K School – Adults Discussion 4, Brockwood Park, 17 June 1983
Krishnamurti: What shall we discuss?
Scott Forbes: The last meeting we had, sir, we seemed to have a hard time accepting the fact that we might be just a bundle of memory processes.
K: I was just wondering, sir, too… I would like to ask two questions before… Are we — as Brian Jenkins pointed out the other day — we all want to buy a car, and we discuss endlessly what colour it should be, what type of body, what tyres and so on and so on, at the end of it we never buy a car. Right sir? That’s what you said the other day. Are we driving ourselves into that position? That we argue endlessly and we have perhaps cultivated the art of arguing, and so we never come to buy the car. Is that what is happening to us here?
Ingrid Porter: Well, we certainly seem to get bogged down over details and we seem to lose sight of the main factor.
K: That’s what I’m wondering; I was wondering the other day when we were discussing. And the other, if I may most respectfully ask, I hear one or two people are leaving Brockwood — staff. If I may most politely ask, why they are leaving? Would you consider…? Am I interfering with your decisions, or persuading you to stay, or have you been persuaded to leave by one of us, or does the place — including the staff and all that we’re doing here — is it no longer valid? So if I may ask, why are we leaving? I don’t know who is leaving, as a matter of fact.
Q: Well, I’m leaving at the end of this year, sir, and…
K: You are leaving, sir?
Q: Yes.
K: I’m not interfering with your private decision, but I feel personally whoever comes here to Brockwood must stay on — personally — unless they feel it is impossible, psychologically, reasonably and sanely, they cannot possibly stay here, then it’s right that they should leave. You understand my question? I’m being most respectful in this matter, not trying to interfere.
(Pause)
Q: Why do you say that we should stay on?
K: What?
Q: Why did you say that everyone here in Brockwood should stay on, once they have come?
K: Why did you first come here? If you came here — not you, sir, I don’t know… — if I came here with a purpose, with an intention, either that purpose, that intention has radically changed; and if it has changed, I say, ‘Why have I changed? What’s wrong with the place? What’s wrong with the people here?’ I would question — you follow? — I’m questioning myself. If I am one of the staff, if I am one of the workers here, I would question why did I first come here, was that decision valid, and then if I stay on here for a couple of years and see that my… what appeared to have been a valid statement that I should come here, that validity has no longer any value. Right? So either I am deceiving myself or I’m being persuaded by the people here to leave, or I’m fed up with the whole show and I want to lead an ordinary life.
Q: Well, I think the reason to come here was not very clear. There was…
K: It’s really quite an interesting question for all of us, I am not…
(Pause)
Q: It was not very clear, the intention.
K: So, and is your decision to leave very clear too? Is it a bit confused?
Q: No, it is also a bit confused.
K: It’s very clear.
Q: No.
K: (Laughs) Where are we then?
Q: But I personally don’t feel confusion in my decision to leave.
K: What sir?
Q: I personally don’t feel confusion in my decision to leave.
Q: He doesn’t feel confusion…
K: Yes, but why do…? May I…? I’m not being personal, I’m not interfering.
Q: It may entirely have been that my reasons for coming in the first place may not have been valid — that may be possible. Because one of the things that I saw, because I had been here — before I came here as a teacher I had been here as a student — so I got a preview of it all before I had come. And I was interested in working in education in a way that I felt was healthy. But for me I felt there were great limitations in trying to organise a community of people who were trying to endeavour to do something spiritually together — or it seemed it was quite limited in that way when I was here as a student — and that aspect of the place I was not attracted to. But the aspect of the place which was trying to do something that was healthy, that was sane with education, I was quite attracted to. But in my time being here, I find that what we’re doing in education isn’t very healthy or sane, I would say, overall. Although it may be a lot better than most other schools, because most schools are horrendous. And I still find the other part — I don’t know whether you’d call it the community aspect of the place, or what label you want to put on it — not a healthy environment to… I mean, I shouldn’t say it’s not a healthy environment, but it’s not an environment I would want to live in my whole life. It’s not one I would feel I’d been flowering in or growing in.
K: Sir, this is not a confession. (Laughs)
Q: No, but this is part of the…
K: It is not a confessional. I am not the holy priest and give you absolution and all that nonsense. But I’m just… If I was here, if I came here with an intention — whatever that intention be; either the school, be a community of people who are trying to do something exceptional — and if that origin was a bit doubtful or confused — in being here that confusion must have cleared up — either stay or I leave.
(Pause)
SF: But that’s what people do, Krishnaji.
K: What?
SF: That’s what people do: as their intentions become more evident to them, they either stay or they leave.
K: Yes sir. So how would you prevent — not *prevent*, I’m using the word gently — how do you foresee and prevent — I have used the word *prevent* in a gentle way — them leaving? In all the schools in India and in California — I feel very strongly, personally, I may be totally wrong, subject to your correction and criticism — I mean it — subject to your criticism and skepticism and doubt — I feel that when they come here it is their life; and at the end of it you may find, ‘This is not my life.’ And I wonder why. There are several people in India who come and go: teachers, educators, highly qualified — you understand? — highly trained in their own particular discipline, and they leave. And we talk to them. I say, ‘Why are you leaving?’ Most of them have a better job. You understand? More money, not such an isolated place as Rishi Valley, and so on; there are all kinds of reasons why they leave. And I personally feel it’s a tremendous pity that they leave. So that’s what prompted me to ask this question. I’m not preventing you from leaving, sir, any of you.
Stephen Smith: I think the situation here in the West is very different from Rishi Valley.
K: Yes sir. I know.
SS: This is not really a stepping stone to more money, but it’s not really a stepping stone to anything else.
K: Why then, why do you leave?
Shakuntala Narayan: Sir, actually there are… there’s not one reason for people leaving. I think each person has…
K: Several reasons?
SN: …a different reason. And I feel that one of things that makes people leave is that when they come here, they come with certain expectations of the place.
K: Certain romantic expectations.
SN: Yes. They feel it’s a perfect environment, they think it’s an oasis.
K: Ah yes.
