Table Of ContentTable Of Content
- Chapter 1, Discussion With Buddhists -...................................................................3
Illusion And Intelligence...............................................................................................3
- Chapter 2, Seminars Madras 1981 -........................................................................17
Chapter 2 Part 1 In Listening Is Transformation.........................................................17
Chapter 2 Part 2 In Listening Is Transformation.........................................................32
Chapter 2 Part 3 In Listening Is Transformation.........................................................43
- Chapter 3, Seminars New Delhi 1981 - ...................................................................59
Chapter 3 Part 1 The Future Of Man...........................................................................59
Chapter 3 Part 2 The Future Of Man...........................................................................70
Chapter 3 Part 3 The Future Of Man...........................................................................81
- Chapter 4, Seminars Madras 1979 -........................................................................90
Chapter 4 Part 1 The Nature Of A Religious Life.......................................................90
Chapter 4 Part 2 The Nature Of A Religious Life.....................................................104
2nd Seminar Madras 3rd January 1979.....................................................................104
Chapter 4 Part 3 The Nature Of A Religious Life.....................................................118
- Chapter 5, Seminars Madras 1978 -......................................................................129
Chapter 5 Part 1 Insights Into Regeneration..............................................................129
Chapter 5 Part 2 Insights Into Regeneration..............................................................142
Chapter 5 Part 3 Insights Into Regeneration..............................................................153
- Chapter 6, Seminars Rishi Valley 1980 -..............................................................168
Chapter 6 Part 1 Intelligence, Computers And The Mechanical Mind.....................168
Chapter 6 Part 2 Intelligence, Computers And The Mechanical Mind.....................179
Chapter 6 Part 3 Intelligence, Computers And The Mechanical Mind.....................192
Chapter 6 Part 4 Intelligence, Computers And The Mechanical Mind.....................203
2
- Chapter 1, Discussion With Buddhists -
Chapter 1 Discussion With Buddhists Varanasi 13th November 1978
Illusion And Intelligence
Rimpoche: Sir, when the observer observes, he is the matrix of thought, of
memories. So long as the observer is observing from this matrix, it is not
possible for him to see without naming, because that naming arises out of that
matrix. How then can the observer free himself from this matrix?
Krishnamurti: I would like to know whether we are discussing this as a
theoretical problem, an abstraction, or as something that has to be faced
directly without theories?
Jagannath Upadhyaya: This question is directly connected with one's daily
life.
K: Sir, who is the observer? We take it for granted that the observer is born
of the matrix, or that he is the matrix. Or, is the observer the whole movement
of the past? Is this a fact to us or an idea? Does the observer himself realize
that he is the whole movement of the past? And that as long as he is
observing, that which is being observed can never be accurate? I think this is
an important question. Can the observer, who is the whole movement of the
past, with all his conditioning, ancient and modern, be aware of himself as
being conditioned?
Achyut Patwardhan: The observer when he looks at a fact, looks with his
old conditioning, samskar. And so he cannot see the fact as it is.
J.U.: Can we accept this? K: Are we all on the same level as Rimpocheji,
who has asked this question: The observer is made up of the past and as long
as he is rooted in the past, is he able to see the truth of a fact? If he is not
aware of himself as the observer who is conditioned, there will be a
contradiction between himself and the thing which is being observed,
contradiction being a division.
3
A.P.: As long as he does not see this clearly, there will be conflict in the act
of seeing.
K: Sir, the question arises then: Is it possible for the observer to understand
himself and discover his limitations, his conditioning, and so not interfere with
the observation?
RMP: That is the basic problem. Whenever we try to observe, the observer
is always interfering in the observation. I would like to know whether there is a
method to cut off the `me' which is interfering.
K: The observer is the practice, the system, the method. Because he is the
result of all past practices, methods, experiences, knowledge, the routine, the
mechanical process of repetition, he is the past. Therefore, if you introduce
another system, method, practice, it is still within the same field.
RMP.: Then how can it be done?
K: We are coming to that. Let us first see what we are doing. If we accept a
method, a system, the practising of it will make the observer more mechanical.
Any system will only strengthen the observer.
J.U.: Then this leads to a deadlock.
K: No. On the contrary. That is why I said, does the observer realize he is
the result of all experience, of the past and the present. In that experience is
included methods, systems, practices, the various forms of sadhana. And you
now ask, is there a further series of practices, methods, systems, which means
that you are continuing in the same direction. J.U.: I feel that it is not only
possible to reject the past totally but the present as well. The past can be
negated by observation, but the power of the present will not go unless the
past is negated. One is concerned with the present moment.
