Dialogue 1, Brockwood Park, 28 September 1979

> Jean-Louis Dewez: Monsieur Krishnamurti, je souhaiterais vous poser des questions sur un sujet qui me paraît tout à fait essentiel, qui est le problème central de : qu’est-ce que c’est que la pensée ? Ce problème est tout à fait central, tout à fait important pour l’être humain parce que tout ce que l’être humain peut connaître du réel, de la réalité, ça veut dire de l’extérieur mais ça veut dire aussi de lui-même, tout ce qu’il peut connaître passe par les perceptions et puis, tout de suite, est traité par la pensée. *[Mr Krishnamurti, I wish to ask you some questions on a topic which I feel is very essential. That is, the central question of what is thought? This problem is very crucial, very important where human beings are concerned, because all that human beings can know of the real, of reality, meaning that which is outside as well as inside themselves, all they are able to know goes through their perceptions but is immediately dealt with thought.]*
>
> Et alors, il y a là un point de passage obligé, ou ce qui semble être obligé. Et, si tout passe par la pensée, même la connaissance que je crois avoir de moi, la connaissance des autres, etc., alors il faut réfléchir profondément sérieusement sur ce que c’est que la pensée. *[This is inevitable, or appears to be so. Yet if everything is processed by thought, including what I believe I know about myself and others, then one has to go deeply and seriously into that question of what is thought.]*

La pensée crée des associations d’idées qui peuvent peut-être bloquer la compréhension. Si vous permettez, je voudrais prendre un exemple qui concerne tout de suite notre discussion. *[Thought creates associations which can eventually impede understanding. If you do not mind, I’d wish to take an example which has a direct bearing on our discussion.]*

Ce dialogue est enregistré et sera entendu probablement par d’autres personnes. Je pense en particulier par des occidentaux que l’on dit rationalistes, des gens qui ne se sont pas posé de questions spirituelles d’aucune sorte. Je me demande si, en ce moment, le simple nom de Krishnamurti ne créé pas des associations d’esprit…

K: Oui, c’est ça.

D: … qui déjà vont bloquer l’écoute. *[This dialogue is being recorded and will probably be heard by other persons. I have in mind especially those people, Western people, said to be rationalists, people who have never inquired into spiritual questions. I wonder whether at this very moment the mere name of Krishnamurti is not creating in their mind certain associations which may have already impeded their listening?]*

Alors, la première question, avant que nous rentrions dans le sujet de la pensée, et que nous le prenions avec le plus de détails possibles et le plus de sérieux possible, la première question peut-être pour ceux qui nous écoutent, qui nous écouteraient, nous écouteront, serait : est-ce qu’ils peuvent regarder en eux-mêmes, déjà (et nous-mêmes, et moi) les associations, les préjugés qu’il y a à rencontrer quelqu’un qui porte un nom comme le vôtre ou qui est d’origine de l’Inde, ou de choses comme ça. Et comment écouter ce qui va se dire maintenant sans ces blocages, sans ces préjugés ? *[So, the first question, prior to going into this matter of thought with as much detail and seriousness as is possible, the first question for those who are listening or will eventually listen: can each of us look into himself or herself for those associations and prejudices which occur when meeting someone who bears a name like yours, or whose origin is Indian, or any such things? And how to listen to what is going to be said without those blocks, without those prejudices?]*

K: It’s very difficult to listen to somebody, whether he is from the Orient or the Occident, because even in the Orient, tradition is so strong there, of what is spirituality. Various teachers and various ancient traditions hold them. Here in the Occident, so-called religious spirit, feeling, so-called spirituality, if we can use that word, is very, very rarely thought about, gone into. So you are asking, aren’t you: is there a perception — vous comprenez?

D: Oui, très bien. *[* *Yes, very well.]*

K: …is there a perception which is outside the process of thought? Is there an understanding, an insight, an immediate comprehension, without going through all the machinery of thought?

D: Et, en ce moment, moi, celui qui écoute, peut-il avoir une perception immédiate de ce qu’il a en ce moment dans la tête par rapport à cette discussion, ou par rapport à vous ou par rapport à toutes choses ? *[And presently, can I, can the listener, have an immediate perception of what is going on inside his head with regard to this discussion, or with regard to you, or with regard to anything?]*

K: Oui.

D: Est-ce qu’on peut avoir une perception immédiate de la façon dont la pensée filtre, en ce moment, les choses qu’elle entend ? *[Can one have an immediate perception of the way thought actually filters the things that we hear?]*

K: So, I understand that question, sir. You are saying: is there a perception, immediate, of the reality, of something that is true, which isn’t circumscribed or associated with thought? So the question is really: what is the process of thinking? Would you say that is the central question?

