Can I be a light globally?
How can one be a light to oneself if there is any kind of dependence?
6th Seminar Brockwood Park
September 18, 1978
I believe this is the last discussion or dialogue. Tomorrow morning at the same time there's going to be a dialogue between Dr Bohm, Dr Shainberg and myself, and those who want to, can join us, to really discuss, and the rest can observe.
Can we now go back to what we were talking about the first time, which is, to observe what actually is happening, to observe actually what is taking place in our relationship, with each other, whether it be husband and wife, girl, boy and so on. Can we go into that. Or as this is the last discussion or dialogue, what would you like to talk about?
Questioner: Well, I came in here this morning and I saw quite a few people and myself thinking over what was going to happen when the discussion came about, what we were going to talk about. And it came to me: what we really are here for, what we are creating within ourselves, and what’s going to become of us.
Krishnamurti: Ah, that's quite a different matter. What's going to become of you, when you leave here. Is that it?
Q: Well, out of what we have done here and what we have talked about.
K: What you have learnt here, what you have found out for yourself here.
K: What you will do with it, or how will you carry on from where you are now.
K: Yes. Do you want to discuss that? Or do we want to go back to what we were talking about the first day, which we haven't really touched at all. Which is, be a light to yourself, and not depend on anybody else.
K: That's what we began to talk about. Are you avoiding relationship, discussing relationship? Frightened to open that Pandora Box? Please, just tell me which you want to discuss.
Q: Are they both related?
Q: Are they both related.
Q: Could we discuss both of them?
K: I mean, not discuss - as we said yesterday, can we remain with the fact, without any deviation, without the interference of all the accumulated memories of the past, which is thought, to observe what is taking place without all that, the past, thought acting as a barrier in observation. That's what we were discussing.
Now can we talk over together the question of relationship, and if it is possible to be a light to oneself, not dependent on anybody. Is that possible, to be so completely, totally free from all influence, from all propaganda, from all the tradition that man has built, superstition, and so on, so on, every form of influence, both external and inward? And then only it is possible to be free from all pressure, and so discover what it is to be a light to oneself. Either that or we can talk over together this question of relationship. It's up to you.
Q: I would like to talk first about the possibility of being a light unto oneself.
K: What do you want to do?
Q: If we talk about relationship to begin with, then come to the other.
Q: The other way round, it seems to me, whereby...
K: (Laughs) Which came first, the egg or the chicken and so on. Is this a game you are playing, Tunki?
Q: The actual problem is relationship, obviously.
K: Do you want to go into it?
K: Now wait a minute. Do we know - let's start - do we know exactly what our relationship is now. Are we aware of it, it doesn't matter, with my mother, with my father, with one's father, wife, husband, mother, sister - relationship, intimate and not intimate, far and near. Are we aware - please, this is not a talk by me, we are sharing, we must join in this. Are we each one of us aware what our relationship is with another.
Q: As we pointed out yesterday, we are aware when there’s pain.
Q: We are aware when there’s pain.
K: No, no. I'm sorry, I'm not making myself clear. You are related to somebody, aren't you? Are you aware of the significance of that relationship? What it means, what is involved in it, what are the reactions, pressures, you know - whole interaction between two people. Are you aware of it? Possession, domination, being possessed, and liking to be possessed, belonging to somebody. And attachment, the pain in attachment, the fear, the pleasing another and the other liking to be pleased and so on, the whole area of our relationship. Are we aware of it? (Pause)
Come on, sir.
Q: Well, we can think about it.
K: No, not think about it, no. Then you project what you might like, or what you - just actually what is our relationship. My goodness
Q: It includes the intrinsic loneliness of life.
Q: It includes the intrinsic loneliness of life and the desire for a companion.
K: All that's implied. Are we aware of all the implications and the consequences of our relationship, sexual, non-sexual, companionship, attachment - all that. Do I know, do you know, each one of us, know what exactly our relationship is with each other? Or is it all superficial, casual, merely sexual or a resistance, an avoidance of relationship.
Q: I think it includes a bit of everything.
K: I beg your pardon?
Q: I think it includes a bit of everything. A little, it includes all that you said.
K: All right. Are you aware of it?
Q: No. I don’t think we are aware of it at all.
K: Then what do you mean by the word 'relationship'. You are related to somebody - what does it mean?
Q: I have contact with them, with almost everyone I meet, I have some kind of contact.
K: You know, sirs, this is a dangerous subject, you understand, sir? Right? Agree? It's a very dangerous thing, because...
Q: I think it also means sharing.
Q: Sharing things together. Sharing.
