’t, personally, I don’t. So how am I going to deal with the child who has stolen, stolen something from another? Right? How am I going to deal with it?
Q: Well, it must mean that that child is involved in possession, that in his mind that’s…
K: He doesn’t know a thing about possession, that poor child.
Q: Well, if he doesn’t know about possession why does he go in the store and steal?
K: Yes, but…
MZ: Because he wanted the thing.
K: She has taken away something which belongs to somebody else.
MZ: He wanted to possess it.
K: Taken away. Which means that?
Q: Are you saying that this child did it innocently?
K: Sir, no. She has taken away my handkerchief, and we say that child has stolen. Now, how do you deal with the girl that has stolen?
EL: Are we saying that we shouldn’t…? We again are using a word like *steal* and *stolen* where we shouldn’t, where we should be dealing with a fact? Are we saying that?
K: Now, what… how do you deal with the child? You can’t go through all this rigmarole to the child. She’d say, ‘What…?’ (Laughs)
EL: Well, we’d put away the word *steal* and *stealth* and say…
K: No, I don’t put away… The fact remains…
EL: She took a handkerchief, which is not hers.
K: …she took something which is not hers.
EL: So she should give it back.
K: Then that’s a different… That’s not stealing, then. She… I left my handkerchief there, she takes it and brings it back to me — that’s not stealing.
EL: Well, she has to be made aware that she took something…
K: I don’t know what… Tell me what you’re going to do.
EL: What?
(Pause)
K: As I said, if I may, the greater includes the lesser. Have I really seen the fact, in myself, that as long as there is a possession in me — the feeling of possession — there must be somebody who will steal it, destroy it? So with that feeling, now how do I deal with that child who has taken away something which doesn’t belong to her? Come on, please sir, answer my question.
EL: Well, it seems to imply that it doesn’t matter.
K: Oh, the other girl comes and cries: ‘ She took away my toy,’ or my book, my whatever it is. How…? You’re avoiding it.
Moody sir, how do you deal with it?
DM: Krishnaji, I would sit down and talk with her.
K: All right. How do you talk to her?
DM: Gently.
K: No, no, understood, sir. Go on, don’t… Not beat her up, of course. So gently — that’s understood — then what do you do?
EL: Well, we’d just say…
K: How do you convey to her…? Go on.
DM: I would examine the thing with her. I would examine what she did, with her. Not… I would examine it. I would look at her action with her and go into it with her: what she did, why she did it, what the implications are. I would think together with her about it.
EL: I hate that word.
K: What’s that?
DM: I said I would think together with her about it. (Laughter)
K: How would you, sir? You are experts, please tell me. I don’t… I really don’t know. But I’m going to find out. I really don’t know.
ML: Krishnaji, we recently had a case of this in the school. And we sat down with the boy and tried to find out what happened and why he did what he did. It was a very complex situation because he didn’t think he had stolen something. He wasn’t facing it in the same way we were facing it. We had to look at many, many different implications of the situation.
K: Yes sir. I know, I know. And what happened?
ML: Well, there was… Individual thoughts were: ‘Let’s dismiss him’…
K: Doesn’t matter; go on.
ML: ‘Let’s send him home’, ‘Let’s…’ Well, we thought of five different things. In the end, we kept the boy and tried to deal with his problem. We kept the boy in the school. He’s seeing a doctor. He’s had certain restrictions placed on him; his behaviour is being monitored. All of this we felt would help him not to steal again and get through this.
K: Yes. So what happened?
ML: Well, it’s working so far.
K: Yes.
ML: It wasn’t our first response. Our first response was: ‘Leave.’
K: That’s the usual method, isn’t it?
ML: Yes.
K: Psychologists, doctors, talking…
ML: It works; it’s working now.
K: Wait, wait, wait — that’s the usual method.
ML: Right.
K: Right? Is there another way of dealing with it? I don’t know. I’m just asking: is there another way of dealing with it?
ML: I’d like to know, too.
K: I know. We’ll have to inquire, explore into this thing. How do I convey to the child the whole idea of possession?
(Pause)
What sir?
Q: But I cannot convey this to the child…
K: Why can’t you?
Q: …if I possess anything.
K: No, no. Suppose you possess… no.
Q: No, no, I don’t mean in that way. I mean the feeling of possession.