SN: And they think that it’s going to, you know…
K: Is it an oasis?
Q: No.
SN: Well, I mean in some ways, it is; but…
K: It is; it is an oasis.
SN: Yes.
Donald Dennis: Only in certain ways.
K: Wait a minute, wait a minute. In what way it’s not?
SN: Well, one of the difficulties, I think, is in a relationship when people are working together — you know? — the difficulties in relationship… You know? People expect that over here there’ll be the perfect environment and one will be able to work in a perfect… in perfect harmony; and then they realise that it isn’t there. And I think that that disillusions. That’s just one reason, I think.
K: Are these the reasons that one leaves, or there’s a basic, deep-rooted reason — one? I can give you several reasons why I leave: it’s too cold, the climate (laughs); not even sunshine, not enough sunshine; the students are rather… not sensitive, don’t want to learn — I can find a dozen reasons. But is there one specific reason that makes us leave?
(Pause)
I’m sorry you are leaving, sir. Whoever is leaving. I raise this question because I feel, when once they come, it’s their home. It’s like saying, ‘I’m leaving my home.’ That’s all.
Now, the other point — as Brian Jenkins pointed out — we never buy the car because we have got so many arguments and opinions which prevent the ultimate… ultimately getting the car. Have we come to that point? You understand my question?
SF: Well sir, it seems to me that… Are you relating these two things?
K: No, no. I am… Perhaps it may be involved, the two things, but I’m asking, the other day we talked about we are a movement of memories. We changed the word from *bundle* to *movement* of memories. That seems such an obvious fact — to me, at least — obvious, irrevocable fact. And we talked about it for a long time. And I wondered afterwards, have we come… is it we have developed an art of not doing, by arguing? I’m just putting that forward for your examination. If I don’t want to do something, I find ten different reasons for not doing it.
SF: I was just wondering that; which is why I was wondering if you were relating the two things.
K: I’m… Why is…
SF: It is that we, when we finally see the challenge…?
K: No, no. Don’t argue, don’t argue.
SF: No. I’m wondering, do we not want to do it, in fact?
K: Just stop… No, just a minute, sir. Do you, personally — if I may respectfully ask — do you see the obvious fact that we are a movement — is good enough — of memories? Right? Do you see that as a fact, not as an idea, but as a fact?
SF: I believe so.
K: No, no; not believe. Either it’s… You don’t believe the sun rises and sets — it’s a fact.
SF: Yes, but I believe I see it.
K: No, no, no. You see, either you see it or you don’t see it.
IP: There seems to be a difficulty there, Krishnaji…
K: I know.
IP: …which we’ve have talked about it before. We don’t seem to be sure that we see it; we seem to be holding back, we don’t… Have you just understood it verbally, intellectually, or do you actually see it? And we don’t seem to be able to see the difference.
SF: You see, Krishnaji, I would say, ‘Yes,’ that I do see it. But I’m sure in saying that I invite… I open myself up to someone saying, ‘No, you don’t see it, otherwise you would be completely different.’
K: You may. But you’re open to criticism, open to questioning — that’s inevitable, that’s right. But do you see it as a fact? Or your arguments, pros and cons — you know, what we did the other day — prevents you seeing the fact?
SN: Our minds are terribly argumentative.
K: Therefore is that preventing you from action? (Laughs)
SN: I’m quite sure it is.
K: It is? So is that what you have cultivated at Brockwood? (Laughs)
SS: I’m not sure that’s true, actually. I think it’s too easy to say argumentation. I think that the difficulty is being clear as to what it is you’re after.
K: We began by asking, what is it that changes. Do you remember? Is it possible to change? And then we asked, ‘What is it that changes?’ Right?
SS: Yes.
K: And we went into that and we said — I said, I may be mistaken, for your correction — that it is a series of memories, we are. Right? That’s very clear; the statement is clear. How you interpret it, how you translate it, what it means to you, is different. The statement is very clear.
SS: I’m not sure that’s where the difficulty lies. I think the difficulty lies more in what the, as it were, what we’re called upon to produce here; what we’re called upon to bring about.
K: Yes.
SS: Different human being, transformed mind and…
K: We said to bring about a change in ourselves, in relationship with the students, and the students in relationship with us. To bring about such a change, we said, ‘What is it that changes?’
SS: But this is a great bone of contention, you see?
K: What is the contention?
SS: The bone of contention. Well, how you… For instance, whether a teacher in a class talks about transforming the student or transforming himself…
K: Ah, no, no, no, no, no.
SS: Or whether he treats it as more of a private matter, and in the classroom he just teaches French or whatever.
K: No, no. No, no, we’re not talking about changing the student, or your private affair. We are asking — in the process of our talk — that there must be change in human beings. Right? And we said, ‘What is that change?’ and we said, ‘It’s a series of memories’ — that’s all we have said. Can there be change, mutation, in that movement?
SS: But isn’t the… If you start with the necessity for a change, don’t you already create some kind of impulse or movement towards a changed state, which is then not the actual understanding of *what is*?
K: The *what is* is war — let’s take that — right?
SS: Well, here that war is somewhat diminished.
K: Sir, they are preparing… All right. If you are living in Afghanistan, war is there.
SS: But we’re not.
K: Ah, therefore what? To you, war in a distant country is not yours.
SS: Well, if I’m a history teacher, I mean, I’m called upon to try and convey that this war in Afghanistan is mine. But the person in front of me might not feel that it is.
K: Therefore, I have to convince him, or it is wrong to suppose that it is our human responsibility. If you want to prevent wars, either in Afghanistan or in China or here, it’s our human responsibility to find out whether there can be an end to it. Or you say, ‘No, sorry, it cannot end,’ it’s human nature to fight. That’s also one point of view.
SS: Yes. Well, we don’t put that across.
K: No. That’s all I’m saying.
(Pause)
So where are we at the end of this? Sir, do you — if I may ask, generally — do you consider that we are a series of memories?
(Pause)
Or do you think we are not only a series of memories but there is in us an area which is not contaminated by memories?