D: C’est la question qui me paraît centrale. Est-ce que l’on peut effectivement approfondir ça d’une façon aussi rationnelle que possible, avec un discours aussi rationnel que possible ? *[This question seems central to me. Can we go into this as rationally as we can, with as rational a discussion as is possible?]*

K: Si, si, si. You see, this question is not Oriental or Occidental, it is a question of human beings, it is a question that affects all humanity, whether it is Orient or Occident, or Catholic or Protestant, conservative, liberal or totalitarian, it affects all human beings who are concerned with bringing about a different society, a society which is not merely somewhere in the future, idealistic and so on, but a society which can take place now, a society which is essentially good. I mean, if you are interested we could go into that word ‘good’, but for the moment we’ll leave that aside. But what is thinking?

(Pause)

After all, thinking begins with knowledge…

D: La mémoire.

K: First, knowledge. Then, that knowledge is the result of experience, whether it is scientific, biological, physical or imaginary, illusory. Knowledge. That knowledge is stored in the brain and so on, and there is the memory. The reaction of that memory is thought.

D: Probablement, certaines personnes, je ne pense pas aux scientifiques, bien qu’il y en ait, diraient que ce n’est pas seulement la mémoire, qu’il y a une âme, qu’il y a quelque chose. Il y a deux façons de voir le problème de la pensée : ou bien on imagine qu’il y a un pilote, là, quelque part, quelqu’un qui conduit, derrière, et puis ce que l’on pense émerge de ce pilote qui sait où il va. Ou bien des rationalistes diraient probablement : la pensée est un processus biologique mécanique. *[A number of persons, I am not thinking of scientists although there might be some, would probably say that there is not just memory, that there is something else, something like a soul. That is to say that the problem of thought can be seen both ways. Either there’s a pilot somewhere behind the steering wheel, in which case what one thinks stems out of this pilot who knows where he is going; or, according to what rationalists probably would say, thought is a biological, mechanical process.]*

K: Oui, ça c’est juste. *[Yes, that’s right.]*

D: C’est juste.

K: N’est-ce pas ?

D: C’est juste. *[That is so.]*

K: Vous savez… regardez : the brain is recording. Bien? Like a — what do you call it, vous savez? — the instrument that records?

D: Un magnétophone. *[* *A tape* *recorder]*

K: Yes, magnétophone, c’est ça. There’s an incident, pleasurable or painful, that’s recorded — right? — which becomes the memory. So, experience, knowledge is the pilot, who is all the time guiding. Right? Like driving a car, there’s a person who is driving it, and the person has had experience of driving, and that becomes mechanical, partially, and there is always the driver watching, which is essentially experience and knowledge.

D: Ceci est clair quand il s’agit d’une connaissance mécanique. *[That’s obvious in the case of mechanical knowledge.]*

K: Mécanique, oui. But aren’t all of our habits almost mechanical? Our thinking is mechanical.

D: Regardons ce mot ‘mécanique’. Cela veut dire qu’il y a des causes qui produisent des effets qui produisent des causes. *[Let’s look at that word* *’mechanical’. It means that there are causes which produce effects which produce causes.]*

K: C’est ça.

D: Alors si on accepte la phrase : la pensée est un processus mécanique, si l’on voit ça, cela veut dire une suite de causes et d’effets. *[So, if you accept the phrase* *’thought is a mechanical process,’* *if that is seen, that means a series of causes and effects.]*

K: Aussi la répétition. *[Also repetition.]*

D: Et de répétition. Cela veut dire essentiellement que la pensée venant des causes, elle vient du passé. Elle vient de causes qui sont antérieures, qui sont le passé. *[And repetition. Essentially this means that thought stemming out of causes, it thus comes from the past, comes from previous causes, which are past.]*

K: C’est passé, oui. La pensée est basée sur le passé. *[That’s past, yes. Thought is based on the past.]* Even scientific knowledge is based on the past — accumulated, learnt, held, and to that you add more and more and more. But it’s still the total accumulation of scientific knowledge, up to now.

D: Cependant, l’expérience qu’on a de nous-mêmes, il semble qu’il y ait un ‘je’, moi, et que ce ‘je’ ne semble pas être dépendant du passé, il semble être libre de faire… Comment, si la pensée est mécanique, d’où vient ce que j’appelle ‘je’, qui semble être une entité libre, autonome, de faire ce qu’elle veut ? Est-ce qu’on peut, est-ce que vous pouvez pénétrer dans ce processus qui fait que à partir de quelque chose de mécanique se crée… *[Yet from the experience we have of ourselves, there seems to be an* *’I’,* *’me’, and that this* *’I’* *does not seem to be dependent on the past, it seems free to act… If thought is mechanical where does the* *’I’* *come from, as it appears to be a free, autonomous entity, doing what it will? Can you go into this process whereby, out of something mechanical, is created…]*

K: Est-ce que le ‘je’, le ‘moi’, n’est pas aussi mécanique ? *[Isn’t the* *’I’, the* *’me’, also mechanical?]*

D: Il n’apparaît pas comme mécanique. *[It doesn’t appear mechanical.]*

K: Ah voilà! Attendez. Let’s examine it. Let us explore, investigate, or whatever word you like to use, to find out if the ‘me’, the ‘I’, is not the result of knowledge also. The ‘me’ is not something suddenly born. The ‘me’ has a continual association, a series of memories, a series of projections: what should be, what has been, what is. So the ‘me’, if you examine it very closely, is also very mechanical.