K: Suppose you don’t possess anything, which happens very rarely so I’m not belittling…
Q: Yes, I understand that.
K: Now, how do you convey to the child the feeling of possessiveness in which is implied the other? How do you convey this to her? Right? If you can show him what happens — you know? — without going through all the rigmarole of doctors and… You follow what I’m saying?
(Pause)
What? Have I said something that made you all silent? My son steals. I can do the usual method, which is: doctors, investigate, see the consequence… what… that’s the end result, how he is treated at the home — you follow? — doctors, analysts and so on, so on, so on, and then send him to a doctor — all that, what you described. That’s the usual method. Right? Agree? That’s the usual method. I’m asking: is there a different way of dealing with this? What do you say, sir?
Q: Well, from what you have said, it seems like our mistake in dealing with it is that we don’t really understand stealing ourselves. We just set about to do something about it.
K: No sir. I have a son and I don’t possess, I really don’t possess inwardly, anything on this earth. Now, I want to convey to my son who takes things that don’t belong to him — belong in the sense — just… he has stolen. How do I convey the other thing to him? If I can show him that, then it’s quite a different movement. You understand what I mean? Am I making myself clear, sir?
Q: Yes. Well, the question is clear; the answer isn’t clear. The question you’re asking is clear: how to convey that possession is false?
K: No, where there is possession, there must be…
Q: Psychological possession.
K: …must be stealing, must be anxiety, the whole human business. I want to convey that to him much more than the act of stealing.
Q: Yes.
K: Y ou understand? Because if he realises that, then I’ve done a tremendous thing to him. Right? I have brought to him something super. Now, how do I do that? In what way can I help him to see this? I have to show it to him, so that I don’t become an example to him. I don’t know if you follow what I mean. If I say to him, ‘Look, I don’t really possess anything on this God’s earth,’ he’ll make a hero of me, and I don’t want heroes (laughs), examples. That’s death to him. I don’t know if I’m making it clear.
Q: It has to be his.
K: It has to be his own per se. So I’m out of it. Therefore, I’m not acting as an example to him, which is a terrible thing. So I have to convey this to him. How shall I do this? How shall I approach it? Right sir? Have you got it clear what I’m saying? Tell me what to do. You… Come on, sir. Why do you say it’s…?
Do you realise, sir, that the realisation that I don’t possess anything is so contrary to the American thought — American, English, world thought? Right? Do you understand what I mean? I have to help him to feel that. How shall I do it? Please sirs, you are the experts. You have to help me in it. I come to you, as psychologists, as teachers, educators. I say, ‘Please, I’ve got a son who steals.’ Don’t tell me to go through the usual methods. I don’t want to do that. I’ve heard somebody say, ‘As long as there is possession there must be stealing.’ Right? Inwardly, inside the skin, that feeling, if you possess you’re going to be destroyed by people who will steal. Right? Now, how am I going to show it to him? What do you say, sirs?
Q: Well, it doesn’t seem to be a different problem now than teaching him anything else that way…
K: Ah, it’s not a problem to me.
Q: Yes, it doesn’t seem to be.
K: I refuse to treat it as a problem. I don’t want a problem in my life.
Q: So it’s not a problem; we just teach him.
K: No, I said I have to show it to him. But I’m not treating it as a problem: ‘Oh, I must solve it. I must fight over it. What’s the answer?’ — I’m not doing anything of that kind.
Q: Well, then we talk to him about it.
K: Talk to me. I’m that child.
(Pause)
Come on, Mark Lee, you are a teacher, educator, and you sirs, all of you are educators. Tell me; I come to ask your help. And I say, ‘Please sir, don’t put me through the grind, the drill. I won’t touch it.’
MZ: Can this be conveyed to a young child?
K: A child. Don’t be young, old…
MZ: Well…
K: Maria, a child, somebody steals. You see, you’ve reduced it…
MZ: But this is a very, very, very difficult question to explain to an adult…
K: Yes, darling, that’s what I am saying to you. The other is the easiest way of doing it. This requires your…
ML: Krishnaji, in some cases, it may be the only way to deal with it — the other way — because a child may not respond, he may not listen, he may not even…
K: No, he’s m y son. I am responsible for the chap. I can’t say, ‘Well, I can’t do it,’ and just let go. Well now, lady, what do you say?