IP: Well, that would be very nice, but we can’t suppose that is so; I mean, we don’t know.
K: No, moment you say, ‘There is,’ it’s already a memory.
IP: No, I’m saying it would be a supposition; we can’t say that. I mean, all you can say is, ‘Oh, it would be wonderful because that would take the responsibility away from me,’ but you would only be guessing at it.
K: So what do you say — not only you, madame — but what do you say to this fact? We are friends, and I tell you this fact; I say this is what it is, what human beings are. And as long as they’re functioning within that area, and that area being very limited, must bring about dissension, conflict, wars and all the rest of it. As a friend, I assert this. Either you, as a friend, you say, ‘Explain, show.’ Or you say, ‘You’re… nonsense,’ and you walk off. What are we doing now?
Gisele Balleys: I think we see that we are a bundle of memory but we don’t know how to come out of it.
K: Ah, that’s not the point.
GB: But it is what we try. For instance, I see…
K: Ah, no. Madame, écoutez. I never said get out of it. We only said…
GB: No, but it is what we want to do, sir; it is what, immediately, we try to do when we see it.
K: I know, but that’s not the point, what helps us to change. But the fact — forget the change — are we a bundle — not a bundle — a series of memories?
Q: Sir, can I ask a question? When you say that to me, the first thing that comes to my mind is that if we are a bundle of memories or a movement of memories, then what form or what validity does an inquiry, a serious inquiry, have? Can such a thing exist?
K: The validity of investigation exists only when you have no motive. If I examine or explore with a motive then the motive directs my exploration — right? Right sir?
Q: Yes.
K: So can I be free of motive to examine?
(Pause)
Wendy Agnew: This is difficult, though, because then we’ve said, you know, that one of the things we’re trying to do is change and transform, which to me already smacks of a motive, really.
K: That’s clear, isn’t it? If I have a motive to change, it’s no change. Right?
WA: Yes.
K: Yes. So if I want to bring about in myself comprehension and observation and investigation, I must have no motive.
WA: The two seem contradictory to me. I don’t see…
K: Contradictory, where?
WA: Well, because if you want to change, how can you change without a motive?
K: No, I said… no. I see the fact I am this; I can continue that way for the rest of my life, or for the rest of the past generation, present generation and continue, which means endless conflict — you know, all the rest of it — and if you say, ‘Is there a way out of all this?’ — there may not be — one asks, ‘Is there a way out of all this?’ one says, what is my motive in asking that question. If there is a motive, then that motive will dictate the answer. I don’t know… This is clear.
SS: Like a religious background, in a way.
K: Of course. I mean, this is the whole… So to approach the question without a motive apparently seems most… almost difficult. Why? Simple enough.
(Pause)
We have always motives — haven’t we? — for doing this or that. We are so used to motives, we are so conditioned to motives, and when one sees that you cannot possibly investigate, especially in a very intricate and subtle area of one’s existence, you obviously say, ‘No, sorry, I cannot have such motives’ — that’s all. Which means, if you have motives you don’t want to investigate; that’s all right too.
You asked, sir, the other day… Somebody going to say…? Go ahead.
IP: No, please…
K: Allez-y, madame.
IP: Well, what you’re suggesting is — I suppose that has to be right — that we have to see the fact and investigate without the motive…
K: Yes.
IP: …which is something that our memory tells us we just don’t do.
K: You remember you asked, sir, whether the brain can continue without deterioration. Right? We went into it. Perhaps some of you saw the fact — what are the factors of deterioration — and stopped, ended… facts. If I see a dangerous snake, I walk away. Apparently, such danger, such facts as a danger, we don’t see — why? We see a dangerous snake and walk away or kill… do something with it, but apparently we don’t see the danger, psychological dangers, in ourselves, and I’m asking, ‘Why?’
Juan Hancke: Well, I think, my proposal would be that the brain is so conditioned that it has no space to see.
K: Then change the conditioning. Don’t keep arguing endlessly; change the blasted thing.
SS: Well, that’s not — you know? — something that comes about, because your attempt to change it doesn’t change it; this is — you know? — classic.
K: Sir, please, if I walk in a pair of shoes which hurt me, I’d change it. I’d throw away and get a new pair or mend it or do something with it. Right?
SS: Well, that’s easy to change.
K: Ah, wait, wait. Why do you say that’s easy?
SS: It’s obvious.
K: Now, why isn’t the other obvious?
SS: That’s the question.
K: (Laughs) No, no. You see…
SS: Well, I think it isn’t because the thinking process doesn’t… somehow obscures it or explains it or is inured to it, or is in some way in tune with it even, or gratified by it or something.
K: All right. So you will carry on till the end of your days?
SS: No, I’m not saying I will. But I’m just trying to talk about the process.
K: No, no. That’s my point. That’s my point. I’m sticking to it. I cannot change…
SS: Well, this question of *I*, you see, is an important question. If one is to step out of it, you see, who is stepping out of it?
K: I can go into all that.
SS: If I have seen all this. Right? (Laughs)
K: I can go into all that. But at the end of it, will you see that you un-condition yourself; not wait, argue, discuss?
SS: Will I have the resolve to do it? Is that what you’re saying?
K: No! There is no resolve when you see a poisonous snake.
SS: Ah. Well, therefore I can’t gear up to do it. I mean, it must be something that comes about naturally.
K: (Laughs) You see what you’re saying? You don’t… I don’t see conditioning is as dangerous as a poisonous snake. Right? That’s all. If I saw the conditioning is as dangerous a thing as a tiger, then I’d do something about it. Don’t say, ‘Who is *I*? Who is…?’ — I’ll come to all that — but do we see the danger of this?
(Pause)
Q: Well, it’s obvious that we don’t, sir.
K: Yes sir, why? I can give you the reasons why it is dangerous — a hundred reasons.
WA: Well, Krishnaji, none of that helps; I mean, in my own mind, I’ve gone through reasons and reasons and reasons, but that doesn’t help at all.
K: So what will help you? No, go into it now, if you will. What will help you? Hit you on the head?
WA: Well, that’s what the Buddhists seem to say (laughs).