D: Est-ce qu’il y a un seul moi? Est-ce que c’est la même personne qui dit ‘je’, à cet instant, dans cette situation avec vous, et puis qui dira ‘je’ dans un autre moment ? On a l’impression que c’est la même, le même ‘je’… *[Is there but one single* *’me’? Is it the same person who says* *’I’, at this moment, in this situation, here, with you, who will say* *’I’* *at another moment? One is under the impression that it is the same, the same…]*

K: Le même ‘je’ qui continue. *[The same* *’I’* *which continues.]*

D: Qui continue. Mais sur soi on le voit très mal. On peut le voir sur certaines personnes qui ont des problèmes, qui semblent avoir une attitude complètement différente dans une situation et puis une autre attitude dans une autre situation. Donc on peut percevoir d’abord sur les autres — sur soi on le voit très, très mal — on peut percevoir que les personnes ne sont pas les mêmes toujours et que pourtant elles disent toujours ‘je’ et elles essayent toujours de rationaliser. Si elles ont été en colère c’est ‘je’ — et il avait raison — et un instant après… *[Which continues. But one hardly sees this where oneself is concerned. One can observe this about those persons who have problems, who seem to have a drastically different attitude from one situation to another. So you can perceive this about others but when it comes to yourself it’s much harder. One can perceive that people aren’t always the same and yet that they go on saying* *’I’, and go on trying to rationalize. When they are angry here comes the* *’I’* *and* *’he was right’. While the next moment…]*

K: Il n’est pas rationnel. *[It’s not rational.]* But isn’t that… the ‘I’, the ‘me’, has different aspects of it, but essentially it is the same.

D: Le processus est le même. *[The process is the same.]*

K: Yes. Sir, this has been one of the problems both in the Orient and in the Occident: what is the ‘me’, the ‘I’? The Christians call it the soul, or if you like to use the word, the ‘individual’. What is that, essentially?

D: La question est importante parce que c’est ce ‘je’ qui transforme tout ce qu’il voit, tout ce qu’il perçoit. *[This question is important because it is this* *’I’* *which transforms all that it sees, all that it perceives.]*

K: C’est ça. And that ‘me’ is so conditioned.

D: Si il est le passé il est condition. *[If he is the past, he is conditioned.]*

K: Of course. He is the past.

D: Il est les cause… *[He is the cause…]*

K: After all, sir, one is born in India, or in — mettons — in China: they are conditioned.

D: Il y a la culture, mais ça ne me paraît pas le plus important. *[There is the culture, but it doesn’t seem to me to be the most important.]*

K: No. Ce n’est pas le plus important, vous avez raison. *[No, it’s not the most important.* *Bien.]*

D: Par contre il y a le processus des désirs, des jalousies, toutes ces qualités ou défauts humains qui sont les mêmes quelle que soit la culture, et ça, alors là, c’est là que semble naître, c’est là que semble pécher le problème. Le problème il est là. *[But nevertheless there is the process of desires, jealousy, all of these human qualities or* *defects which* *are the same,* *regardless of culture. That’s* *what gives rise to the problem. That’s* *where the problem is.]*

K: But sir, isn’t jealousy, ambition, greed, fear, pleasure and so on, aren’t they all the different aspects of the same thing? Vous avez compris?

D: Oui, je comprends très bien ce que vous dites. *[Yes, I understand very well what you say very well.]*

K: They are not different things, they are all part of the ‘me’.

D: Oui mais, vous comprenez, quand je ressens la colère ou la jalousie, etc., j’ai toujours impression d’avoir raison et que c’est à cause du monde extérieur, que ça ne vient pas de quelque chose à l’intérieur, mais que c’est les autres qui m’ont joué un tour. Si je suis en colère c’est la faute de ce qui m’entoure. Et toute personne qui est en colère, qui détruit quelque chose, la colère pouvant aller, on le voit pour les sociétés, jusqu’à la guerre. On a toujours l’impression que c’est de la faute des autres. Elle explique ça par des causes extérieures. *[But* *you* *see, when I feel angry, jealous, etc., I have always the impression that I am right and that the cause is in the outside world;* *that it doesn’t come from something within me, but that I have been tricked into that state by others,* *and that if am angry my surroundings are to blame. Whoever feels angry, destructive* *–* *anger eventually leading societies to warfare, as can be observed* *–* *will give the impression that it is the other”s* *fault, will explain it through external causes.]*

K: Is that so ? You call me an idiot. I don’t like that word. Vous comprenez? I have a picture of myself…

D: Je suis blessé… *[I feel wounded…]*

K: …which says to me I am not an idiot, and I get angry. It isn’t you, though you have used the word ‘idiot’, but the picture in me has reacted to that word.