K: Sharing. Yes, all that's - don't, sir, we know. Are you aware of it? Are you aware actually what is going on in your relationship with another, actually?
Q: I can’t be, or I wouldn’t have asked the question I asked.
K: No. So I'm asking - if you have a girlfriend or a husband or a wife, what is your relationship with them, with each other? Sexual, superficial, companionship, each separate from the other, each concerned with his own ambitions, vanities, pleasures and the other also, in a different way. So it is separate movements.
Q: Yes, you relate in different ways to different people.
K: Don't describe it any more, we know the details - I'm asking, two separate movements coming occasionally into contact sexually, but keep the two movements separate. Is that what our relationships are?
Q: Yes, it seems to be that.
K: What, sir?
Q: It seems that we are separate.
Q: It seems it’s as you described it. Separate things that come at different moments.
K: Yes, separate, but not only coming together occasionally, but sustaining this separation, maintaining it, nourishing it, creating it, driving along these separate paths.
David Shainberg: That's one feature of it, Krishnaji. I think there's another feature, that in many relationships there is also a movement where there is a kind of sinking in, sort of merging where everything becomes one.
K: Do you merge with another? Ah, just a minute, sir. What do you mean merging?
S: Where there is no separation, but it's not where everything is sort of mixed up, it is joined.
K: Is it, everything is mixed up. Right? Merging, separating, companionship, non-companionship - follow? - it's all a jumble. Would that be right, correct?
Q: It is so, it is as you describe it.
K: Not as I describe it.
Q: Well, I mean not to repeat the whole description, but there is another problem, that one of the related people might be interested to change this whole relationship. And the other might not be interested.
K: Yes, I am interested - you are interested in going to church and your husband, wife is not interested in it.
Q: No, I mean that one is interested, one finds that this kind of relationship is a problem that has something to be done about, and the other just continues like that, so he doesn’t find...
K: Yes, but do I - madame, you're not answering my question. Forgive me for repeating it. Forgive me if it's a boring thing, but I'm asking you, are we actually aware, the happening in our relationship. Apparently we don't seem to be
Q: In certain relationships, yes. In certain relationships, yes.
K: In certain relationships.
K: In all relationships - you don't - you see how we are...
Q: Krishnaji, I think we’re superficially aware, but we’re not deeply aware of all the implications.
K: No. All right, are you aware that your relationship is confused, mixed up, one moment this, next moment that - it's a kind of, you know.
Q: I think to that extent we are aware.
K: Are you? Now just begin with that simple thing. Are we aware, each one of us, that in our relationship there is a great deal of confusion. Right, sir? Would you accept that? Not what I'm telling you.
Q: So I’m aware of that at some moments but most of the time I’m not aware of it.
K: Now, sir, I'm just asking now, are we aware that our relationship is so mixed up, so unclear, so confused, so, you know, nothing - all the rest of it. If we are aware of that, if we know - if you say I know, my relationship is really quite confused, I am this at one moment, next moment something else and so on, so on. So there is never clarity in it. Would we say that? Could we - no?
K: You don't agree with that?
K: What don't you agree with?
Q: Because I think I am clear about certain relationships.
K: Certain, Tura - I said in all. I said in all relationships, I may be very clear, in my relationship to - what? - to my father?
K: To your father, it might be clear. But with your boy friend, if you have any, with your boy friend it's mixed up. It is mixed up, is it confused, is it not as clear as pure water.
How can we move if we're not facing what actually is?
Q: Sir, I’m clear about this at some moments. I am more aware of this as we speak about it. But I don’t remember it. If I remembered this all the time, I would always be...
K: No, sir, it's not a question of remembrance, it's a question of what actually is going on.
Q: But I’m not aware of what is going on.
K: Therefore, which means you're confused.
Q: That’s right, but I don’t know I’m confused because I’m not aware of it.
K: All right, can you, can one be aware of it now? How difficult, you see what you're all avoiding? I told you, this is really a very serious subject, and we don't want to enter into the complexities of it, the fear of it, what might happen, whether I will lose my wife, husband, all the rest of it.
Q: Sir, I’m afraid we do not understand what it is, being aware.
K: Know, recognise, actually see what is taking place, what is actually happening - not all the time, but say now. How can we go forward if we're not aware or know, recognise, cognisant, conscious of what is the movement in our relationship, whether it's that movement is distorted, confused, wobbly and so on, so on, so on. See how difficult it is?
Mary Zimbalist: Sir, are we looking at the entire problem of relationship, including the relationship to nature, to...
K: I beg your pardon, I can't hear.
MZ: Are we looking at the whole problem of relationship, or relationship with our fellow man in certain fairly close...