A.P.: The present and the past are actually one. They are not separate.
J.U.: Therefore, we should negate the present. The roots of the past will be
negated when the present is broken.
4
A.P.: You mean by the present, this moment, this present moment of
observation?
K: This present moment in observation is the observation of the whole
movement of the past. What is the action necessary to put an end to that
movement? Is that the question?
J.U.: What I am saying is, it is on this moment of time that the past rests
and on this moment that we build the edifice of the future. So, to be completely
free of either the past or the future, it is necessary to break the moment in the
present, so that the past has no place in which to rest and no point from which
the future could be projected. Is this possible?
K: How is this movement of the past which is creating the present,
modifying itself as it moves, and which becomes the future, to end?
J.U.: By the process of observation we negate the past. By negating the
past we also negate the present. And we cease to build the future based on
the desires created by the past. Only observation remains. But even this
moment of observation is a moment. Unless we break that, we are not free
from the possibility of the rising of the past and the creation of the future.
Therefore, the present moment, the moment of observation, has to be broken.
K: Are you saying, sir, that in the state of attention now, in the now, the past
ends; but that the very observation which ends the past has its roots in the
past?
J.U.: This is not what I am saying. I do not accept the position that the past
creates the present or the present the future. In the process of observation,
past and future history are both dissolved. But the question is that again the
histories of the past and the future touch on this moment, this existent
moment. Unless this moment itself is negated, the past and the future are
again restored to activity.
To make it clear, I would like to call it `existence', the moment of `is'-ness.
One has to break this moment of `is' ness, and then all these tendencies,
whether they reflect the past or project the future, are broken. Is this possible?
5
K: This question has special relevance for you. I want to understand the
question before I answer. I am just asking, not answering: The past is a
movement. It has stopped with attention. And with the ending of the past, can
that second, that moment, that event, itself disappear?
J.U.: I would like to make it more clear: This moment is an `existent'
moment.
K: The moment you use the word `existence', it has a connotation. We must
look at it very carefully.
Pupul Jayakar: It is not stable.
J.U.: I would like to call this moment kshana bindu, the moment of time.
The `suchness' of the moment, the `is' ness of the moment, has to be broken.
Is this possible? In the movement of observation there is neither the past nor
the possibility of the future. I do not even call it the moment of observation
because it does not have any power of existence. Where there is no past or
future, there cannot also be any present.
K: May I put this question differently? I am the result of the past. The `me' is
the accumulation of memories, experience, knowledge - which is the past. The
`me' is always active, always in momentum. And the momentum is time. So,
that momentum as the `me' faces the present, modifies itself as the `me' but is
still the `me', and that `me' continues into the future. This is the whole
movement of our daily existence. You are asking, can that movement as the
`me', the centre, cease and have no future? Is that right, sir?
J.U.: Yes.
K: My question is, does the `me', which is consciousness, recognise itself
as the movement of the past, or is thought imposing it as an idea - that it is the
past?
J.U.: Could you repeat the question?
K: I, my ego, the centre from which I operate, this self-centredness is
centuries old, millions of years old. It is the constant pressure of the past, the
accumulated result of the past. The greed, the envy, the sorrow, the pain, the
6
anxiety, the fears, the agony, all that is the `me'. Is this `me' a verbal state, a
conclusion of words, or is it a fact as this microphone is a fact?
J.U.: Yes, it is so; yet it is not absolutely so. It is not self-evident.
A.P.: Why? On what is it dependent?
J.U.: When I say it is so, it is only in terms of the past or future. It is neither
in the past nor in the future. I do not accept it as transcendental truth. I may
accept it at the level of a day-to-day order of reality.
A.P.: But you are saying it is the creator of the context.
J.U.: `This' is a creation of the past. What is the meaning of `this'? The `me'
is the history of the past.
K: Which is the story of man who has been in travail, who has struggled,
who has suffered, who is frightened, who is in sorrow and so on.
P.Y. Deshpande: It is the story of the universe, not of `me'. K: It is `me'.
Don't let us pretend it is of the universe.
J.U.: The `me' is history, which can be broken by observation.
A.P.: He is saying that these facts are unrelated to the centre as the
observer.
K: Existence has no self-existence. It is a descriptive statement in
observing; it is not a fact.
J.U.: It is history. It has nothing to do with observation.
P.J.: He says, I am this, I am that, I am history. This is a descriptive
statement. In observing, it has no existence.