EL: Well, Krishnaji, when we talk about understanding psychological possession and psychological stealing and try to convey that to anyone who has stolen, I find that extremely difficult.
K: I must find a way to do it. I have been to all the psychologists, I have been to the educators, I have been to the nonsensical gurus, to the Pope (laughs), and they have put me through the old drill. And I say, ‘Sorry, I’m not… I have had enough of that. I must find a different…’ I see there must be an answer to this. So what am I to do?
Q: It isn’t necessary to go into all of this detail, level of complexity, with the child, but what has to be gotten across is whatever is the matter that causes him to steal.
K: I’m not concerned about his stealing. I’m really concerned about conveying this thing.
Q: Yes.
K: I forget the stealing. I’m not interested.
Q: Well…
K: Y ou follow my… how I’ve changed? I’m not interested…
Q: Oh yes, I understand.
K: If he understands this then he…
Q: But what is this to that child?
K: That’s what I’m trying to find out from you.
Q: Well, it would seem that he’s been hurt.
K: No, but you’re going back to the same old method: ‘He’s hurt. Why is he hurt? His mother didn’t him treat properly.’
Q: No, no, I didn’t mean that.
K: Whatever reason. Whatever reason, you are going back…
Q: But I don’t mean any reason. I mean I have to deal with whatever is active in him.
K: I’m not interested in his stealing. That’s a very small affair.
Q: Well, but whatever is active in him with this other business.
K: No, that’s a very small affair. He’s my son. It’s a very small affair. I’m not concerned with his taking somebody’s book or… that’s…
Q: But you’re concerned with his psychological possessiveness.
K: Psychological state of mind that says… when he realises possession, all that I told you. I want him to realise that.
Q: Realise that that’s false. Realise that he doesn’t really possess anything.
K: No. I want him to realise that where there is possession in his soul, in his being, in his heart, there must be stealing, taking away, death, ending — all that must… will exist as long as you possess. I want this to be conveyed, not the beastly little stealing.
(Pause)
You’ve no answer?
Q: I didn’t hear what you said.
K: Have you no answer? Don’t put me through the drill.
Q: (Laughs) Well, it’s difficult to answer specifically.
K: Oh no, I’m not concerned about his stealing. That is the specific thing. I’m not concerned about it.
Q: Well, why can’t we just tell him, talk to him about possessiveness?
K: How will you do it? I am your child.
Q: I would say that possessiveness causes pain: ‘Look at this: the reason that you went out to steal was because you felt this lack — that is possessiveness.’
K: Do you really talk to your child that way?
Q: Yes, sometimes. They can understand that sometimes.
K: So you’re appealing to what?
Q: To his willingness to try to understand this thing.
K: You’re appealing to that. Why are you appealing?
Q: Appealing?
K: Why are you appealing to him?
Q: I don’t understand *appealing*. What do you mean?
K: By talking to me, your child, you’re trying to do something to me. Right?
Q: Trying to get you to understand something.
K: You are trying to make me understand. You’re trying to help me to understand. In other words, you’re doing something to me. No?
MZ: You’re trying to communicate something, aren’t you?
Q: I’m trying to teach you something.
K: I want him to see this thing for himself.
Q: Yes.
K: Right sir? Not my telling him, my arguing with him, my… I want him to feel this thing for himself.
Q: Yes.
K: Now, how shall I waken that feeling? That’s what I’m concerned.
Well sir? Come on, sir? Help me out. You’re all so clever, logical and so on; help me out.
Q: The difficulty in this seems to be that we don’t have abundance of this feeling ourselves. This is part of the difficulty.
K: You may get it. You may have it or hope to have it and work at it, but in the meantime the boy is destroyed.
Q: Yes.
K: So you wait till you have understood and then… (laughs)?
Q: I don’t say that, I just say that this is part of the difficulty.
K: Yes, I know that. I… So what will you do? You must get over the difficulty. You can’t just say, ‘That’s a difficulty,’ and remain behind that difficulty. I know I possess — my wife or whatever it is I possess — and yet I feel that boy should have this feeling. Right?
Q: No, we’ve said we don’t possess. We’ve already finished with possessing.
EL: Which feeling, Krishnaji? The feeling of possession?