K: No, Maria, I'm asking you, are you aware, do you know, recognise, conscious, all the rest of it, what your relationship is actually? What is happening in that relationship?
MZ: To whom or what?
K: To you.
MZ: No, no, I mean my relationship to what or whom?
K: To your husband, son, wife, boyfriend, girl - relationship.
MZ: In other words, other human beings?
K: Of course, I said that at the beginning.
MZ: And is that only close relationships or...
K: Close, I said, Maria, intimate - I've been through this, intimate, personal, extended, far, near - all that is involved in relationship. What's my relationship when I go to India, or America, and, the whole problem of it.
Q: It seems to me that I do see the difficulties and the motives.
Q: It seems to me that I do see all this but still it goes on, it doesn’t prevent the difficulties. It is still difficult, relationship. Is it because I don’t see it really?
K: How shall we deal with this problem? Each one of us has a different opinion about it, haven't we? Different explanation, different approach, different attitudes and values and so on. Now what is the common factor in relationship? As it is, not as it should be, romantic, lovely, beautiful, love, I love you, darling, you love me, darling - no, I don't mean all that. Just actually what do we mean - I give up.
Q: Two separate people.
K: (Laughs) I said all that, sir. Two, between you, your mother, between you and your wife, between you and your friend, and so on.
Q: They’re essentially separate.
K: I don't know, I'm asking you what...
Q: If there is a relationship...
K: What's your relationship to your mother, or to your father?
Scott Forbes: Everyone seems to admit that there is at least some confusion, from whatever we have said.
K: Right, could we start with that, sir? Dr Shainberg, could we start with that? Could we start with that?
K: Or is my relationship absolutely clear. That I quarrel with my wife, that's very clear. I dominate, I want to possess my wife, she is my wife, I'm going to hold on to her - that's very clear. I depend on her, sexually, physically, as I'm weak and she's strong, and so I depend on her. That's very clear. Do we know at least that clarity?
K: Then what takes place, if you are so clear? You're very clear that you love, in quotes, a woman or a man. And in that love you depend on her, you're attached to her. Just take those two: you depend on her, you are attached to her. In that, isn't there pain, anxiety, disappointment, hurt? And she might throw you away, get rid of you one day and you are hurt, your heart is broken, whatever that silly word means, and so on - you cry over it. Right? Do you want to live in that kind of relationship?
Q: I see it’s worth nothing. It’s worth nothing, this sort of relationship.
K: I'm asking, each one of us - talk about it, sir, I'm not talking all the - talk about it, sir. Do you want, does one want to live that way? To know what it is to live that way and to know it and to pursue it is the essence of neuroticism. No? What, sir? (Laughs)
Q: It’s a fearful existence.
K: No, isn't that...
Q: A fearful existence.
K: Look, I know I'm attached, suppose, one knows one is attached, and also you see in that attachment, dependence, holding on great pain, suffering, anxiety, and fear. Knowing that, and to live, continue that way, is neurotic. No? Are you neurotic? (Laughter)
Q: I must be.
K: Sir, come on.
Q: Sir, the question that comes up is, how can a man and wife, if we’re talking about that relationship, be related in any other way?
K: No, if this is not the right way to live, in that relationship - fear, attachment, all that - why don't you drop it?
Q: That’s easily said. (Laughter)
K: What? What is that?
Q: He said, that’s very easily said.
K: Is that very easily said? If you see that certain action leads to pain, and you keep on acting in that way, what does it indicate? Either one is completely idiotic, or you like to act that way, that's perfectly all right. But here we're trying to be serious, to find out. You follow? So. Why don't you
Q: It seems there’s more pain in acting – it seems we think there is more pain in doing something else.
K: But that's again not facing what actually is going on. We went through that all yesterday and the day before. You project what might happen and therefore be afraid of what might happen and pain and all that. You don't say now, this is my actual relationship with another. I'm attached, I depend on her, physically, morally, sexually, you know - depend on her, so I am attached to her. And in that attachment the sequence of that thing is pain, all the rest of it. And this is the actual fact. Right?
Ingrid Porter: Isn't that taking us back to what we were saying before, yesterday, Krishnaji, that we are unable to face a fact?
K: That's what I'm asking.
IP: We haven't really seen it that's why we keep on doing it.
K: That's just what I'm saying - we are unable to face something actual. Why? Listen to it - why? I mean, if I have great pain and it may be cancerous, I must do something about it.
S: Krishnaji, I think there's one thing that comes in there immediately is the fact that the very relationship itself is attempting to deal with a pain. That the relationship itself is embedded in a protection, is a protection from another pain.
K: So you call all relationship pain?
S: No, I'm saying, relationship is functioning to protect from pain. And then creates more pain.
