K School Discussion 3, Brockwood Park, 2 October 1975
Krishnamurti: We were talking the other day we met here about fear. Do you want to go more into it, or do you want to talk about — what was it? — separation between the staff and the student?
Questioner: Could we talk about separation in general?
K: Beg your pardon?
Q: Could we talk about division in general, not just the staff and the students?
K: Fear in general?
Q: Division, separation.
K: I can’t here; louder; louder.
Q: Separation, division in general.
K: Ah, separation in general. Is that what you want to talk about?
Q: No. I want to go on talking about fear.
K: You want to still talk about fear? And the staff and the students… staff having their separate meeting and all that — you’ve forgotten all that? No?
Q: I mean, it’s probably related, isn’t it?
K: Ah? Louder, please, because it’s…
Q: It’s related, isn’t it?
K: Relationship.
Q: Well, it’s connected to fear.
K: Yes. So do you want to discuss relationship and fear?
Q: Yes, I do.
Q: Last talk I don’t think (inaudible) question was quite clear enough. I think some of us misunderstood it.
K: Misunderstood what, sir?
Q: (Inaudible) question.
Mary Zimbalist: Repeat the question.
Q: The question was really, you were talking about the difference between seeing and thinking. Right?
K: Yes.
Q: And I was asking: how can you see fear if you can’t touch it?
K: Yes, that’s right. By Jove, you remember that, do you? Pretty good.
(Laughter)
Let’s begin with responsibility and relationship and talk… come to fear that way. What do you feel about responsibility? You know that word, what that word means; the word, not the significance of relationship, but the actual meaning of that word *relationship* and *responsibility* — do they go together, responsibility and relationship? The word *responsibility,* I believe, means — please, correct me, sir — to respond, to react; to respond either not adequately or adequately or fully; to respond fully, to respond with all your being, with your mind, with your heart, with your nerves, with all your senses to respond fully. The meaning of that word is that: to respond.
And also relationship is related to response. You follow? You see the close relationship between responsibility and relationship? I am related to you as a friend, husband, wife, children… and so on and so on, parent. My responsibility is to respond fully to you. I never thought about that; those two words go together, sir. Marvellous. You understand? To respond to… to respond fully in my relationship to you, which means responsibility, total responsibility. You understood this? Now, can any relationship be so complete and therefore totally responsible?
Here you are, living in a community; fortunately not too near a city, though near enough; somewhat isolated, which is good. Living in a community of this kind, what is your responsibility? You understand? Which means, what is your relationship to the community? Relationship, we said, is to respond adequately, sanely, happily, fully. So what is your response to the community, to all of us? Or do you respond to one or two fully, or not even respond fully but casually? You understand what I’m…? If you are to take part in everything that is happening here – the meeting with the staff, your studies, games, looking after the place and so on and so on – you have to have complete responsibility, haven’t you? No?
When you are responsible, do you feel separate? You understand my question? I… suppose I feel responsible for this place. Please understand what I mean by responsibility: to respond fully, not selfishly, not according to my like and dislike, not according to my prejudice, fancy, imagination. So I feel responsible for this place and therefore responsible to you, as I live here some of the year, some part of the year. And what is my action in relation to the community and in relation to each other? If I feel totally responsible as I do — I do; I feel terribly responsible — being responsible, which means responding fully, adequately, completely, wholly, do I feel separation when you have a staff meeting? You understand?
Q: Can you repeat it again?
K: I’m going to explain it. Being responsible, each one has his own function, haven’t you? You have a function to study, to grow intelligently, beautifully, with all your… — you follow? — to grow, to be totally educated; and my responsibility is to see that you get this. Right? So… and in this responsibility there are several functions, aren’t there? That is, there’s the functioning of a staff; functioning… — I don’t know — various forms of functions. Right? Do I feel separate because there are separate functions, each function responsible to itself and to the whole? You understand my…?
You raised the question the other day. You raised the question: why the separation between the staff and us? Right? Right? Do you feel totally responsible for the whole place, not just mere study? Responsible: that means to see this place is kept properly, that you behave properly, that you eat properly, that you study… — you follow? — all that means responsibility — right? — and therefore when you are so completely responsible, do you feel separate though the staff has its own meeting? I wonder if I’m making myself clear. Look, you object, don’t you, some of you — this is an old chestnut; we have been through this before — some of you object that there should be a separate meeting for the staff? Right? Right? Oh, come on; those who object stick up for it.
Q: Yes.
K: Now what is the responsibility — don’t look at it from your point of view — what is the responsibility of the staff?
Q: To take care of the place and the students.
K: And the students. And the staff may want to discuss amongst themselves about the student. Right? They want to discuss me. They want to say, ‘Well, I want to talk about K and I cannot… we cannot talk properly, easily, happily, if he is there.’
Q: Why is that so?