D: Alors est-ce que la cause c’est moi qui ait dit que vous étiez un idiot, par exemple, ou est-ce que c’est en vous qu’il faut rechercher ? S’il n’y a pas d’image… *[So, is the cause the fact that I said you were an idiot, or is it to be found within oneself?* *If there is no image…*

K: C’est ça, c’est la question principale. *[That’s it. That’s the main question.]* Can one exist in life, carry on with everyday activities without the image of the ‘me’? Vous avez compris?

D: Oui.

K: The ‘me’ is the house, the property, the furniture, the wife, the husband — you follow? — the ‘me’ is all this. From the childhood, when a baby is born and gradually, ‘My toy, my house, my mother.’ Out of that grows attachment — vous comprenez? — and begins the whole problem. I think even the most rational, scientific mind — and we have met lots of them — would obviously see this. But they don’t want to end the image of the ‘me’, because their profession, their money — you follow? — the whole thing holds them.

D: Alors, à chaque fois que j’essaie — que je souffre de quelque chose, que je ressens quelque chose, psychologiquement, au niveau psychologique — à chaque fois que je ressens quelque chose, je l’attribue, en général, à l’extérieur. *[So each time that I suffer from something, some unrest, at the psychological level, I ascribe it, in general, to some external cause.]*

K: C’est ça.

D: Et alors, en même temps, effectivement, pour que ça puisse me toucher, il faut que ça ait touché quelque chose en moi. Et alors la question est donc : qu’est-ce que ça a touché en moi et est-ce que je peux étudier ce que ça touche en moi ? *[Yet at the same time,* *the fact is* *that, for it to* *have an effect on me,* *it has to touch something* *within me. So the question is: what* *is the thing it touched within* *me? Can I look at that?]*

K: Oui. Sir, that is — I mean, the Greeks have said it, the ancient Hindus have talked a great deal about it, which is, to know yourself. La connaissance de soi-même. *[Self-knowledge.]* But nobody studies that.

D: Les psychologues essayent de connaître les autres… *[Psychologists try to know the others…]*

K: Or they invent ‘what should be’.

D: Des idées, Freud et tout ça. *[Ideas, yes, Freud and all that.]*

K: Freud et tout ça. But here I am, a human being. I want to know myself.

D: Alors, la question évidemment c’est comment, parce que… *[Obviously the question is how, because…]*

K: Let’s go into it, let’s find out. How can I know myself? Not according to Freud, according to somebody else. Vous avez compris?

D: Oui, je comprends.

K: To know myself. If I follow those psychologists, I won’t know myself.

D: Ça se voit bien en les regardant. *[One just has to look at them.]*

K: Oui, voilà. I will know what they say about me. So, if I want to investigate what is me, one has to discard all authority. Even Marx. Probably he was essentially a bourgeois, because he relegated all existence to a certain layer.

So the question is, sir: what is thinking? Is it mechanical, or can thinking ever be free?

D: Oui, parce que la connaissance de moi demande que je sois libre pour pouvoir chercher. *[Yes, because knowledge of myself demands that I am free so that I can inquire.]*

K: C’est ça.

D: Parce que sinon je vais passer par la pensée qui n’est déjà pas libre et je ne vais pas me rencontrer, je vais tourner en rond. *[Otherwise I’ll be forced to use thought, which isn’t free to start with, and I will miss the mark. I’ll be going round in circles.]*

K: Voilà. Voilà la question. So first, to understand myself, I must reject authority.

D: Celle des autres… *[That of others…]*

K: Des autres, whether they are…

D: Et puis la mienne. *[And then my own.]*

K: Ah, voilà. First can I reject the authority of all the professors, psychologists, psychoanalysts, the religious people who say I am the soul, I am God, I am this or that? I must put all that aside to know myself.

D: Rien que cela est difficile parce que ça vous rejette de beaucoup de groupes et de communautés. Vous êtes déjà un peu seul quand vous avez percé tout ça. *[That’s already difficult because that puts you outside many groups and communities. You find yourself standing somewhat alone when you’ve done all this.]*

K: Sir, c’est bien entendu. *[Sir, that’s agreed on.]*

D: Donc je mets de côté l’approche des autres et j’essaye de chercher moi-même. *[So I put aside other people’s approach and I try to inquire by myself.]*

K: That is, can thought investigate me ?

D: Oui.

K: Vous avez compris? Thought which is based on memory, experience, knowledge; and knowledge being incomplete — knowledge can never be complete and therefore knowledge goes with ignorance. Vous avez compris?

D: Le dernier mot je n’ai pas compris… *[I haven’t understood the last word…]*

K: Ignorance. Knowledge and ignorance are together.

D: Et oui, c’est les deux faces d’une… *[Yes, they are the two sides of a…]*

K: Voilà. So thought cannot study myself, because thought has created me. Vous avez compris?

D: Si, ça je comprends. C’est même là le problème clé, d’ailleurs. Parce que un scientifique dirait que pour étudier quelque chose il faut essayer d’être objectif, c’est-à-dire pas dans le sujet. *[Yes, I understand that. That’s where the main problem is. Because a scientist would say that to study something one must try and be objective, meaning looking onto the subject from the outside.]*

K: C’est ça.

D: Et alors comment ? *[So how…]*

K: Therefore there is observation.