K: Wait, sir, therefore what does it mean?
K: You protect yourself against pain and in protecting yourself against pain you create more pain. What does that mean?
Q: It is.
K: What, sir?
Q: I said it is. It’s no protection at all.
K: Apparently, you see, we are not facing this fact. As Mrs Porter pointed out just now, we are unwilling to face a fact. So what do we do? Wait till that person leaves, then the whole thing - follow, sir? Wait till the calamity takes place? Psychological earthquake? (Laughs)
Q: With the pain always comes the pleasure, and I think because there’s pleasure involved in it, we accept the pain as part of it.
K: I see. You like, in this relationship there is greater pleasure than pain, and so you accept this relationship. Is that it? Is that a fact, is that so, is that what you are facing? If you are facing that, that there is greater pleasure and not so much fear, then the greater pleasure eventually ends up in fear.
Q: Why is it so obvious?
K: Ask Dr Shainberg, he agreed with me, so ask him. I'll take a rest! (Laughs)
S: No, I think that the whole thing of creating a relationship to protect against pain gives the pleasure of the relief from the pain, and then the frustration of that or the stoppage of that gives more pain. In other words, first is the pleasure of relief, then there's the pain of not getting the relief. So the initial relief is a pleasure and a continual pleasure.
K: Bene? So you see that? Actually see it, not verbally, that where there is pleasure and the pursuit of pleasure in relationship, it will inevitably end in greater pain. It's so obvious! Because you are giving another great pleasure, and therefore he holds on to you. Right? He won't let you go, he wants to possess you, he wants, he says 'She's mine'. And if you both like this thing, one day it's going to break. You follow?
So are you actually aware, know, face the fact of what your actual relationship is now? You see, we've spent, how long, half an hour about something which is so obvious, which we are unwilling to face. And that's why you all slither all around.
David Bohm: What can a person do if he finds he is unwilling to face it?
DB: I said, what can somebody do if he finds that he is unwilling to face it?
K: He is unwilling to face pleasure?
DB: Yes, to face the problem.
K: I can't do anything. His own intelligence, discussion, talk, observe what is happening must show him this.
S: Yes, but Krishnaji, David has raised a good point, because if I could say, the drug addict goes down to the corner and takes a five dollar bag of heroin, his consciousness is blurred to see what he's done, he's got a kick out of it.
K: All right.
S: The same thing with relationship, we get a kick.
K: All right. Are we in that position?
K: Are we in that position, that we are drugged?
Q: No, sir.
K: Our brains are affected. Maybe - sir, don't deny it so quickly. Maybe.
Q: Personally, I am not certain. I am not.
K: That's one of the most difficult things to say, I am not. (Laughs) I may be.
Q: I think that in a way we are because, we want to be in a certain way but we are trying to keep certain forms, and we are very afraid to open up, and change form, to be something else that we don’t know anything about. And therefore we keep to what we are even if we are in pain or in fear.
K: So, sir, I'm asking, can you face the fact of it, the actuality of it, not the description, not the word, but the actual state that you are this in relation to another. Come on, sir, how can you
Q: I think from what I see of myself is that one can be awake and very clear of certain facets of certain relationships, but as to the totality of the whole basis inside of oneself, it’s much harder, although one can awaken at certain times to certain facets of certain relationships, it’s still a fragmentation, but realising the whole, and a direct whole, it’s a much harder thing.
K: Sir, how can I comprehend the totality of relationship, the wholeness of relationship and the real extraordinary beauty of the totality of feeling, unless, if I'm not clear at the beginning - now, what it actually is? You follow? From there I must move. I must go forward in this realisation, 'I am this, my relationship is actually this.'
Q: And that one can sense it.
K: And face it. Not avoid it, not dodge it, not push it away or run away, just face it. And then see what happens when you face a relationship which actually is attachment - let's use that word for the moment to cover a whole field - face that attachment, without the interference of thought, without any motive, without any direction. Then see what takes place. We are not willing to do that.
Q: I am simply interfering.
K: That is what I'm sticking to, I won't move from that, till you, and I understand it and go beyond it.
Q: We agree to face a thing when it is important to us.
Q: We agree to face things when they are important enough.
K: Oh, that's up to you. As Dr Shainberg pointed out, a man who takes heroin day after day - habituated to it, he's involved, committed to it, and he says, 'What are you talking about? I want my heroin, everything's all right, give me that.' Are we in that state, because one has lived with one's girl or husband, wife, you say for god's sake, everything is perfect here, leave it alone. Apparently you don't want to join in this. You see, sir, what I am trying to say, what one is pointing out is, that when you face a fact, without the interference and the barrier of thought, the very thing that is being observed undergoes a fundamental change. You won't try it!