K: Why is that so? They might say, ‘Look, K behaves brutally, K is stupid…’
(Laughter)
‘K is not painting the house’ — I don’t know – ‘Doing the garden.’ And… or they might say, ‘His character needs changing.’ They can’t discuss if I am there.
Q: Well, also, Krishnaji, it may be that is one side of a discussion and another point may be how well a personality in a person is or how excellently a person is involved in the relationships with others and… but you do not, in most cases do not go into that with the person in the same way that you would…
K: I cannot… I don’t see what the objection is when they are discussing how to help a student… and if the student is there it hinders them.
Q: If I say something very positive about you, several things very positive about you, now, that goes into you and if it is taken in certain conditioned ways then those good things have bad feed-back.
K: I know, of course, of course, of course.
Q: You think, ‘How great I am; I’m doing so well.’
K: Now, I’m going to ask you: would you like to be there when the staff discusses about you with the rest of you?
Q: I would like to be able to attend the meetings.
K: What for?
Q: Because…
K: No, wait; what for?
Q: Well, if there is… is there anything that is secret?
K: There is nothing secret.
Q: So?
K: Wait, no… but you haven’t even understood. If you’re all there with the staff, can the staff discuss or talk over together one particular student his misbehaviour, his relationship with their parents, his relationship with the school, how he behaves and all… would you like to hear all that being criticised, discussed?
Q: I think it would create a more intimate…
K: Does it? Does it?
Q: Yes, I think so.
K: No, don’t think so. Think it out, sir. Does it?
Q: Well, take it from the other side: if I talk about you without your knowledge, does it create… (inaudible)?
K: Ah, not my… You haven’t understood. First let’s understand responsibility. That’s why I began. You understand? The responsibility of the staff to look after the place, to look after you; and they feel… — I haven’t discussed this matter with them; I’m talking — if I was a staff I certainly wouldn’t want you to be there because I may want to discuss about your father, your mother, talk about them and your relationship to them, because I feel responsible, not only while you are here, for the whole school, for the next ten years, twenty years. And you say, ‘Well, if you’re going to talk about me I’d like to be there.’ Right? Would you like to be… all the others to be there too?
Q: Yes, certainly.
K: I wonder. No, don’t…
Q: Why not?
K: Not, ‘Why not?’ I wonder. I’m just asking. I might… we might criticise you, say, ‘He’s not behaving properly. Should we get rid of him or should we keep him?’ They’ll discuss all this.
Q: So if I’m not able to respond properly, then wouldn’t it be better if somebody comes to me and says, ‘I think you’re not able to respond properly to us… (inaudible)’?
K: But they will respond to you when you are by yourself. Would you like them… do you like all the other students to be… while you are there to be criticised?
Q: But this is not an individual matter. It’s related to everybody.
K: No, ask them, sir, ask the others; it’s not you alone.
Q: Well…
K: It’s not just you alone. Ask the others. Would you like it?
Q: Well, I think at the staff meetings it’s a community and the people here know each other as well as, or perhaps even better than the people in the staff and therefore they could respond as well as the people in the staff to the people’s problems.
K: You’re not meeting my point, sir. Am I meeting your point?
Q: I’m… I see it.
K: Am I meeting your point or… and are you meeting my point?
Q: I wouldn’t want to be in that situation that he would agree to. I would not want to be talked about in front of the whole school.
Q: But it is the whole… I mean, the teachers and you are the whole school. I mean, you can’t separate them like that: talked about in front of the whole school and talked about in front of the teachers. I mean, it’s a community. That’s what I’m trying… (inaudible).
K: Now, wait a bit, sir. Let’s go into it. When you use the word *community*, what does that mean?
Q: It means a place… as I see it, it means a place where people exist together.
K: Together. That is, they are in communion with each other, in communication with each other. Are you communicating with each other?
Q: I hope so.
K: Ah, not ‘hope so’ – actually. You have got your own secrets, your own ambitions, your own purposes. Are you communicating with all of us those?
Q: No.
K: Obviously not. So you are making this, I’m afraid, into an issue when you haven’t fully understood the word *responsibility*.
Q: It seems quite clear.
K: Then what… why should you want to share with all the responsibility?
Q: I think that’s responsibility… (inaudible) sharing.
K: Now, wait a minute, sir. Look, the school has to collect money. Do you want to know all about it?
Q: Why not?
K: Ah, not ‘Why not?’ (Laughs)
Q: Certainly, then.
K: Why?
Q: Because…
K: Will you help to collect money?
Q: Of course.
K: And be… Not while you’re here, for… You understand, sir? Each student wants to be responsible while he’s here.
Q: (Inaudible).
K: You leave in two years or a year later — won’t you? — and then what?
Q: (Inaudible).
K: (Inaudible).
Q: But, look, if I am living here I think I should share the responsibility. I should share everything. Everything should be shared.
Q: But the problem, though, that has been missed is that you can be doing, well, say, your own functions, which for a student is, well, working in the kitchen, studying or classes and things like this, and being fully responsible the whole time. The being fully responsible doesn’t mean doing everything in the whole school.