K: Oh, my God. Look, I said I may not have that feeling, as a father. I’m not a father, but I may have that feeling, I wish I had that feeling, but I still possess my wife, my book, or whatever I possess. But I want my son to realise because he… Moody has told me possession really implies stealing. Right? And he explains all that. So I want him to understand this — in spite of me. You understand?
Q: Then it’s hypocrisy.
K: No! You see, you have reduced it… I know my… I can’t help myself from possessing. Right sir? It’s part of my habit. I’m trying to get over it. Why call it hypocrisy?
(Break in audio)
…to you, as a friend, I say… (inaudible) …but I want my son to understand the feeling of non-possession. Right sir? It is not hypocrisy.
Q: Well, that’s not clear to me. I don’t know that I can really understand… I don’t know that I can appreciate the feeling of non-possession as something I want my son to understand, if I don’t even do that myself.
K: Sir, this is happening in the world. I may not understand the scriptures, but my son may, and I give him the book. That’s not hypocrisy. I say to my son, ‘I don’t understand this bloody book (laughs), but you perhaps take it and read it. You might get something out of it.’
EL: Yes, but it’s pretty difficult to convey a feeling of non-possession when I don’t have it myself.
K: Therefore, as I haven’t got it, have I to wait till I get it to convey it to that poor chap?
Q: No.
EL: But I may not be able to convey it, if I haven’t got it.
K: No, but I want him to have it. I have collected a lot of money. I want my son to have that money. You see, you’re all making difficulties for yourself, by objecting to such obvious things.
Q: Well, I would say I don’t want him to have it if I don’t possess it. What’s the evidence I want him to have it?
K: Because I see what he has said is true, but I can’t do it myself. Sir, this is happening in the world: ‘I can’t do it myself, but perhaps you can.’
EL: Yes, but we’re dealing with a child who has taken something, and we have to convey to him that the desire of possessing something has great consequences.
K: Yes.
EL: How can I convey…?
K: Now, wait, wait, I’m not concerned with his stealing.
EL: All right, but his…
K: No, I am not concerned with his stealing. That’s out my view altogether. I’m only concerned this — the other.
EL: With possessiveness?
K: You see, you don’t… you’re going back to stealing. Wipe out that stealing. I don’t care if he steals all… (laughs).
Q: Because you want all of the children to have this, not just somebody who may take something.
K: If I can… Don’t bother all children, I’ve got a few children.
Q: Okay. Yes.
MZ: Krishnaji, lunch was twenty minutes ago. I’m sorry to interrupt, but…
K: It’s such a good subject; we have to leave this. Well, it’s up to you.
(Pause)
I’ve found the answer, but you go ahead.
(Pause)
Well sir?
DM: It seems that we have a common difficulty: we both have possessiveness, therefore we both have experience of theft.
K: Yes. But my son I don’t want… Protect him from it.
DM: But I’m saying that you are my son and as father, as son, we both are involved in possession, which means we’re both involved in stealing.
K: Yes sir.
DM: And so from that fact…
K: So forget stealing.
DM: All right.
K: S ee how you’re making stealing important?
DM: No sir, but… the two go together; in a way, that’s the point.
K: Therefore, forget it — his present act of stealing a handkerchief.
DM: Right. But what remains is that we both have possessiveness in common.
K: Go on, move.
DM: The beginning is the end, sir.
K: Yes, that sounds nice; tell me about it (laughs).
DM: There it is. We have this in common.
K: Yes.
DM: And from that we move together, if we can.
K: So, go ahead, tell me. You have stated that to me as your son: ‘We have this in common.’ Then what? ‘Yes Dad, I agree with you,’ and I leave it.
DM: You and I have it in common, all over the world man has this in common, and what is taking place in the world?
K: Yes.
DM: What are the implications of this phenomenon?
K: Of course, you can see all the whole phenomenon.
DM: Is there a way that you and I can live without that?
K: Find out. How to convey that feeling so that I really, deeply, understand it and therefore for the rest of my life I don’t possess? Do you understand, sir? We’re talking something tremendously serious. It’s not just stealing a handkerchief.
(Pause)
And that implies I’m a guest in this world. Do you understand, sir?
(Pause)
What sir?
Q: I really wouldn’t know what to do.
K: We’d better stop because it’s lunchtime.