Stephen Smith: Perhaps the question, Krishnaji, is that we actually do know what our relationship is, if we're very honest.
K: That's right, sir.
SS: But we also have a trick whereby there's an idea that it really shouldn't really be that way, and we ought, it ought to be different, and we like to believe it's different, and in that way we kind of, we falsify the evidence.
K: And we say, 'Yes, it should not be that way,' and just carry on.
K: So I am saying, face the fact that it should not be that way and look at it.
Q: It seems to me that discussing the fact is not facing it, because we can’t go on.
K: That's right, sir. So what shall we do? We've come to an impasse each time because we are refusing to see, to face the thing. Sir, have you ever watched an ant, or a bee, closely? You must have. There you're not telling what the bee should do, or the ant should do. Just watching. Can you do the same thing about your reaction in your relationship with another? Just watch it without any interference. Apparently you can't - that's one of the most difficult things, apparently.
What shall we discuss, then?
Q: Is it possible, Krishnaji, is it possible to discuss the point before relationship. It was said that there was a pain which relationship was being used to cover up. Is it possible to look at that point before relationship gets involved, and see how we use it.
K: I see. Are you saying, can one be aware, know, etc., the words, that in relationship there might be pain, therefore understand the whole nature of pain, before you are related. Is that what you are saying?
Q: No, it was said, I think Dr Shainberg said, that some, many relationships were painful but we stuck with the relationship because we were trying to cover up another pain, or another inadequacy.
K: Yes, that's - yes.
Q: It seems we should perhaps give attention to that first inadequacy.
K: So, you are trying to cover up other pains? And establish escape through relationship? How can we
Q: Sir, it seems to me, the separate streams of life are distinct, come together occasionally, and relate partially...
K: Sir, I'm asking...
Q: ...relate wholly when we come together whatever life brings.
K: I'm asking, one is asking, sir, I keep on repeating, I'll keep on till you get bored with me and throw me out. Are you facing the fact of your relationship? Or you are avoiding it.
Q: Excuse me, that seems to be how the relationships come.
K: What, sir?
Q: That seems to be how the relationship takes place, as it comes about.
K: Now, just a minute. Here we are, all of us. What is your actual relationship to the speaker? Do you know it?
Q: Sir, I have been asking myself that throughout the meetings, and I have reached an impasse, where I cannot go further, I cannot go through a block.
K: I've asked, sir - what is your relationship with the person who is speaking here, on the platform, the actual relationship, not invented. What do you - you must be related otherwise you wouldn't be here. So what is your actual relationship with this person?
Q: Well, I’ve told you, sir, I’ve reached a block, I come to a position where I cannot experience it.
K: No, so, you've come - no, sir, please, sir, you've not understood, or I may not have made myself clear. There are you, and here, there are two people. Why have you come?
Q: To listen to something we don’t know.
S: I think there are a couple of reasons for coming. One is there is a sense of sharing and investigating together into how we don't see. That's one. In other words, to tear down together.
K: Are you rationalising, sir, just a minute, sir. Dr Shainberg, you and I have met for years, talked to each other a great deal etc., etc., etc. Now what is your relationship with this person?
K: (Laughs) Don't float around it. I'm sorry to pin you down.
S: That's all right. I have a feeling of going together or working together in some way.
K: I'm not talking of doing something.
S: Yes, that's what I first said.
K: I'm not talking of that. I am asking you, before we do something together, what's our relationship?
S: There are no words for it.
K: No, come off it, you're full of words, Doctor - don't - come off it. (Laughter) Don't say there's no word for it!
Q: Sir, can I try to answer it for myself. I have come to get something from you.
K: Yes, So - that's good enough, sir - that's good enough. You want something from me. Right?
K: What is that relationship?
Q: I cannot get it because...
K: No, no, no, please, sir - I come to you to get something from you, whether it is money, sex, psychological freedom, etc., etc., I want something from you. Then what is my relationship to you?
Q: Attachment, dependency – attachment.
Q: Attachment and dependency.
K: No, no! I want something from you.
K: No, Tunki, be simple! It's a merchandise!
Q: There is no relationship.
S: No, it's a utilitarian relationship.
K: I want something from you, I'll give you this, and you give me that.
Q: A transaction.
K: It's a transaction, all right.
Q: It’s worse – I don’t even give anything.
K: No, but, you see what I'm trying to get at. You're not willing to face something actually, which is really important, and you are missing the whole thing. Why don't you ask me what is my relationship to you?
Q: Ok, sir, we’ll ask that question: what is your relationship to us?