D: Oui.

K: Not ‘I am observing myself’ but observation observing. Vous avez compris?

D: Si je m’observe, alors c’est foutu parce que… ça tourne en rond. *[If I observe myself, then that’s done for, because… I’m going in circles.]*

K: Oui, c’est ça. Is there an observation without me ? Not objective/subjective but just observe without the ‘me’.

Sir, you see, this goes into a much deeper issue, which is — do you want to go on with it? — which is, we have divided the world there, and me separate. Right? The world and me. But is there such a difference? The ‘me’ has created the world. Not the world of nature and environment and all the skies and the beauty of the earth, but the ‘me’ with all the greeds, envies, anger, violence, brutality, superstition, has created that world. C’est la société.

D: Oui.

K: That is this modern society, and we human beings have created that.

D: Mais est-ce que ça n’est pas un problème différent de la connaissance de soi? *[But isn’t self-knowledge an altogether different problem?]*

K: That’s it, sir, that’s it. So I am saying, the world which we human beings have created is not separate: the world is me and I am the world. Vous avez compris?

D: Oui. Si je veux me comprendre, je suis aussi dans le monde, je peux me comprendre dans le monde… est-ce que c’est ça que vous voulez dire. Je ne comprends pas bien. *[If I want to understand myself… I am also in the world… I can understand myself in the world… Is that what you want to say, I don’t quite understand.]*

K: No. No, no, no.

D: Je vois que le monde, que la société est organisée de cette façon-là à cause des luttes entre les gens, à cause des conflits, à cause des désirs… elle est organisée à cause de tout ça. *[I see that society is organized in this way because of the struggles between people, because of the conflicts, because of the desires.* *It is organized in this way because of all that.]*

K: Which is the ‘me’ and the ‘you’.

D: Marx dont vous parliez toute à l’heure aurait dit qu’elle est organisée à cause de l’économie. Mais nous sommes en train de dire qu’elle est organisée à cause de problèmes psychologiques encore en-dessous. *[Marx, whom you were speaking of a moment ago, would have said that it is organized because of economy. But we are presently saying that it is organized because of psychological problems* *beneath all that.]*

K: C’est ça. C’est ça.

D: Et même l’économie n’est que… *[And even* *the* *economy is…]*

K: Marx and all say the creation of the society is economic. On the contrary, it is psychological.

D: Mais moi je cherche la connaissance de moi-même, alors comment… *[But what I am looking for is to know myself. So, how…]*

K: Wait sir, I am coming to that. So when I am examining myself I am examining the whole of mankind, not me. Vous avez compris? Look, man suffers right through the world — la souffrance. Whether he is Russian, Indian, Chinese, European, he is suffering. Right? He is anger, he is violent, he is brutal, he is everything. So you are integral part of the rest of mankind. Vous avez compris? So, when you study yourself, know yourself, you are studying the whole of mankind. Not, I am studying…

D: C’est quelque chose qui ne m’appartient pas en propre. Ce n’est pas seulement à moi, c’est… *[It’s not just my own thing, not just* *’my’* *self,* *it’s…]*

K: You see, you are the world. So when you study yourself it is not selfish, you are studying the mankind. So the responsibility becomes much greater.

D: Oui mais la question est comment l’étudier sans faire intervenir la pensée qui elle-même est conditionnée ? *[Yes, but the question is how to study it without the interference of thought which, by itself, is conditioned?]*

K: Yes, c’est ça. That is the real question. That is, can I… is there a possibility at looking at myself who is the world, in the mirror, without the interference of thought?

D: Mais oui.

K: Because thought is limited, thought is mechanical. The ‘me’ is living.

D: Et puis si j’interviens dans ma recherche je vais trouver ce que je veux, je ne vais rien trouver de neuf, je vais trouver ce que je cherche. *[And if I interfere with my inquiry, I’ll find what I wish, I won’t find anything new, I’ll find what I’m looking for.]*

K: Voilà, voilà, c’est ça.

D: Or il faut que je puisse trouver quelque chose de nouveau, éventuellement. *[While I must possibly be able to find something new, maybe.]*

K: Yes. So, is it possible to look at myself without the interference of thought? N’est-ce pas?

D: Oui, oui, c’est la question. *[Yes, that’s the question.]*

K: We have come to that point. That is, can I observe the whole of my reactions, my pleasures, despairs, loneliness, anger, violence, sexual appetites, in the mirror in which there is no distortion? Distortion takes place when there is thinking, when thought observes.

D: Oui, puisque c’est mécanique, donc… *[Yes, on account of it being mechanical, so…]*

K: Voilà, voilà. Right ? Now, what is the mirror? Vous avez compris?

D: Le monde… la réalité… *[The world… reality…]*

K: Non, un moment, un instant. What is the mirror in which I can see myself without distortion, without illusion, and without the interference of thought? Vous avez compris?

D: Oui. Quand je me vois moi-même tel que je suis, c’est quand je souffre. Par exemple, quelque chose a… *[I do see myself, as I am, when I suffer. For instance, something has…]*

K: C’est ça.