K: I’m asking, what will help you? More suffering? More pleasure? More of the same thing?
WA: Well, obviously not; that seems obvious.
K: So then… So what will help you?
WA: Well, that’s where I get stuck. I mean, I just don’t know what will help.
K: Madame, écoutez. Surely…
SS: Well, it seems to involve sensitivity because in some way we’re brutalised… (inaudible)
K: No. You see, you’re…? Now you see we’re doing? Arguing, and getting away from the central fact. (Laughs)
Q: We put it off, into the future.
K: Yes sir! That’s what you’re all doing. You have cultivated a marvellous structure (laughs).
IP: What will make us see the danger, as we would recognise a dangerous snake or a tiger?
K: Obviously, nationalism is a danger. Right? Would you agree to all that?
Q: Obviously what?
SS: This is not recognition though, is it, really.
K: Wait… Sir… For God’s sake! (Laughs) I’m asking you, is not nationalism or a particular form of religion, isn’t it a great danger in the world?
SS: Yes, it is.
K: Why do you say it is?
SS: Because it divides, because it divides people.
K: That’s all. All right. It’s a danger. And if you see it as dangerous as a cobra, a snake, you move away from it. Right? So you see danger and move. Do you see danger of division between Hindus, Muslims and all that rot? So you’re not a Hindu — finished. Right?
GB: Yes.
K: Now, move into the same area (laughs) — not same area — into another area, where division in myself is a dangerous thing.
(Pause)
No answer.
SS: Well, in a way, it’s difficult to see. You mean division between thought and feelings, or…?
K: No, in myself. A contradiction in myself — I’m taking a very simple thing — a contradiction in myself.
IP: Well, we can see… you can see a contradiction in yourself, but you don’t seem to be able to see that it runs through everything you do. You can pick out an isolated incident and see it quite clearly and you can drop it. But you…
K: But the whole series of divisions is a very dangerous thing. If one is dangerous, the rest… Logically, right?
IP: Yes. But it doesn’t work. You can break down a lot of isolated things but that doesn’t really get at the root of the problem.
K: So what… I’m asking you, what is the root of the problem?
IP: That’s what I asked you. (Laughs)
K: I’ll tell you — thought.
(Pause)
Thought is limited, therefore it is divisive. Right? You may… I’ll discuss that with you. Thought is the result of memory, memory is knowledge and experience brings knowledge, and knowledge and experience are always — past, future, present — is limited. So thought is limited.
IP: Well, as things are, thought is the tool we use to investigate which means really that we’re getting deeper into the mess.
K: No. It’s a fact. This is a fact that thought is limited. No?
Brian Jenkins: Yes, but she’s saying, Krishnaji, that we use thought to investigate.
K: No, no. I’m coming to that, but…
BJ: Well, I think that’s what we’re doing.
K: No. I am saying, first see that thought is limited. It’s a fact. All the things that the Catholics have put up for the last two thousand years is very limited. Right?
BJ: Yes.
K: What the Hindus have done for the last five thousand years is limited. What the Egyptian… is limited. And so on. And all that is created by thought. They may say it’s direct commands of God, the highest. You follow? When they state that, that’s also the activity of thought. Their God; not your God, my God. So thought is limited. You can’t… I mean, that’s a fact.
Doris Pratt: That’s a new fact to us. Isn’t there a sense in which time comes into it, because although… we have been conditioned, as you have said, for millions and millions of years, we are embedded in the thought process.
K: I know.
DP: And to see that…
K: I may be embedded for the last ten thousand years in some illusion, and you come along and say, ‘That’s an illusion,’ I won’t let go.
DP: Yes, but doesn’t it take a little time…
K: No, no.
DP: …in some senses, for that to become really clear?
K: It may not…
DP: When I have been really embedded in thought, how can I see anything very clearly for the first time?
K: By listening…
DP: You see, this is very new this teaching, Krishnaji, new historically and in every possible way. How can we grasp it in one go?
K: You see, that’s just it. By listening to what the other man is saying. Clearly, without any bias, find out if it is true or false.
DP: There is a sense in which that takes time, though.
K: Oh no.
SF: Sir, it seems quite simple, what you’re saying. Now, what is it that prevents that from occurring when people feel that they very genuinely want to listen to that man, and…?
K: Sir, did you listen when I said — I’m not asking you to listen, I’m just asking respectfully — that we are a series of movements in time as memory? That’s all. Did you listen to it?
SF: Yes.
K: What did you get out of it?
DP: So strange.
SF: It alters the way one sees oneself.
K: No, no, no. What did you get out of the statement? Not what see one… You make a statement, ‘God is not. God is the invention of man.’ I listen to it, and I say, ‘Is that so?’ Right? I’m not saying you’re right or wrong, I want to find out. I have listened very carefully to what you have said, and I want to see if what you say is true or false. And I say, ‘How do I find out what is true and false?’ Right? I ask you, you explain, I see certain facts are true, and other facts I’m confused. I say, ‘I must be clear that I’m confused.’ Right? And I may translate what you’re saying, in my confusion, wrongly. Right? Therefore, I’m very careful not to be confused. Which means I am willing to listen to the very end of your statement.
WA: But isn’t it important… (inaudible)?
SF: Sir, this does not happen.
K: Obviously. (Laughs)
SF: Now, why? Why, Krishnaji, doesn’t it happen?
WA: You see, Krishnaji, when you say you go through it and you… I mean, I can feel in my mind, my thought is going through it and deciding what’s…
K: Therefore, you’re occupied with your own thought and not listening to the other chap.
WA: Well, you see, thought and listening seems the same to me.
K: That’s what we are doing. The brain is chattering, and you’re telling me something most serious, you say, ‘I’m sorry, I can’t understand what you’re saying.’
WA: No, well, I might think about it.
K: Wait a minute. And you repeat it, my brain is chattering. So you say, ‘Out of politeness, I can’t ask him again,’ so you keep quiet and you go on chattering. After ten years, you say, ‘I haven’t understood what you’re saying.’ (Laughs)
IP: Is that the problem?