K: I put it, not you. (Laughter) You see, that's...
Q: You put the idea in my head.
Q: You care, sir.
Q: You care.
K: You care. Do I?
Q: No. (Laughter)
K: No, you're playing - no, sir, this becomes too serious. I'm not going to play games with you. What's your relationship to the man that's speaking here? Is it a transaction, is it a business thing, that you give me this and I give you that? You have something and I want that something from you.
IP: But that's not so, you don't want anything from us - we haven't got anything to give, and if he says he wants something from you, then surely his relationship to you is one of depending on you.
K: That's just what I'm pointing out. So am I facing the fact that when I want something from another, that brings about the great pain of dependence, which we are unwilling to look. (Pause)
So. How can one be a light to oneself if there is any kind of dependence? Right? Now, which is more important, the light to oneself or dependence? Which is more vital, energising, passionate?
S: How do you distinguish that from pleasure? We try to distinguish the fact that you're saying, you know, which one is going to give me more pleasure?
K: Yes, put it - which is more pleasurable, to be a light to oneself, the implications of that, to be a light to oneself is quite - you follow? - sir, we haven't gone into it, it is a tremendous thing, light to oneself, will that give me greater pleasure than the other?
Tunki: Can I say until I am a light to myself?
K: Therefore, what will you do. You want to find out, don't you?
T: Of course, yes.
K: Ah, you see, you want to find out, don't you, if being a light to oneself, the implications of it most of us don't understand, but will that give me greater comfort, greater strength, greater energy, greater, much more vitality and passion, than dependence. Will dependence give me vitality? Deep, abiding strength? Or it's going to waste away my energy? And so I think dependence may have greater pleasure, so I pursue that till I am awakened to it through pain. Then I say, 'My god, I must struggle to be independent,' or 'That person is not right, I'll go and take on that person.' Right? This person has the same, in the same field as the other, because that person is going to cause the same problem.
So I'm asking, as Dr Shainberg pointed out, does dependence give great pleasure?
Q: When one realises that dependence is limited, then it stops.
K: No, do you realise in the sense, the actuality of dependence and see the whole consequence, step by step, what is involved in it. Not imagine, not forecast what might happen, but actually, the truth of dependence, the insight to dependence.
Sir, don't you depend on your wife, husband, girl, or whatever - don't you? No? Then we are all marvellous saints - finished!
S: It's all heroin you see, everybody is unconscious of it. Everybody is on heroin.
Q: I don’t think everybody is unconscious of it – I know I’m dependent. I may not see the full, all of it, but I certainly do see that I am dependent on others.
K: All right, don't you see, in that dependence, Shankar, that there is a great deal of pain? Though it may be pleasurable for the time being, in that very pleasurable for the time being, see the pain going on at the same time? Then why don't you drop it?
Q: Are we frightened relationship will stop then, if we drop it.
Q: Are we frightened that relationship will stop when we drop it.
K: So relationship...
Q: I think the relationship is based on that pain, on getting that, because...
K: That's what Dr Shainberg was pointing out.
Q: So that’s why I don’t drop it, because if I drop it, then that is the basis of the whole relationship.
K: If you drop it, there may be a different kind of relationship. You follow? You're not facing the issue.
Q: Sir, what on earth you mean when you say, ‘Drop it.’
K: What on earth do I mean - it's very simple, sir. Don't you drop something when it is dangerous - drop, that is, put it aside, avoid it.
Q: What do you mean, put it aside? I don’t understand at all.
K: All right. I see dependence implies pain. Right? Do I want more pain in this dependency? A continuous pain for the next thirty years?
Q: I think this is a confusion of words, Krishnaji.
K: I know, sir, I know.
Q: When you say can we drop it, we’re probably thinking can we drop relationship.
K: No, no.
Q: You mean, can we drop the dependence.
K: Yes, can we drop, sir, drop in the sense, be free of it. All right. Not relationship, but be free of dependence.
Q: What does that mean, be free of? What do you mean by ‘be free of?’ That’s the difficulty.
K: No, sir, it's not the difficulty. Free of, in the sense, if you have a pain, physical pain, what do you do - you try to get rid of it, don't you? By taking a pill or going to a doctor or dentist, whatever it is. So in the same way, psychologically dependence breeds pain. Do you see that? Don't say what do you mean by seeing, we've been though all that - can you face it? Can you face that in dependence there is pain?
Q: This is what I see.
K: See it, feel - you know, realise it, know it, it is so, it is an irrevocable law. Right? Now if you like pain and hold on to that attachment, then it's perfectly all right. But if you see it is useless, it's not worth it, don't you let it wither away - dependence?