D: Alors là, quand je sens quelque chose, je me dis, si ce quelque chose a eu lieu, si il y eu une décharge d’adrénaline au niveau du cœur, c’est que il y a une image, il y a une résistance qui a… Ca je peux le voir… qui me choque… Ca je peux le voir, oui. Mais tout de suite la pensée… *[If something has happened, such as a rush of adrenalin at the level of the heart, it means there’s an image, a resistance which has created a shock. I can see that. But as soon as thought…]*

K: Attendez, attendez, nous allons examiner ça. *[Wait, wait, we are going to examine that.]*

D: Oui.

K: Let us be clear of the question. That is, is there an observation of myself, who is the world, an observation without the distortion of thought? C’est la question.

D: C’est la question.

K: The mirror is relationship. In that mirror, I observe: I am jealous, I’m angry, I’m dominant, I’m ambitious. In the relationship between you and me, between a man’s wife and husband, they watch. That’s the mirror.

D: Le miroir c’est le présent, c’est le moment… *[The mirror is the present, it’s the moment.]*

K: C’est ça, c’est ça. In relationship. A monk…

D: …pas la relation qui vient d’avoir lieu mais en ce moment. *[Not the relationship that just took place, but in this moment.]*

K: C’est ça. A monk living in a monastery, he has already enclosed himself.

D: Pas de relation. *[No relationship.]*

K: Pas de relation. And the communists have enclosed themselves.

D: Dans une idée, dans un idéal. *[Inside an idea, an ideal.]*

K: Voilà, voilà.

D: Et tout ce qui ne va pas dans l’idéal, ils ne le voient pas. *[And what doesn’t fit into that ideal they do not see.]*

K: C’est ça.

D: Il n’est même pas de mauvaise foi, il ne le voit pas. (Laughs) *[He’s not even dishonest, he doesn’t see it.]*

K: C’est ça.

D: Mais quand une relation se produit, la pensée a tendance à s’en emparer tout de suite pour rationaliser la sensation. Si j’ai senti… *[But when a relationship takes place, thought tends to take hold of it right away to rationalise* *the sensation. If I have felt…]*

K: C’est ça. So, to observe in the mirror of relationship — relation between… — what exactly is happening.

D: Il faut que la pensée soit… *[Thought has to be…]*

K: Et voilà. I observe that ant, that insect crawling ; I just observe. Not *I* observe; there is only observation. Sir look, the word ‘idea’, from Greek, which is to observe — the real meaning is to observe, not observe and form an idea. Vous avez compris?

D: Alors…

K: You see, that’s what’s happening, sir.

D: Mais quel est l’état de l’esprit qui observe? Puisqu’on l’a vu, la pensée, elle, est du domaine des causes et des effets, du passé. C’est la mécanique. Tout ce que je pense est un mélange de ce qui est passé. *[But what is the state of the mind which is observing? Because thought, as we’ve seen, is of the domain of causes and effects, of the past. It’s mechanic. All my thinking is a mixture of things past.]*

K: Mixture of everything that has happened in the past.

D: On voit bien qu’il y a d’un côté la pensée et il y a autre chose dont on a pas encore parlé maintenant mais qui semble être autour du problème : ce serait l’intelligence ou bien… je ne sais pas comment l’appeler. Mais, est-ce que ce serait l’intelligence ? C’est à dire, peut-être pas l’intelligence au sens où on l’entend d’habitude. *[Obviously there’s thought on one side but also something else, that we haven’t mentioned yet, and which seems to wrap itself around the problem. Would that be intelligence, or…* *I don’t quite know how to call it. Would that be intelligence? That is to say, maybe not intelligence in the usual sense…]*

K: C’est ça. Sir, the moment you observe that the world is not separate from you, that’s intelligence. It’s not the intelligence of thought. And it is intelligence that says: to study myself I must be free of all the authorities. And it is the intelligence, which is not the cunning thought, which says I can only understand myself in my relationship with another. In the mirror of relationship I see myself, exactly what I am.

D: Tel qu’il est. Si par contre j’analyse mon passé, si j’essaye d’analyser ce que j’ai fait il y a un an ou deux ans alors je passe déjà par la pensée. *[As one is. If on the contrary I analyse my past, if I try to analyse what I did one or two years ago, I’m then back using thought.]*

K: Voilà. So, that’s the whole… Analysis is mere… Look, the analyst, psychoanalyst, what are they doing? They are analysing what you are, the cause of what you are, in the past. Right? And the analyser is the movement of thought. Therefore thought being limited, his analysis must be limited.

D: N’importe comment, j’ai remarqué que quand on connait la cause d’un problème…supposez que je connaisse la cause qui fait que je me mets en colère vis à vis de ma fille ou… même si je connais la cause je n’arrive pas… *[And anyway, I have observed that knowing the cause of a problem…* *Suppose I know the cause of my getting angry with my daughter, even if I know the cause I can’t manage…* *to suppress…]*

K: Non, je n’arrive pas…

D: …à supprimer le…

K: ‘D’être libre de ça. C’est ça’. *[I can’t manage… to be free of this.]*

So, that’s just it: to understand that the discovery of the cause is not going to change the effect.