K: Quite right.
Q: I don’t think everybody can do everything in the whole school.
Q: Right. So you’d be fully responsible in the area… (inaudible).
K: Will you take my place?
Q: Not especially.
(Laughter)
K: Not ‘especially’. Are you giving status to function?
Q: Not a status.
K: You understood what I’ve said?
Q: Yes.
Q: No, I don’t understand. What do you mean by status?
Q: (Inaudible).
Q: A sense of importance.
K: I said status. You know what status is? Meaning having a position, a state.
Q: Oh, okay.
K: Say, for instance, you give respect to a state, to a status. Right?
Q: Yes.
K: You don’t give respect to the… to a servant; servant has no status, but you have… you respect and you look up to a man who has great wealth, position, a prime minister or this or that. You don’t respect function, but you respect status. You understood? Now is that what you are doing?
Q: Giving status?
K: No, you have…
Q: Sorry, I didn’t understand what you just said… (inaudible).
K: I said, are you giving… are you not only giving respect, do you want to share the status or the function?
Q: The function.
K: Function. Now, share with me my function? Stick to it.
Q: Your function?
K: My function.
Q: In this particular case?
K: My function — will you share it with me?
Q: I don’t really know what it implies.
K: I’ll tell you what it implies. What is implied is that you must be totally honest. You mean exactly what you say; and that you have… like in my case, I’ve done a great many things in my life. I don’t want to talk about all that; it’s not important. Now, will you share the function with me?
Q: Well, why not?
K: Then come and sit here and talk to them. Come on.
Q: Why should I?
K: Ah…
(Laughter)
Why should you? If you share… If you want (laughs) to share, if you want to be responsible for the function — I am a function and you want to share in that function — that means you come and sit in my place and talk.
Q: But is your function relevant to the community’s?
K: Oh, yes. (Laughs)
(Laughter)
You see…
Q: So if anybody here is sharing your… is taking full responsibility for discussion, they go in your place and… (inaudible)?
K: You haven’t understood, sir. My function is this — X. If you want to explain what is X I will go into it. My function is X and you say you want to share that… in that function. Right? Can you do it? Not ‘Why not?’ Can you do it?
Q: Not yours.
K: Ah, why not? I’m part of the community.
Q: Of course, but I can’t take everybody’s function; nobody can; I can’t do everything that the school…
K: That’s all.
Q: But it doesn’t really explain, because that meeting is not a work; the meeting is a discussion…
Stephen Smith: How do you know what that meeting is, (inaudible)?
Q: Well, because people told me what it was all about.
SS: Well, people have told you. You don’t know what that meeting is.
Q: Well, it’s just trusting them.
SS: Well, trust them.
K: Now, do the staff want you to be there?
Q: It looks like they don’t.
K: Find out.
Q: I’m trying right now.
K: Find out why they… as you cannot fill my function — you cannot, can you?
Q: No, I think I don’t.
K: Therefore… so you can’t share my function.
Q: As I wouldn’t share Mrs Simmons’ function.
K: You can’t share my function, my friend; do look at it.
Q: Yes, I know; I can’t.
K: So the staff has a certain function. Can you share the function of the staff?
Q: Not their function.
K: But that’s all… One of their functions – one — is to talk about the various students, whether they are behaving rightly, what their relationship is and so on and so on and so on. It is their function.
Q: So then I question that should exist such a function for the staff.
K: What?
Q: So I question whether there should exist such a function for the staff.
K: Oh, my Lord, what are you talking about?
Q: I mean, should someone take such a responsibility? Why not everybody?
K: Wait; wait, sir. Your parents have sent you here. They took the responsibility of sending you here because they have a certain… they say, ‘Well…’ and so on and so on, for various reasons. Right? And you come here and you say, ‘I want to take a share in everything that’s going on, even in the functions.’ Right? Of course, that means that. Can you go and cook, do gardening? And the function of the staff is to not only to educate and teach you mathematics and all, but also to see how you are, what you are doing, whether you are capable. They want to discuss about you. Not behind your back. They want to say, ‘Is he worth keeping here? Has he any value? Has he got good brains? Or is he obstinate? He just wants to be here and then go back to earning money or whatever he wants.’ They want to discuss not only you but other students, their relationship with each other, their relationship with the parents and so on. Can you share all that with them? How can you?
They want to discuss, say, for instance, about me. They want to discuss about me and say, ‘Is he worth having him here? What is the good of him… his being here? Is he helping us or is he a deterrent?’ You follow? They want to discuss, analyse, go into all kinds of things about me. And you want all the others to be there too? I would strongly object to it. I would rather they say, ‘Look, my friend, come to the staff meeting as a single boy and discuss. We want to discuss with you. We want to tell you that you’re not behaving properly or you’re this and that,’ but not in front of others.
Q: Well, that would be good enough.
K: Ah…
Q: That doesn’t happen.