DB: I think there's a step missing, you see, that a person may stick to something that is painful if he feels that he needs, that he has a necessity for it. One does not always drop the painful thing because one may feel one has to have it, one needs it.
K: Oh, I see. One needs pain?
DB: Not pain but whatever, one needs the dependence that produces the pain.
K: One needs the dependence
DB: One needs to depend, you see, that's my point.
K: I see, I understand. Do you need to depend? I do need to depend on the postman - right? - as things are. I do depend on the dentist, as things are. And so on. On this corner petrol station, I depend on it. Now psychologically...
DB: A person may be convinced that he is too weak to stand alone, for example.
K: Ah, much better. One is convinced - you see, when you say one is convinced, one is convinced that one cannot stand alone, therefore I depend on you. How do you know you can't stand alone? Who told you - psychologically. You don't stand, that's obvious. How do you know you can't stand alone?
SF: Experience seems to indicate that.
SF: Experience seems to indicate that.
SF: Experience seems to indicate that.
K: That you can't stand alone. Experience - whose?
SF: Well, our own.
K: No, Scott, go into it a little bit. Has your experience told you that you can't stand alone?
SF: Well, in a sense, yes.
K: Not in a sense - face it. Your experience has told you 'My friend, you can't stand alone.'
SF: It has told me that I haven't stood alone, that as I live my life, I don't live it very intelligently, and so I am not a light unto myself. So I come to depend on others.
K: No, no. As Dr Bohm pointed out, we are afraid to stand alone. Right? And that fear makes us rely on another.
K: Right? How do you know or aware or recognise, what tells you that you can't stand alone? Is it our education, is it our religions, is it our society, your mother, your father, say, 'You can't, you can't, you can't, you must depend.'
DB: I think all those things have happened.
K: Have happened.
K: Yes. Therefore, what do you do? Don't you test it out? Why should - sir, the churches have said to you, you can't be a light to yourself, you can't be, you must depend on Jesus, in the West. Why do you accept that statement? Who tells you, the priest, the whole seven hundred million Catholics? They may all be absurd - why don't you test it out?
Q: Sir, could we deal with the fact of being alone, what happens when you are alone.
K: You've not - you see. I'm asking you sir, is it because you are afraid that you cannot stand alone, that you depend?
Q: It’s not right to say that you’re afraid of standing alone, because we’ve all stood alone at various times. It’s what happens in that state...
K: All right, what happens in that state when you have occasionally stood alone, can you face that fact and look at that thing, see what happens?
Q: But you’ve got to want to stand alone.
K: Not got - all right, don't you want to? To use your own phraseology - want to - don't you?
Q: Not until you really dislike and are uncomfortable in your dependence.
K: Not until you have pain, then you - madame, I'm not being personal - but haven't you had pain?
K: Then why can't you stand alone?
Q: I think I’m starting to stand alone. Because I don’t want any more of that particular pain.
K: So. (Laughs)
MZ: Because the dependent person perceives a worse pain.
MZ: The very nature of the dependence, makes you perceive any examination of that as too scary, too dangerous.
K: So any examination of dependence is impossible.
MZ: (Inaudible) by the dependent person.
K: Yes, Maria, that's it, you're saying, I depend on you, Maria, therefore I am incapable of examining that dependence. Is that it?
MZ: More or less.
K: I won't accept, I mean, I don't see the reason of it.
MZ: The reason is that any action that upsets that is perceived as a disaster or a worse danger.
K: You're going back again, you see - that's what I'm saying, you're not facing the fact, you've projected what might happen.
MZ: Right, but that is the nature of dependence.
K: Therefore I say, face the fact!
Q: I mean if I see that pain comes out of dependency so then I avoid becoming dependent, that doesn’t...
K: No, I said, not avoid, face the fact that dependence means pain, look at it. Be in total contact with that fact. I see, you can't do it. What am I to do? I can't hit you on the head and say - face the fact. That is meaningless. I can't persuade you, I can't give you a reward, so what are we to do? And this person is saying that's one of the major factors in which, if you do this, conflict totally ends, completely, in life. You don't test it out! And if you like conflict and say, 'Yes, all nature is in conflict, the trees are in conflict, seeking light,' you follow? - that's a different argument altogether.
Q: Sir, your relationship with another will be as I feel it, just now, will be completely different when you are free of dependence. I mean, you’re not trying to get anything, you’re not trying to acquire anything from them, you’re not...