K: It becomes rather silly, the whole thing.
IP: Is that the problem, that we don’t know how to listen?
K: Partly. And also, we are not aware of our own chattering.
(Pause)
If I want to listen to you, I stop chattering. Right? I’m talking to him, chattering with him about bad weather, and you come along and tell me something, I stop having a chat with him and I listen to you.
WA: But what’s happening, Krishnaji, in that listening? See, that’s what I don’t seem to be able to…
K: I’ll tell you. I’ll go into it, if you will do it — that’s all I am talking about. (Laughs)
BJ: Krishnaji, I’ve seen people listening to you with their eyes closed and they’re off on some trance. You’re not talking about that are you?
K: Yes sir. Yes, I know all this. I’ve watched it for years, all over the world.
(Laughter)
(Pause)
About seven to eight thousand people turn up in Bombay to talks — you have seen them, probably — about five, two per cent understand what I’m — or one per cent — the rest… (laughs).
(Pause)
Do you really want to find out about anything? Not books and… Find out about yourself — really? Do you?
IP: Yes.
Q: Yes.
Many: Yes.
K: I’m your instructor, for the moment. Will you listen to what I’m saying? ‘Listen, I’m your teacher,’ (laughs) as you tell them. I’m your teacher, for the moment, please. And I say to you, after… I’ll explain very carefully the limitation of thought, very, very carefully, logically. Right? Do you see the truth of it? Not the idea of it, not the explanation, not the verbal usage of different words and so on, but do you see the truth of it, that thought is limited? Some of the scientists are beginning to say that. When it becomes… when all the world accepts it, then you say, ‘Yes, I accept it. It is so.’
WA: Well, the scientists who say it, it hasn’t changed their lives.
K: Wait, I’m coming to that. Do you see the truth, the fact, that thought is limited?
(Pause)
Q: It’s fairly obvious that is.
K: Yes sir, I don’t know what the difficulty is.
WA: Well, I feel like Scott, if I say ‘Yes,’ then you’re going to say, ‘Well…’ — you know? — (inaudible) …which will change your life if you see it.
K: No, I won’t say anything. No, no, no. Look, I didn’t say that.
Frank Archer: Krishnaji, perhaps it’s necessary to make clear precisely about how thought is limited, to explain.
K: Would you admit that experience is limited?
FA: Yes.
K: Be clear, sir.
FA: Yes.
K: I mean, that’s a fact.
FA: Yes. I mean, one has…
K: If it is clear, don’t explain. Experience is limited. I may have experienced God, but that God, that experience is based on my tradition — right? — and my God is something, X, and your God is something, Y. Right? So I say to you, I can give you ten explanations that experience is always limited. Right? And without experience you have no knowledge: scientific knowledge, sexual knowledge, drinking beer (laughs) — right? — it’s all based on experience and knowledge. And since experience is limited, knowledge is invariably limited.
Q: You mean it can be correct…? You can have correct thinking, it’s still limited.
K: You can’t.
Q: I mean, when you say thinking is limited you can give examples of thinking which is incorrect, wrong thinking…
K: Yes, I can give you a dozen…
Q: …but then there’s correct thinking, accurate thinking.
K: No, no. There is no correct thinking; thinking is always limited.
Q: No, but it can be correct, for example, in some mathematical formula. It’s correct… yes.
K: Of course, sir. We made it very clear the other day. There is an area…
Q: No, I mean psychologically; is there not correct thinking, psychologically?
K: Psychologically, as well as — what do you call it? — technologically, thought is limited. Otherwise, there would be… technologically progress wouldn’t exist. Two hundred years ago, what we know now, didn’t exist. But it existed, it has come now through experience — right? — accumulation of more and more experience of various scientists — right? — so they have now great knowledge — right? — and that knowledge is based on a hundred or two hundred scientists, whose experience has been limited, and each scientist is adding. So knowledge is invariably limited. They may go to the Moon — right? — technologically. And going to the Moon and going further is still based on thought. Right? Going from here to Winchester is based on thought. So would you agree, would you see the fact, the truth, that experience being limited, so knowledge is limited — right? — and memory is limited. Right? And therefore thought is limited. You can’t think without memory. Right? Do you see that as a fact?
Q: Yes sir. To me, that’s clear.
K: Right? Very clear. Now, that… Then the next question is, that limitation brings about division. When I am thinking about myself, which most of us do, and that’s very limited — obviously, sir.
Q: Yes.
K: So…
SS: What you’re saying, by implication, is that if I’m thinking at all I’m thinking about myself.
K: No, I did not. Now, wait a minute, sir. You see, you introduce something which I have to go into, but you’re not following the other.
SS: Yes, I am.
K: I am saying, as long as I am thinking about myself, that thinking about myself is very small.
Q: Yes.
K: That’s all.
Q: But if you are thinking not about yourself, is that also limited?
K: Yes, thinking is limited.
SN: Is there any thinking that’s…
K: Wait! Look, now you’re going off.
SN: No.
K: You see, this is what happens. Sorry, I’m going…
SN: No, it’s going on to Steve’s question.
K: No. He went on to something else, and you’re catching him — I haven’t moved.
(Laughter)
Q: See, first of all, is it a general principle that any thought is limited?
K: Of course.
Q: You see, is it limited by the experience or memory that one has?
SN: Yes, but Krishnaji said that thinking is related to the self.
K: I did not say that.
SN: You did use the word *self*. (Laughs)
K: I did not say that. (Laughter)
You see, this is what happens to you. I said, thinking about oneself…
SN: Yes. That’s what you said. (Laughs)
(Laughter)
K: (Laughs) Gosh, you’re all so… Thinking about oneself is very limited. That’s so obvious. Right? Would you agree to that?
Q: Yes, because there are four billion of us in the…
K: It is so… Yes. I’m not saying whether it is right or wrong, whether it should be changed or not changed. It is so. When I am thinking, in India, as a particular Brahman, it’s very, very small. Right? So thinking, based on experience and knowledge and memory, is always limited, in the future or in the present or in the past. Right? What’s the difficulty? If you once said to me, ‘Experience is limited,’ then the whole process of thought is limited. Take the scientific world, they have experience with… they have an hypothesis, theorems and then try to prove it; then you come along and say, ‘That’s not so’ — you add a little — and they have built it up.