K: Let us go into it quietly. The `me' is the movement of the past, the story
of humanity, the history of man. And that story is `me'. It expresses itself all the
time in my relationship with another. So, that past in my relationship with my
wife, husband, child or friend, is the operation of the past with its images, with
its pictures, and it divides my relationship with another.
7
J.U.: This exists prior to awareness. With awareness the moment will be
broken and with it all relationships.
P.Y.D.: At the point of attention everything dissolves.
K: You are saying that at the point of attention everything disappears. But
does it disappear in my relationship with my wife?
J.U.: No. This is not my experience. I have no history; I have not made any
history. History is independent of the `me' or the `I'.
A.P.: He says he is the product of history, and he has accepted this identity.
K: But if you are the product of history, you are the result of the past. That
past interferes with your relationship with another. And my relationship with
another brings about conflict. My question is, can that conflict end now? J.U.:
Yes. It will end because the moment is broken.
P.J.: It will end in the instant of attention, and with it the totality of the past.
Radha Burnier: This is absolutely theoretical.
J.U.: I am speaking from experience. Attention is an experience, a special
experience - and it denies the past.
A.P.: Attention cannot be an experience because it would then be
imaginary. It is a part of the past because there is an observer separate from
the observed and so there is no attention.
K: That is why, sir, I began by asking in the beginning, are we discussing
theories or facts of daily life?
Rimpocheji, I think your first question was, can this past history, this past
movement, which is always exerting its pressure on our minds, our brains, our
relations, on all our existence, end, so that it does not prevent pure
observation? Can the sorrow, the fear, the pleasure, the pain, the anxiety,
which is the story of man, end now, so that the past does not interfere or
prevent pure observation?
RMP.: Yes. That was the original question.
8
K: You asked, if I understood rightly, is there a practice, a method, a
system, a form of meditation, which will end the past?
RMP.: Whenever we try to observe the past, the past intervenes. At that
moment, observation becomes useless. That is so according to my own
experience.
K: Of course, obviously.
RMP.: Now, how to observe without the interference of the observer?
K: What is the quality or nature of the observer? When you say the
observer is all the past, is he aware of himself as the past?
RMP.: I don't think so. K: No, he is not aware.
R.B.: Or is he partially aware that he is the past?
RMP.: No. At the moment of observation he is not aware of the past.
K: For the moment we are not observing; we are examining the observer.
We are asking if the observer can be aware of himself.
RMP.: You mean at the moment of observation?
K: No. Not at the moment of observation; forget the observation. I am
asking whether the observer can know himself.
RMP.: Yes. He can understand the past, he can understand his
conditioning.
K: Can he understand his conditioning as an outsider observing it, or is he
aware of himself as being conditioned? You see the difference, sir?
RMP.: Observation by the mind of the real man, whether it is dual or it is
itself - that is not clear. The awareness of self - is it a duality?
K: I don't know about duality. I don't want to use words which we don't
understand. To make it much simpler: Can thought be aware of itself?
RMP.: No.
R.B.: Is it the same as saying, is one aware of envy, anger, etc., as other
than oneself?
9
K: Am I aware that I am angry? Is there awareness of anger as it arises? Of
course, there is, I can see the awakening of envy. I see a beautiful carpet, and
there is envy, there is the greed for it. Now, in that knowing, is thought aware
that it is envy or is envy itself aware? I am envious, I know what the meaning
of the word `envy' is. I know the reaction, I know the feeling. Is that feeling the
word? Does the word create that feeling? If the word `envy' did not exist, then
is it envy? So, is there an observation of envy, the feeling without the word?
We don't know it exactly, but is there something to which we later give a
name?
P.J.: Naming which creates the feeling?
K: That is what I am saying. The word has become more
important. Can you free the word from the feeling? Or does
the word make the feeling? I see that carpet. There is perception,
sensation, contact and thought, as the image of owning that carpet, and so
desire arises. And the image which thought has created is the word. So, is
there an observation of that carpet without the word, which means there is no
interference of thought?
RMP.: Observation of a carpet, an outside object... It can be seen without
interference.
K: Now, is it possible to observe without the word, without the past, without
remembrance of previous envies?
RMP.: It is difficult.
K: If I may point out, sir, it does not become difficult. First, let us be clear:
The word is not the thing; the description is not the described. But for most of
us the word has become tremendously important. To us the word is thought.
Without the word, is there `thinking', in the usual usage of that word? The word
influences our thinking, language moulds our thinking, and our thinking is with
the word, with the symbol, with the picture, and so on. Now, we are asking,
can you observe that feeling that we have verbalized as envy, without the
word, which means without the remembrance of past envies?
10