K: We've been through all that, sir. All right, let's leave that. Apparently you can't face it. Let's face the other fact. What does it mean to be a light to yourself? Why is Dr Shainberg - I've known him, so I can address him directly - dependent on analysis? Why doesn't he throw the whole thing and say, 'Be a light to yourself.' I will talk about that, help you to be completely free from all this, so that you stand alone. So that there is no Jesus, no Christ, nothing, nobody, except you. And nobody is going to help you. They'll give you comfort, hold your hand, take you to their church - wipe away all that and say, look. Can you do that?
John King: When you stay with that fact, there's no movement of life as thought, no question of realisation, stay with that fact, there is no thought.
K: No, sir, look. Man historically, politically, even religiously said, 'I must be free.' Right? There must be freedom in life. There must be, as they put it 'individual', who is not controlled, shaped, driven. Man has always sought freedom, from the most primitive till now. So many are rejecting the churches, and all the rest of it. Freedom means to be alone, to stand alone. Right? Which means, freedom - this becomes very complex if you want to go into it - freedom from the known.
JK: That's the point you're making - are you facing the fact.
JK: Just take the point of facing the fact. You are facing the fact. Whatever that may be - facing the fact.
JK: So you stay with the fact.
K: Yes. I'm not describing, I'm stating...
JK: That's right, you - I'm just using words - you stay with the fact, no words involved. You're with the fact.
K: Yes, sir. The fact is, there must be freedom from the known. Wait - that's a fact to me. Not to you. The known is all the memory. Right? The past, which is knowledge, that is the known. Now to be, to be a light to oneself, or to stand by oneself, the past with all its tradition must totally vanish.
JK: So you stay with that fact and its implications, totally.
K: Which means, sir. Sir, look, which means, what has been registered on the tape of the brain, that registration must end, the past, and no present or future registration must take place. Sir, you don't know what this means, you see, this is one of the most...
JK: Sir, you can say all that now, what it means, now. I want to know what it means.
JK: I have to know what it means, I want to know what it means, I'm interested to know what it means.
K: I'll tell you what it means.
JK: I don't want you to tell me what it means...
K: Therefore can you find out for yourself, not from this person, find out for yourself how tremendously important it is to stand alone, which doesn't mean isolation, which doesn't mean non-co-operation. You follow, sir? To stand alone means to live a life without any pressure from outside or inside. 'Oh', you say, 'that's impossible.' When you say it's impossible, you're not facing - follow? - you've just projected an idea that it is impossible. Find out whether it is possible for a human being, who is the representative of all humanity - right? - that's a fact, because every human being suffers agony, goes through all this business. So you are like the rest of them, that's the common factor, therefore you are the entire humanity. And the entire humanity has said, 'I must depend,' right? They say in India, I must depend on god, on this, on that, on this deity, on the book, on that, this or that. And in the Christian world they say that.
So our conditioning is this tremendous dependence. Right? And completely be free of that conditioning, so that you're really a whole, undivided individual. Now, that means, no external imposition by another, whether it be Jesus Christ, Buddha, anybody. One has to face that fact that one is imposed upon. Right? That is a fact. Through education, through constant repetition of the Mass and so on, so on. And to see the absurdity of it and wipe it out. Then you ask, is it possible to be a light, not only to yourself, because you are the humanity, therefore light to humanity. You follow? I wonder if you - right, sir? I don't think you capture this!
DB: There's one important point you said, you switched over from saying can I be independent, to saying can any man be free.
DB: Making it universal.
K: Yes, that's right, sir.
DB: Therefore it becomes, as long as you say, 'Can I be free?' then you're stuck.
K: Of course. That's why I said, I am, as a human being, I'm the rest of mankind. When I say, can I be a light to myself, I am talking, I am saying, can I be a light, representative of humanity. Therefore can I be a light globally, not for my petty little backyard light (laughs). My backyard light is just electricity. Right? Which can be switched off and switched on from the main dynamo (laughs). But I'm not talking of such a thing. I don't know if you have gone into this at all. Which means, to be free of all institutions, political, religious, economic - institutions. That does not mean I don't have money, of course one has to have a little money. But the conformity to an institution. Right? Sir, otherwise how can one come upon something which is true, which is the truth, irrevocable truth. You understand my question? Not your truth, my truth, Jesus truth or Mr Freud's truth, but truth. How can one perceive that thing, if one is not free.
You see, most people in the modern generation have displaced Jesus, in the Western world, for a guru from India. It's the same thing! (Pause)
Could we, at the end of this gathering, discussion or dialogue, could we say to ourselves, 'I have faced a fact.' It may be the most unpleasant fact or the most pleasant fact, but at least I have faced one thing, and discovered what actually takes place when I've faced one thing. Could we at least say that - the least thing. You understand.
I think we'd better stop, don't you? Five minutes to one.