D: Et oui. Ca, tout le monde peut en faire l’expérience. *[Yes, this is something everybody can experience.]*

K: Yes, c’est ça. So then we come to the rather important point, which is to observe, to see in the mirror — right? — what is exactly happening without the interference or the projection of thought in trying to correct what is happening.

D: Cela va très vite parce que dans ce qui arrive, il y a des choses qu’on n’aime pas. On n’aime pas. Alors, la pensée, elle, cache, parce que l’on va découvrir des choses sur soi-même qui ne nous plaisent pas. N’est-ce pas ? *[It all goes very quickly because in what is happening there are things we don’t like, so thought conceals…* *because we may discover unpleasant things. Isn’t it?]*

K: So, to observe that which is pleasant, that which is not pleasant, without any choice. Just to observe. Right? Now, in that observation is there an observer? Vous avez compris?

D: Oui, je comprends, oui.

K: If there is an observer, that is still thought.

D: C’est le passé… *[The past.]*

K: Le passé, voilà.

(Pause)

You see, sir, nobody wants to go into this. Vous avez compris? Because they are too distracted by their ambitions, by their position, by their… Vous savez, tout ça. They say, look, this requires tremendous investigation into oneself. And nobody wants to do that; it’s much easier to go along as we are.

So without understanding myself completely, you cannot create a good society. Right? The totalitarians try to create a so-called good society — you know, they have produced monstrosities. There is no freedom, there is suppression, there is suffocation, torture. You know what is happening.

(Pause)

Now sir, look, it’s such a beautiful day. Now, can you observe the beauty of that land — the green, the trees, the shadows, the extraordinary light — without ‘me’? Me the Frenchman, me the Russian, me the Hindu, the ‘me’. Can you observe all that?

D: Ou moi le propriétaire… *[Or me the owner, or the…]*

K: Oui, oui… (inaudible)

D: Ça semble plus facile à faire pour la nature. *[That’s easier to do with nature.]*

K: Voilà. Yes. Now, if you can do that, why can’t you do the same here? Vous avez compris? Here you are frightened because you might lose your… something, your position.

D: Mon travail… *[Your job…]*

K: Your status, you might lose your nationality. So you say, ‘Please…’

D: Pour pas perdre tout ça, ce qui se passe c’est que, j’accumule des choses ou des connaissances, ou bien des amis, ou bien des biens, en vue de me protéger contre la perte. *[And so as not to lose all this,* *what happens is* *that* *I accumulate things, or knowledge, or friends, or goods,* *in order to protect myself against loss.]*

K: C’est ça. And therefore which is fear.

D: Mais, restons sur le problème de la connaissance de soi. Si la pensée est mécanique, d’où vient… *[But let’s stick to the problem of self-knowledge. If thought is mechanical, where from does…]*

K: Not ‘if’ — elle est mécanique. (Laughs)

D: …elle est mécanique. Mais alors, d’où vient la possibilité, si elle existe, de l’observation sans la pensée ? Il faut qu’il y ait un autre plan… *[It is mechanical. So where does the possibility of observation without thought, if it exists, come from? There has to be some other plane…]*

K: Oui, c’est ça. Il y a. *[Yes, quite so, there is.]* Sir, look, when you looked at that beauty of that, there was no ‘me’. Right? Now, can I look at myself without the thought, which is the past and therefore limited, can I look at myself in the mirror of relationship? We have come to that point, don’t let’s go off to something else. Now, how to observe the mirror? Vous avez compris? If I am observing as though I was an outsider looking in the mirror… Therefore the image is me, which is in the mirror. Vous avez… That is, the observer is the observed.

D: Ça c’est un point qui est difficile. *[That’s a difficult point.]*

K: No, no, pas difficile. Au contraire, c’est très simple. Regardez un peu’. *[No, no, not difficult. To the contrary, it is very simple. Just look a little bit.]* The observer says: I am different from the thing I see.

D: Ou bien, je veux modifier la chose que je vois. *[Or I want to modify the thing I see.]*

K: C’est ça. Which is distortion.

D: Il faudrait observer sans vouloir rien changer. *[One should observe without any wish to change.]*

K: Changer, supresser — c’est ça. Observe. Sir, you observe that flower. You can’t change it. You might like a rose better than that, but you can’t change *that*.

So it’s very interesting, sir: to know oneself means to observe without the observer. The observer is the past. The observer is all the memories, the associations, a mixture of all that. When he looks in the mirror he says, ‘I am not that, I want to change it, I don’t like it; but I like that, therefore I’ll keep it.’ So can you look without the observer? Sir, this is real activity of the whole human mind, not just thought saying: I like, I don’t like, thought saying: this is right, this is wrong. We are observing the totality of the human being.