K: Ah… So is that what you want? You see, you have changed. You…
Q: I haven’t changed.
K: Is that what you want? You want the staff to ask you or any other student and say, ‘Please, we want to talk about you — not in front of others — we want to talk about you, why you’re doing this, why you’re doing that, why don’t you study properly, why are you obstinate, why don’t you get…’ — you know. I think that’s normal. I think they do do that.
Q: And if the students think something about the staff, where should they discuss that?
K: Ah?
Q: If the students have similar thoughts about the staff…
K: Oh, go and talk to them. They don’t object to that, do they?
Q: I don’t know. I just heard people wouldn’t like to be talked about in front of very many people… (inaudible).
Brian Jenkins: (Inaudible), there is every possibility of a student meeting.
Q: Yes…
Q: (Inaudible).
Q: If I may say so, the others in this situation, maybe in the staff themselves, for example, you may feel very easy speaking in front of, say, that section of students, but a teacher may not… you know, he may not feel comfortable in front of a teacher in the community; like there are people who you are closer to and what I’m saying is that it is an artificial division.
K: Is function artificial difference?
Q: In this particular case the function is… you are right, the function is not an artificial difference in other things, but in here the functions more or less overlap because, like, I know some people here better than others and they may be more capable of saying about me, but to teachers as well as to other people.
K: So you bring your friends along.
Q: (Inaudible).
K: But I don’t quite see the problem. You and I are friends and they want to talk about you. You tell the staff, say, ‘I’d like my friend to come along too; then it’ll be easier for me.’
Q: In that way, I could bring along the whole…
K: If they want to, to discuss you in front of the others, if you want it.
Q: Well, that’s what… it’s not happening.
K: But others may not want it.
Q: To come and to discuss me?
K: Others may not want to be discussed in front of you.
Q: (Inaudible).
K: Ah… (laughs).
Q: (Inaudible)… it can’t happen at present anyway.
Q: As a staff member, I’d like to say a word about the function of the staff meeting.
K: Yes, sir.
Q: I think, from my point of view, that the major function of the people on the staff is to pay attention to those people, staff or students, who are not wanting to work together in the body, in the school body, who don’t really want to be part of the community, and that’s our… (inaudible).
K: Will they listen to you?
Q: And we often will wind up having our most animated discussions when we’re talking about people who are in the some sense holding themselves back from joining in the community. Now, if you wanted to do that, if you too wanted to pay attention to people who were not participating in the functions of the community, not acting responsibly, if you wanted to look at these people and to talk to them and to try to get them to work with us then you would be doing the function of a staff member. There are people on the staff now who were students at one time and there are people who are now students who some day I’d like to see on the staff. They do act responsibly. They do help all of us in looking for places where people are not fitting in, so they are de facto staff members. They will cook when people need them to be cooks; they will go and do chores when the chores have to be done. They don’t ask. The only thing is for some reason they don’t get a salary and they are working as a staff member. They just happen to be enrolled as students. You could do the same. But I don’t see you doing it.
K: You agree?
Q: (Inaudible).
K: (Laughs) No?
Q: Yes, that’s good; that’s saying if we are all de facto staff members, it follows we should all be there, we should all be… because we all have the function.
Q: But I don’t see you doing it. I don’t see you working together to remove division. I see… right now I see you’re trying to maintain a division against everyone who says there shouldn’t be one. I agree there shouldn’t be one. Let us look for places where there is a division, but let’s not try to force a division; let’s not make one where there isn’t one. I mean, I want to work with anybody who wants to work, so let’s work together.
Q: But…
Q: Let’s work together.
Q: But if a student is responsible, that doesn’t mean that, as you say, de facto staff member, that doesn’t mean that you go to the staff meetings, though.
Q: (Inaudible).
Q: Perhaps that is part of the responsibility of being a student.
Q: But if you perform the same functions…
Q: But you don’t; you’re a student.
Q: (Inaudible).
Q: (Inaudible).
Q: If we were all left hands in a body, what would happen?
Q: Is to be responsible or to be a part of the community only to fulfil this function without knowing why he’s doing that or what really he’s doing besides the fact that there is a function and his function is necessary for the maintaining of the school as a body? That’s the problem.
K: Where are we after this? Where are we? You still stick to your opinion, your conclusion that the staff is separate and must… we all must share in everything that the staff does?
MZ: Is it worthwhile to go into why one feels that this creates separation, why one feels, in a sense, left out? If, to give a silly example, if Esme and Verna and the others don’t consult what we’re going to have for lunch with me, I don’t feel deprived or left out or somehow that it’s divisive. That’s a trivial example. But why does one attribute such a strong sense of pulling apart to this particular function of the staff?
K: Well, sir?
Q: May I say? May I answer?
K: All right.
Q: We had a school meeting where this question came up for the first time. When the question came up… (inaudible) it was answered with such aggressivity and with justification, not reasoning.
Q: That’s true.