DD: Yes, but sir, that’s logically true…
K: What?
DD: It seems logical, you can see that on the basis of an argument, say, that…
K: No, no. I don’t argue, it is so.
DD: Then it seems we need to be able to see it more directly.
K: What?
DD: We need to see that thought is limited, directly.
K: Why don’t you see it directly? It’s so simple. You can’t be more simple than this.
DD: Well, if I think about (laughs) how knowledge is based on experience, and experience…
K: No sir, it’s a fact. First, I experience — right? — there is experience. A snake bites me, I get pain, and then from there I say, ‘I must be very careful of snakes’ — that’s knowledge. And I begin to discover there are snakes that are not poisonous — that’s also knowledge. Right? And so on, so on and so on. Knowledge is gradually built up, gathered and accumulated and held through experience, either through a microscope or through actual experience. I have a theory that — as the Catholics had in the fourteenth century — that the whole world… the heavens turn round the earth, the earth is fixed. Galileo said, ‘No, it’s the contrary,’ and he was nearly tortured for that. And later on, they admitted it. So knowledge… (laughs) — right? Thought is invariably limited. If it was not limited, we’d be… the first experiment would take us to the Moon. Right? But it has taken many years, gathering knowledge bit by bit. You follow? I don’t see the difficulty in this.
DD: Well, the difficulty is that obviously we have some feeling or sense that there’s an unlimited aspect of thought.
K: How do you know?
DD: No, but it’s a sense we carry with us.
K: So sir, leave the poor thing — the unlimited — alone, and look at the limited, first.
DD: Yes, but…
K: Look sir, through astrophysicists they are trying to find out what the universe is — right? You know this; we all know it — through a telescope, through all the rest of it. Their examination, their gathering of what is happening in the universe is limited. Right? Somebody will come along in another year, say, ‘It’s much more than that’ — add… Right? So knowledge…
SF: Sir, I was just… Many people feel that what you… what a person can learn through experience is different and somehow intrinsically better than what one can learn through thought.
K: Look sir…
SF: You seem to be indicating that thought and experience are…
K: No, no. I don’t know these peculiar birds but I’m saying that experience is the basis of knowledge.
SF: Right.
K: Take it or leave it; it’s a fact. I don’t know the girl I am courting but I begin to talk to her… (laughs). Right?
SF: Yes.
K: I don’t know what’s the objection to this.
DD: None.
K: I don’t know, but you’re all objecting.
DD: No, I’m not objecting…
K: Wait a minute. Do you see it as a fact?
DD: It seemed to me you were describing…
K: Ah, no, no. Somebody says, ‘That’s a snake,’ and you look at it and say, ‘By Jove, you’re cuckoo. That’s a wire.’ Right? So I am saying something very factual; even some of the scientists are admitting this… and what’s your difficulty?
BJ: Krishnaji, thought being limited, is this conversation then limited?
K: Of course. It all depends how you listen to it. (Laughs)
(Pause)
DD: I’m just feeling that there must be some deeper perception possible of this.
K: There is, but first acknowledge this. (Laughs)
DD: Ah, okay, yes. Fine.
K: You see, you want to jump into something before you have taken the first step. You must go to… If you are going to swim, you must walk to the pool, take your clothes off or something and then jump in, but you’re not doing that. You stay here (laughs) and say, ‘What is it like to get into the water?’
(Pause)
I’m really surprised about this.
DD: No, okay, so it’s clear that, I mean, on the basis of your description… That’s clear.
K: No, don’t accept it because out of boredom. (Laughs)
DD: No, no. I’m just wondering, I thought you were saying, ‘Do you see it deeply?’ or do I see it as the first step…
K: There is no question of deeply or superficially, it’s so. That’s a microphone. You don’t say, ‘I must look at it deeply.’
(Laughter)
Q: But it remains a microphone…
K: God, you people are the most extraordinary! (Laughs)
(Pause)
IP: I don’t think we have any problem with the microphone at all.
K: What?
IP: We don’t have any problem with the microphone but it’s trying to…
K: No, this is exactly like the microphone. The microphone has been put together through a great deal of experience — right? — which means a great deal of knowledge, year after year after year… the computer is being built that way. So experience is limited. It’s so clear. *Nom d’un chien*. (Laughs) What are you all getting…?
David Wolfe: When I say, I see the microphone, I don’t see all of the microphone, I see the outer part of the microphone.
K: Of course.
DW: There’s lots more inside.
K: Of course, sir
DW: There’s lots more inside of that.
K: Now, I’m going inside of that, if you want to.
DW: Yes, yes. So… but the mistake is to say, ‘I see all of the microphone,’ I don’t see all of it, there’s…
K: Of course, not.
DW: Yes.
K: I don’t see all of the tree.
DW: No. So I only see in a limited way.
K: Yes.
DW: Yes.
K: So would you see the fact that knowledge is limited because it’s based on experience, which is limited. Nobody in the world says, ‘I’ve experienced everything.’ (Laughs)
(Pause)
SF: But people say something that’s very close, Krishnaji.
K: I know, I know.
SF: They say they have an experience of everything, or they have an experience of the absolute.
K: Ah no, that’s all… No, no, no; that’s all… The moment they use the words, ‘I have experienced,’ you know they are talking in limited terms. What is the difficulty, may I ask? Do you see it as a fact?
DD: I don’t think there’s a difficulty at present.
Harsh Tankha: There’s maybe two difficulties…
K: There is no difficulty?
HT: No, there’s no difficulties, I…
K: All right. Then if you see… (laughs). You see? You’re all…
(Laughter)
BJ: Did you hear what Harsha said?
K: No sir.
BJ: He said there were two difficulties, but then when you looked at him, he said there were no difficulties.
K: (Laughs) This is crazy!
IP: I think the difficulty is that it’s really simple but we feel it should be difficult.