D: Je ne sais pas si je peux observer sans l’observateur ou si quelque chose peut observer sans l’observateur, mais… *[I don’t know if I or something can observe without the observer…]*

K: Just observe. Sir, you did it when you looked at that green earth. You are not the proprietor, you are not this, you are not… — you just said, ‘How marvellous that earth is.’

(Pause)

D: Par contre, on se sent propriétaire de l’image qu’on va donner aux autres. *[Yet we feel the proprietor of the image we’re going to give to others.]*

K: C’est ça, c’est ça.

D: On y tient. *[We are attached to it.]*

K: C’est ça. I’ve got a large property. You see, that’s why, sir, religions, communism, Marxism, all that, are really destructive.

D: Oui.

K: Because they are all separative.

(Pause)

You see, we cannot have unity of mankind through religions, through organised religions — right? — through United Nations, neither through totalitarianism spreading all over the world. You can only have unity of mankind, therefore a good society, when nationalism is abolished completely — the French, the English, the German —- you follow? — all this silly division. You see, the revolution is not physical, it’s psychological. Vous avez compris?

D: L’Histoire le montre. L’histoire du monde le montre. *[History proves it. The history of the world shows it.]*

K: Revolution out there, not here.

D: Il faut changer les autres. Mais en fait… *[Let’s* *change the others. But in fact…]*

K: Changer les autres ou conform them to me, to my pattern. *[Change the others or conform them to me, to my pattern.]*

D: Mais cette sorte de perception, ce problème de l’observateur et de l’observé, cette intelligence… la pensée ne peut rien pour… Là il y a un problème parce que, comment va naître cette intelligence ? Comment peut-elle… *[But this sort of perception, this problem of the observer and the observed, this intelligence, since thought cannot help, there is a problem. What will give birth to this intelligence, how can it…]*

K: Là, c’est très simple. *[That’s very simple.]* You looked at that, and the very looking at that beauty without the observer, without the ‘me’, that was intelligence, no ?

D: Ce que vous dites, ce qui est simple, c’est que finalement, cette intelligence elle est. Finalement on peut dire que c’est la vie, c’est… *[What is simple, according to what you say, is that finally this intelligence is…* *one can say that it is life, that…]*

K: Don’t define it yet. (Laughs)

(Pause)

K: (Inaudible)

D: Oui. Je pense qu’on arrive sur un problème qui est beaucoup utilisé par — ou le mot est beaucoup utilisé par les occidentaux actuellement. C’est le mot de ‘créativité’. Ce mot là est utilisé dans tous les… *[I think we are coming upon a problem: that of creativity.* *That word is very popular with* *Westerners today, it is in all…]*

K: Oui, oui, oui. Oui, oui, oui.

D: Et, est-ce qu’il serait possible d’essayer de voir un petit peu, après ce que l’on vient de regarder, qu’est-ce que c’est que la créativité, qui est une chose qui intéresse tout le monde, c’est très… *[Could we try to look a little bit, after what we’ve just gone through, at what is creativity?* *Everybody is interested in that. It is very…]*

K: Sir, what is creativity ? The word ‘create’, what does it mean? Create.

D: Faire naître. *[Giving birth to.]*

K: Faire naître. Now wait a minute. Can you bring something new when your mind, your heart is conditioned? Vous comprenez?

D: En général la psychologie occidentale pense que la créativité c’est de laisser son esprit bavarder dans tous les sens, dans toutes les directions. Et en fait, ce qui nous (inaudible) c’est que quand même ce qu’il y a dans l’esprit c’est quand même… *[As a rule,* *Western psychology thinks that creativity is to let one’s mind wander about in all directions, but in fact… (inaudible)]*

K: C’est bavarder. *[That’s chattering.]*

D: C’est bavarder ensemble ou à… *[Chattering together or…]*

K: C’est ça. Bavarder en peinture ! (Laughs) Vous comprenez ? *[To chatter in painting!]*

D: Il y a des peintres qui se croient créatifs et qui bavardent en peinture. *[Some painters believe they are creative while they just chatter in painting.]*

K: On dit ça c’est la création. *[One calls that creation.]*

So, is it possible to create, that is, something new to be born, when all our activity is based on thought? Right? Right, sir? All our activity, psychological, religious, economic, social, all based on thought. If I want to paint a picture, I will have to know all the colours. You follow? It’s again the same mechanism operating.

D: La créativité n’est pas seulement du domaine des artistes… *[Creativity is not the sheer domain of the artists.]*

K: Oui voilà, c’est ça. Creation can only take place when the mind and the heart are completely free from the conditioning.

(Pause)

Finished, sir. We’ll continue after lunch.

Ça vous va, tout ça? *[Does all this agree with you?]*

Technician: (Inaudible)

D: C’est exactement ce dont je voulais parler avec vous. *[This is exactly what I wanted to discuss with you.]*

(Pause)

Est-ce que nous pourrions parler du problème de l’éducation et de la façon dont tout ça… *[Could we talk about the problem of education and about the manner in which all this…]*

K: Tout ce que vous voulez. *[Anything you want.]*

D: Merci.

Technician: (Inaudible)

**–** **END –**