Q: Aggressivity and justification; that’s why the question is still going round and round.
K: We are justifying, are we?
Q: No, I didn’t say you or… I said when the question came up for the first time.
K: It was defended.
Q: It was defended with some aggressivity.
K: I understand. Now, forget the past. Do we understand now?
Q: Yes, it’s quite reasonable.
K: So you agree now?
Q: Yes, I do.
K: Then it’s finished. So let’s move, get to something else, which is, you wanted to talk about fear. Fear — we went into the question fairly in detail the other day — and you raised the question just now: seeing and thinking. Right? Is there a difference between the two?
Q: Yes.
K: A division — not the division that we have been talking about — is there a division, a separation, a cleavage between seeing and thinking?
Q: Yes, quite a big one, really.
K: Why do you say that?
Q: It’s completely different actions, really.
K: Is seeing, acting and thinking is acting? You follow? Seeing and acting; and thinking and acting. You understand my question?
Q: What do you mean really by acting?
K: That’s what I’m… Now, what do you mean by acting? You used the word acting…
Q: Or actions.
K: Now, what do you mean by that word *acting*? To act.
Q: A different way of using it.
K: No, what does the word *act* mean?
Q: To do.
K: To do. That means to do is always now, isn’t it? To do, to act is always in the present, isn’t it? No?
Q: Yes.
Q: It can be in the future but… (inaudible).
K: Ah… No, then it’s a future action, something you are going to do, but that’s not action.
Q: Yes, that’s right.
K: Right?
Q: Yes.
K: Or something that you have done in the past. So is there an action — please listen — which is wholly now, but always… or is action always tainted, coloured, shaped by the past or by the future? Therefore there is no action. I wonder if you see that. Come on, sir, use your… Now we’re talking about something else. You have understood what I’ve said? Action; the word *act* means to do now. Right?
Dorothy Simmons: Krishnaji, I wonder if… (inaudible) is thinking about what is it to be part of this and not cause a separation, but if you see, you act.
K: That’s what I’m coming to; that’s what I’m… I’m coming to that. That is, first let’s be very clear. Action means doing now. Right? Right? Is that action coloured by the past?
Q: Yes, but you think about it before, before you do the action.
K: No, just listen; you haven’t… Therefore you think before, which means your thinking is deciding what you should do. What is your thinking based on?
Q: Seeing?
Q: You’re thinking about your previous experiences… (inaudible).
K: Which means what? You are thinking about what to do. The thinking… I asked what is that thinking based on?
Q: Based on your experience.
K: On your experience, on your knowledge, which is the past. Right? So your action… your thinking is based on the past, and you are going to… the action is going to be decided by the past, therefore you’re not acting. Right?
Q: Right.
K: Now, is there an action which is not coloured by the past?
Q: Seeing things.
K: Ah… Go into it. Go into it a little bit. Here you are. You see separation. How do you see it? By your past conclusions? By your idea that there should be no separation, because you have come to a conclusion that the world is separated and therefore there should be no separation in a community of this kind and you are thinking about this separation from the experience which you have had from the past. Right? Right?
Q: (Inaudible).
K: Right? So you are looking at separation and its action from a prejudice.
Q: Not necessarily.
K: Ah… you haven’t even listened. You haven’t even listened and you immediately say, ‘Not necessarily.’ I’ll show it to you. I am prejudiced by you, if I am, because I don’t like your attitude. You understand what I’m saying? I have listened to you and I say, ‘He cannot… He sticks to his point of view; he doesn’t alter.’ You may alter, but I’ve come to the conclusion that you do not alter — right? — so I… in my relationship with you I am prejudiced against you, and the action from that prejudice keeps us separate. You understand? Right? Got it? So I’m asking: is there an action which is not prejudicial, which is not based on the past? You’ve understood? What do you say?
You understand? There are two things. All our actions are based on a prejudice that is built up through the past — right? — or there is an action which is based on a future ideal. Right? Are you following this? So either the future colours the action in the present or the past limits the action in the present. Right? You’ve understood? Understood? Now, I’m asking you: is there an action which is not coloured by the future or by the past?
Q: It seems such an action will be only when it’s free from… (inaudible).
K: No. Therefore, find out, find out. What Nelson is saying is, if you are free from the ideal, the future, and free from the prejudice of the past, only then you are acting. You…? Right?
Q: Yes.
K: Now, as Mrs Simmons has pointed out, are you acting with regard to separation – acting?
Q: Yes.
K: Ah, ah… sir, you haven’t understood; you are… reply much too quickly. Do you understand what I’ve said? Sir, this is one of the… Look, let’s both see clearly that action means always, ever, is in the present, but that action in the present generally is coloured by the past — right? Right? — or shaped by a future ideal, future conclusion: ‘I must be this; it should not be that.’ Right? So the future or the past shapes my action in the present. Now, is there an action which is not shaped by the past or the future, and therefore that action is always in the present? Right? So we never act in the present, always in the past or in the future. Now, wait a minute; do you see actually separation in the present? Ah, wait, sir… don’t answer it; don’t be clever. Just see the fact. Do you see the fact of separation, or you have already come to a conclusion that there is a separation or in the future there should not be a separation, so you don’t see the actual separation? I wonder if you understand this.