K: Who is in the zoo and who is not? (Laughs)
(Pause)
Would you admit that we need a real deep psychological revolution? Would you all admit to that?
Q: Yes.
Q: Yes.
K: Right? You admit that? What will you do about it?
(Pause)
We must have a marvellous world where there are no wars, but one must do something about it, you can’t say… (laughs). If you want a world in which there is peace, you must live peacefully. That’s a fact. Right? Then why don’t we live peacefully? (Laughs) Because we don’t want a world that’s peaceful — that’s all. Right sir?
(Pause)
We can discuss what is peace, go into all the intricacies of it, the complexities of it, but the urge to live peacefully is important to go in… if we want to live peacefully.
(Pause)
Is it, sir, that we are so clever, read so many books, that we don’t see a simple thing?
SS: I… (inaudible) …you talk about an urge for peace, really, you…
K: No, I’m asking a different… (laughs) — hey! — I’m asking a different question.
BJ: No, I don’t think it’s that, Krishnaji.
K: What?
BJ: I don’t think it is that.
K: Then what is the difficulty?
SN: The simple man seems to be stuck, too; the one who doesn’t read seems to be stuck as well.
K: Then what am I to do? Look at… Put yourself in my place, what am I to do? If you are sitting here and you have stated all this, and… what am I to do?
SN: We feel a bit like that too, sir, you know?
K: What?
SN: We feel, ‘What is one to do?’
K: Do you feel that? Then let’s find out together. You see? Then you stop! (Laughs)
BJ: We may not be stopping.
K: Then do you really want to find out what to do?
Q: Yes sir.
K: If you do, let’s talk about it. Don’t say half-way, half a dozen things, let’s find out what to do, with the world and with myself. Right? Myself is the world. That’s a fact. And the world is me — of course, if I am that, that’s me — so unless there is a radical revolution in me, there won’t be a change there. So my concern, my responsibility, is to change, do something. If I am nationalistic, I see that danger, what it’s doing to the world, I drop it. I don’t reason; I see it’s so obvious. If I belong to a particular type of religion: Catholic, Protestant, whatever it is, that’s a very divisive, destructive — though they may talk about peace, love and all the rest of it, it’s very destructive — so I won’t belong to any religion, to any religious group, blah, blah, all the rest of it. Right? Will you? Have you advanced that… Have you gone that far?
BJ: Yes.
K: Right. Then you ask, ‘Now, what is it that I have to change in me? What is the root of it? I am jealous, I am greedy, I am fearful, I suffer, I’m lonely and so on, but what’s the root of all that?’
(Pause)
BJ: Well, it is this movement of thought.
K: Which means what? Time and thought. Time being… time is necessary to gather knowledge. And out of that knowledge time, I mean thought. So time is thought and thought is limited. Now, if I really see the fact of that then I can say, ‘Now, where is thought necessary and not necessary?’ You understand now? Where is it necessary? To go from here to Winchester it’s necessary, to learn a language it’s necessary, to put a computer together… As you were putting together the cupboard upstairs, you had to use thought — where the screws went and all the rest of it — you have to use thought. Now I’m asking, where is it not necessary? In that area it is necessary. Now where is it not necessary?
BJ: Well, in the field of our relationships.
K: Yes. Which means in my accumulated knowledge in our relationship — right? — there it’s not necessary. If I have known you for the last ten years and I have built up certain prejudices against you, or you have built it against me, those prejudices are the product of thought which is going to create a barrier between us. So thought is not necessary in relationship, which is a tremendous thing. Right? So you see the fact, that thought in relationship is destructive. Right? So what happens? Thought is necessary in this area; thought is not necessary in this area. Right? You see what happens if there is thought between us: I’m jealous of you, or… — you know, all the rest of it — so what shall I do? I said thought is not necessary — right? — so it’s not necessary. (Laughs) It is necessary for me to carry a bag to New York, so I pack it and so on. But if I’m climbing the mountain, it is not necessary; a few things… If you see thought is not necessary — right? — that very perception that it’s not necessary ends thought in relationship. That’s simple enough. You all listen to our conversation, where are you? (Laughs)
HT: So I think we… What you say is clear but I don’t think we have seen the whole of thought through….
K: Oh, my God. No, really, sir. Thought is always limited: past thinking, present thinking and future thinking. That’s so. Because thinking is based on knowledge and knowledge is the result of experience.
HT: That’s so, sir.
K: So thought is limited. And when thought enters in relationship, it creates division, I become jealous of him, he’s my wife or husband, and: ‘Ah, my God…’ — all the rest of it. Right sir? This is what’s happening.
DP: Nevertheless, there is a place for thought in relationship, isn’t there?
K: No.
DP: Well, how are we to discuss what to do with our students, whether to teach…?
K: We’re not discussing what to do with the students.
DP: No, but we’re discussing the place of thought in relationship.
K: Yes.
DP: We must think about our students.
K: What is the…? You have relationship with — who? — Mrs Porter, some kind of relationship. Is it based on thought? Don’t talk about the student, before we have understood the thing.
DP: Yes but when you generalise, these other things come in.
K: It’s not generalisation.
DP: It’s generalising to say, ‘Thought has no place in relationship.’
K: I’ve explained very carefully. I am related to Brian Jenkins — my wife or my husband, my father, whatever he is — and when there is activity of thought between us — right? — it’s very limited. I become jealous. Right? I want… I’m attached to you and you turn your face the other way, and I get angry, hate, jealousy — you know, all the rubbish begins; all the garbage begins. It’s so obvious.
DP: Then I have to think, ‘How am I going to meet him next time?’
K: Oh no, really, Miss Pratt, that’s… I said very carefully… Please, I keep on repeating, then you keep on repeating something else. I keep on repeating, ‘As long as there is thought in relationship there is going to be conflict.’ Of course, I’m going to recognise him the next day, he’s my wife or husband, or my girlfriend. Of course. I don’t say, ‘I’ve forgotten all about you.’
(Laughter)
She’ll kick me. I wish I could, probably, but… (laughs).
DW: Well, it’s quite clear that our relationships, as they stand at present, are based on thought.
K: That’s all; so simple, sir. And that… because thought is limited, it’s breeding such conflict. Right? It’s so clear.
(Pause)
If thought in relationship is dangerous, then you will do something (laughs), as you will do something about a snake which is dangerous.
HT: Sir, but you have said this often.
K: Yes sir. I repeat. (Laughs)
HT: That thought is limited. Now, why isn’t that enough?
K: You ask yourself. (Laughs) If you tell me something, either I’m dumb, I don’t want to find out or I’m bored with what you’re saying. But if I really want to find out why in my relationship there is such appalling conflict… This is all over the world, this is not just in Brockwood, it’s all over the world, there is tremendous conflict between people, whether husband, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend and so on. So I say, ‘What is the cause of this terrible conflict?’ You can see it clearly: I want my way, she wants her way. Or she is attached to me, and I’m not attached to her, and — you know? — the whole thing. I want to be loved, she says, ‘Go to hell. I don’t love you, I love somebody else.’
Baruch Livneh: And you put all that under the heading of thought?
K: Isn’t it?
BL: I mean: ‘I want to be loved’? That’s all… So… I mean, you…
K: Of course. Isn’t it? Isn’t it? You answer it, sir. Isn’t it?
BL: You call it… For some reason, you choose to use the word *thought* to describe all these things. I mean…
K: It’s so clear, isn’t it? Would you be jealous if you didn’t think? If you weren’t attached?
BL: I mean, can you think and not be jealous, though?
K: What?
BL: But you can think and not be jealous, can’t you?
K: Wait sir, wait sir, wait sir. (Laughs)
BL: Yes, I think so.
K: Yes. You can think, of course. But when your wife is running away with another man, you’re thinking — right? — and that creates jealousy, hate, anger. What’s the…?
SS: I think the suggestion is that a lot of the… we don’t think of them as thought. I mean, feelings you don’t think of as thought, but you say that they are the same.
K: Is there feeling without thought?
BL: Are you saying thinking is more fundamental than feeling? More… I mean…
K: Sir, if you didn’t think about your feelings, would you have feelings? I feel — what? And then thoughts says, ‘You are jealous, Old Boy.’ What’s…? Right sir?
BJ: Well, I don’t think it’s clear, Krishnaji, that thought and feeling are integrally related.
K: Of course, they are. Sir, I hit you, that’s a feeling: insult.
BJ: You hit me? Sorry. Okay.
K: Hit you, physically. Then you say, ‘That man hurt me, he’s a brute, he’s…’ and you feel the pain. Now, I insult you — right? — and you don’t like it. Why? Because you have an image and all the rest of it. So sir, there is no feeling without thought. Is this something new? (Laughs) What? Nobody says, because it’s so…
SS: Well, you say the thinking process is involved in feeling.
K: Of course.
SN: Feeling without thought would be then just pure sensation, would it? If there was no thought…
K: It would be sensation.
SN: …it would just be…
JK: See, it hasn’t been clear before, because when you talk about thinking… Well, feelings are taken to be in some way true, whereas when you say thinking is a process of… etc., etc., it doesn’t seem quite the same. But if you mean thinking and feeling, then it’s different altogether.
K: So what shall we do now, sir? Do you see that thought in relationship is very dangerous? Right? We’ve come to that. Do you see the danger of it? As you see a snake, a dangerous snake, as dangerous as the other? Yes sir.
(Pause)
Either we see the danger, or say, ‘Yes, it’s dangerous, but I like my own way; I’ve been going on for the last fifty years.’ Or you see the danger and move, change, stop.
BJ: Or, Krishnaji, maybe I have some rather ingrained habits.
K: Of course, I said that. I said, ingrained habit, that’s been going on for a million years. And so you say, ‘It’s all right.’ It’s like those people who say, ‘I don’t mind smoking. I may die, but I don’t mind smoking.’
BJ: Well, it’s not all right, Krishnaji, but one… I mean, that is the difficulty again.
SF: Sir, you asked us at one point to remind you that you’d spoken for an hour, and you have spoken for an hour and a half now.
K: Let’s stop. You see, sir, I don’t… Do you want me to go on talking to this group? What’s the point of it? (Laughs)
IP: Well, we always seem to be coming to a certain point and we don’t seem to be able to go… (inaudible).
K: I’ll pick it up tomorrow, but what’s the point of it? You listen… I’m not saying… I’m saying most respectfully, what’s the point of all this?
(Pause)
WA: Are you asking whether we become dependent on you?
K: Not only that. What’s the point of my talking, pointing out the most simple things, and yet you don’t do anything about it? (Laughs) I say, ‘You’ll see much better without the glasses’ — suppose — and you won’t take off your glasses.
(Pause)
I think we’ll meet… When, next? (Laughs)
(Laughter)
It’s such a rummy crowd!
Ray McCoy: You’re talking with David Bohm tomorrow, sir.
K: Yes sir, I’m going to stop. Tomorrow?
SF: Yes, and then…
RM: Yes, and then you’re speaking on Sunday and you face us on Monday.
K: Oh, for God’s sake, I forgot.
SF: Perhaps you should have a day off, Krishnaji, because you’re going to speak on Tuesday to the students.
(Laughter)
K: I thought — wait a minute, sir — I thought Saturday was a free day.
SF: No. No, no. You’ll be talking with David tomorrow, and everybody on Sunday; on Monday you probably should have a day off, because you talk to the students on Tuesday.
K: I’ll be dead. (Laughs) All right, sir, let’s stop. You fix a date, we’ll all arrange it. If you want it.
Q: (Inaudible) …for today, Krishnaji.
K: I hope this isn’t becoming a habit, talking to me.
(Pause)
I talked to the students about thought, limited, they saw it. They said, ‘Yes sir,’ I realised very quickly, they saw it. What they will do about it, that’s a different matter.
Q: They didn’t just agree, did they? I mean, ‘Yes sir, yes sir’ — you know?
K: No, no. I went it out, quite surely. I hammered it in. (Laughs)