Q: (Inaudible).
K: Now, let’s… wait a minute, let’s put it differently. Have you got ideals?
Q: Me?
K: Ah, you, generally; have you got ideals? ‘They should not be separation’ — that’s an ideal. You have no ideals?
Q: No.
K: Don’t be… Sir, I don’t know…
Q: No.
K: No. Are you sure? You know, it’s one of the… Don’t fool yourself.
Q: Of course you have ideals. I think everybody does.
K: Of course. He says, ‘No.’
Q: That’s his ideal.
Q: I think she said ideas.
Q: Yes.
Q: Yes.
Q: Is that an ideal?
K: What?
Q: That I don’t have ideals — is that an ideal?
K: I don’t know. Find out.
(Laughter)
Q: Someone just told me; somebody just… (inaudible).
K: No, sir, you haven’t understood ideal. When you say, ‘I want to be something,’ that’s an ideal.
Q: Well, doesn’t… (inaudible) study does imply that’s an ideal that I’m going to learn in the future?
K: What?
Q: What does imply, for instance, if I’m studying that I have an ideal to be learned in the future.
K: When I am studying mathematics — Mr Joe is teaching me mathematics or Mr Harsha or somebody else is teaching me mathematics — I don’t say, ‘I’m going to be a great mathematician’ — that’s an ideal; I just study mathematics. You follow? Haven’t you any ideals? You will be a great man or the world must be this, the community must be that.
Q: You just said what one of your ideals is when you said you don’t want to be any separating between the staff with the students.
K: Of course.
Q: That’s one of your ideas.
Q: No.
Q: It is; you can’t say no.
Q: If I see the separation and say the separation is not good, is this an ideal?
Q: Yes.
K: No, no; no. We’ll first… – leave the separation – first look at it carefully. We’ll come back to it later. You admit, we all admit, that people generally, including the majority of us here, that we have ideals of some kind; so that ideal is dictating your action in the present. Right? No?
Q: Yes.
K: (Inaudible). Or you have had experiences, memories, and those memories, experience, knowledge, which is the past, is showing you what you should do now — right? so you are never acting.
Q: Why ‘never’?
K: Because you are always thinking about the future or you are… the past is telling you what to do.
Q: So it means that you’re not able to act or you never act, you never do?
K: No… we’ve said action means doing things now, not dictated by the past or the future — doing. Right? So is there an action without the future and the past? Go on, sir, investigate it; go into it.
Q: A very sudden action, an action that happened very suddenly, maybe.
K: You started out by asking: seeing and thinking, they are two different things. Right? When you see you act instantly; it is not prejudiced by the past or the future. Right? No, be clear on this point. I see something very clearly and acting; or I see, but the seeing is coloured by my past. Right?
Q: (Inaudible).
K: And is not one of the causes of fear is… is not looking to the past to help us to act? Is this becoming…? (Laughs) Look here, sir, let’s come back. I don’t like separation, not here in the world… in the community, but I don’t like separation of nationalities — you follow? — I don’t like the separation of ideas; I don’t like the separation of churches, religion; I don’t like the separation of the hierarchical outlook, authoritarian outlook; I don’t like any form of separation out there or in myself, so I must… is it possible to be free of this separation in myself? You understand what I mean by separation in myself?
Q: No.
K: Contradiction: saying one thing and doing another, thinking something else and doing something else, contrary desires, contrary purposes. If I am… if there is no separation in me then I will see and help to create no separation. Right? But I must be clear that there is no separation in me. Are you?
Q: Am I clear?
K: Are you clear that there is no separation in you?
Q: Yes.
K: What?
Q: There is no separation in me.
K: There is no separation in you?
Q: Yes.
K: I wonder if we have understood each other.
Q: Many of these separations and conflicts are very subtle.
K: That’s what… There is no contradiction in any… in this…
Q: (Inaudible).
K: …in you, in others, no contradiction?
Q: I’m sorry, I don’t quite know what you mean.
K: No separation in you?
Q: Not that I see.
K: Which means there is no conflict in you?
Q: Not now.
Q: Do you always do what you think? Everything what you want to do, do you always do it, always, really always?
Q: Unless I am really not able to do it.
Q: So there is a separation in you.
Q: Well, I can’t go to the moon, but is that a separation?
Q: If you wanted to steal ten pounds from the office because you wanted to get something…
Q: (Inaudible)
Q: …a heater or something and you know that it’s wrong to get it, you know, so there is some… there might be one part of you that wants ten pounds, but there might be the other part that tells you can’t take it.
Q: No, that’s not the case.
K: Are you ambitious?
Q: Ambitious? No; about money, knowledge or… no.
K: Ah?
Q: No.
K: Not at all about anything?
Q: Not that I notice.
K: So you don’t know about yourself.
Q: Perhaps.
K: (Laughs) No, no, you can only say…
Q: Can we talk about how to see?
K: That’s what I’m trying to get at. Is seeing different from thinking? We said yes. Right? Now, what do you mean by seeing?
Q: Looking at something and not thinking or doing anything else.
K: Now, can you look at yourself without thinking; just look at yourself, what you are?
Q: I think it’s very hard.
K: Ah… No…
Q: No, I can’t.
K: It may be hard or easy, that’s not the point. Can you look at that tree without thinking?
Q: I can’t.
K: Ah?
Q: I can’t do it.
K: You can’t.
Q: No.
K: Why not?
Q: I don’t know.
K: No, no; let’s find out. Can you look at that tree without thinking? And when you think while you’re looking at that tree are you looking at the tree, or your thoughts prevent you from actually seeing?
Q: Yes, probably.
K: So you don’t see the tree. You don’t see the fact, but you have a conclusion about the fact. Right? So you have a prejudice about the fact. So can you see this… what we have been talking about as separation in yourself as a fact? Not that you must be, must not be… feel separation or that you run away from separation or that you’re not aware of separation, but can you see the fact that when you talk about separation whether there is separation in you, which means that you are selfish, you are isolated, you are thinking about yourself? All that is implied in division, in separation. Right? Can you see that as a fact, not as an idea? What, sir?
Q: (Inaudible).
K: Look, sir, I was born in India and I have been conditioned, that is, shaped, my thinking has been shaped by the culture in which I have lived. Right? Right? And that culture makes me separate from a European or an American. Right? So I have my culture, my education, my mind being conditioned makes me feel that I am separate from you as an American. Right? And I am selfish, so my selfishness separates me from you. Right? My ambition separates me from you. My love separates me from you. Now, do I see this, or do I have an idea about it? You see the difference?
I see that I am conditioned as a Hindu, conditioned according to the culture in which I have lived till I was nine, and that conditioning included traditions, superstition, that I was the greatest class of people — you follow? — the chosen of the gods, all that. That shaped my thinking, therefore I said, ‘None of you belong to me, my class of people,’ so there is separation, therefore there is conflict between you and me. Right? Right? Now, do I see that or do I say, ‘Yes, I agree that I am like that’? You see the difference? Look, I see this or I see the word *microphone*, I hear the word *microphone* and that word prevents me from looking. Right? Is this clear? Is this clear what I’m saying? So can… is there a seeing and therefore acting? I see there is a certain height and I have to step down and I act; but I have an idea and I act according to that idea, which is thinking and acting; which is different from seeing and acting. I wonder if I am…
Q: So you would say, Krishnaji, that in seeing that all religions bring conflict, in seeing that, that means you won’t belong to any religion.
K: That’s right; that’s right.
Q: But… (inaudible) a little step further? In seeing in yourself this division, what is there that sees this division?
K: Now, wait a minute; quite. You’ve understood his question? Nelson asks, ‘Who is it that sees this division in myself?’ You’ve understood? Please, do pay attention because it’s as good as mathematics. First of all, I have understood division, haven’t I, outwardly: in the world there are the Hebrews, Arabs, Hindus, Muslims, communists, socialists, Americans, English, German… and because there is division in the world like that, economically, socially, geographically — geographically there is, but psychologically there is this vast division, which has bred such exhausting destructive wars. Right? Do you see that? And I say I see that very clearly. Then I say to myself, ‘Am I…. in myself am I separate? Am I making myself separate as a Hindu?’ If I am then I contribute to hatred, division, wars. So I… moment I see that, I finish with it; I’m no longer a Hindu, I’m no longer a Christian, Buddhist — finished. So I see it. I am not… I haven’t drawn a conclusion from it. I see the actual fact that where there is division there must be antagonism, wars and so on. Do you see it? Come on.
Q: (Inaudible)… when you say, ‘I’m going to see it… (inaudible)’ but my thoughts can’t.
K: Ah, no, not ‘friend’; just stick to this. I am asking you: do you see this fact that where there is separation there must be conflict? It’s so obvious in the world, isn’t it? Now, in yourself is there such separation? ‘I am better than you. I am more beautiful than you. I’m much more intelligent than you. I am…’ — you follow? — so all that creates division in myself and therefore conflict in myself and with you. Do I see the fact as I see this thing? So when I see something like that, it’s finished, isn’t it? If I see clearly, understood, tasted, observed that poison kills, I don’t touch it. Now, if I see separation is a poison, it’s… I no longer feel separate. I may not attend any of your classes or any of your staff, but I don’t feel separate. I wonder if you see that. And if I don’t feel separate, I’ll cook, I’ll help, I’ll talk, I’ll do anything. I don’t bring about separation, saying, ‘Well, you and I.’ I wonder if you understand all this. You know, most people in the world believe in God. Right? Right?
Q: Yes.
K: Yes, of course. They are so hesitant. Do you believe in God?
Q: Well, I don’t know anything about God.
K: I said do you believe?
Q: No.
K: Why?
Q: I don’t know anything about… (inaudible).
K: So you don’t believe. Now, most people believe in God — right? — Hindus — except communists and so on — the large majority of people believe in God. And you don’t believe in God. So there is a separation between you and another who believes in God.
Q: Is there?
K: (Laughs)
Q: (Inaudible)
K: Of course.
Q: Why?
K: Isn’t there a separation between a Catholic and you?
Q: He may think that… (inaudible) I don’t.
K: But there is… I said there is a separation.
Q: Oh.
K: You don’t even listen.
Q: But…
K: There is a separation between you and a Catholic.
Q: There would be, certainly.
K: Yes. And that separation is going to bring conflict.
Q: Only if both people want the other to believe in what he believes.
K: Yes. So, what? So I’m pointing out: belief separates. Right? Now, have you a belief in anything?
Q: Yes, I think so, yes.
K: What? What is that belief?
Q: I don’t know. Well, you must have some belief.
K: (Inaudible). So can you see your belief actually and be free of that belief so that there is no conflict in you and therefore no fear? You understand the…? I believe, suppose I believe in God. You come along and question my belief and I’m frightened because I’m not quite sure. I’m frightened so I resist whatever you say. So fear makes me resist and hold on to what I have, I have in property or in belief or in my conclusion. So where there is belief, a conclusion, an attachment, there must be fear. Right? Do you see that? See it, not think about it. So when you see it you are acting, therefore you are free from belief… You understand what I’m saying? If you don’t, please, I’ll put it differently.
We were talking about, the other day, fear. We said fear is one of the movements of thought; and can you look at that fear which you have without all the movement of thought, just look at it? You have fear, haven’t you? Be simple. Of course.
Q: Yes, I think… (inaudible).
K: Right? Now, can you look at it? Now, wait a minute. Look, you are shy to admit it and if in the staff meeting we asked you, they asked you, ‘Are you afraid?’ in front of everybody, you wouldn’t like it. You would be exposing yourself. Nobody likes to expose themselves, at least very few do.
Q: Well, I don’t know.
K: So if you are afraid, can you look at that strange feeling without the impediment of thought?
Q: Krishna, that was the point that was the point that we had the misunderstanding.
K: Beg your pardon? Louder.
Q: That was the point that we misunderstand because I’m asking how can you see something you can’t touch?
K: Ah, how can you see something you can’t touch. Can you touch anger?
Q: Anger? Oh, no.
K: But you are angry.
Q: Yes, sometimes.
K: So can you see something which you cannot touch? Of course you can.
Q: I can see that I am angry but I can’t touch it.
K: But you know… you can see the feeling of it.
Q: Oh, yes.
K: So there is something which is not… which you can feel without the word. It’s a little too complicated. What interests you all? What is your interest? What are you interested in?
Q: Me?
K: Yes.
Q: Literature.
K: Literature. Are you interested in literature?
Q: Also.
K: Also. I’m asking you, what is your main interest in life?
Q: Life.
K: Now, what does that mean?
Q: Everything that concerns life.
K: In politics, in religion, in meditation, in proper society.
Q: Yes.
K: Yes. In right… in relationship, in affection, in love, in meditation. Now, what… how much time will you give to all that?
Q: My life.
K: I said… I asked how much time?
Q: How much time? My life.
K: That’s life, isn’t it, all that.
Q: Yes.
K: To understand all that you must give your energy to all that, mustn’t you? So what will you do? Will you give all your energy to understand what is religion, what is society; your energy — go into it, work at it, find out? Will you? Are you?
Q: Yes.
K: So you want to know what fear is, that is part of life; and to be free of it is part of life. Right? So can you be free of fear?
Q: Yes.
K: What? Are you free of fear, or in the future you will be free of fear?
Q: Or was in the past.
K: Of course, suppressed, escape. So to understand fear you must give your life to it. I think we’d better stop and continue with this because it’s one o’clock. You’ll be glad (laughs); I can stretch now.
Q: I think, Krishnaji, that it’s a very interesting point which you have just said because…. you said just you should give your entire life to it…
K: Otherwise how will you understand anything?
Q:Yes, but when you say, ‘If you see fear,’ then that’s in one second, but then you have to be totally there.
K: Sir, if you want to be a great pianist, you must work at it, mustn’t you? That’s your life. You give every minute of the day to study, to work and find out how to play piano the most marvellous way. In the same way, if you are interested to find out what fear is, you have to… — you follow? — give all your life to find out. Or if you want to be a good mathematician you must give your life to it. You understand what a genius is? Is one who gives all his attention to one thing and works at it; it doesn’t happen. Well, we’d better stop. We’ll go into it.
Copyright 1975 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust. All Rights Reserved.