What do I do in a deteriorating world?
What is correct action in a deteriorating world?
5th Seminar Brockwood Park
September 17, 1979
We will go on with what we were talking about yesterday. I wonder if it is fairly clear, not only verbally, but perhaps even intellectually, that individual action, as we have been indulging in, has not brought about peace to mankind, has brought about innumerable problems, conflicts, divisions, the 'me' and the 'you' and 'we' and 'they', ideological differences, with all their struggles and wars and so on. If one sees that the individual is an illusion, actually faces it as a fact, then what is the quality of a mind that has lost completely all its individuality. That's where we left off yesterday, if I remember rightly. Is that so?
Have we gone into this at all? Or does it remain merely verbal, an intellectual concept and therefore rather shallow, superficial? And as we are trying to find out what is right action, what is action without any shadow of conflict, an action which does not bring about any kind of conflict. That's what we're investigating.
And we said, too, yesterday, when the whole concept of the individual comes to an end, the memory of all the incidents of individuality also come to an end. This is rather difficult to accept or even to understand, or even to be aware of its whole significance. I wonder if we need to discuss more of it. Would you please do we have to talk more about it? Is it possible, say for example, the individual gets hurt, which we all know, and when that individuality comes to an end, is there even a memory, a scar of that hurt?
Go on, sir, please. Or if there is an attachment as an individual for another individual, for an object, for an idea, and there is the ending of that attachment - is there any recollection, remembrance, recording of that attachment? Because I think it is important to find this out, for it may lead us to some other quality of a mind that is whole, not fragmented. Won't you join me? (Laughs) Or am I talking to myself?
Because is love individual, or rather, can individuality love? Come on, sir, this is a If we say no...
Questioner: How can we even answer that? I mean those who say ‘No’, I feel, even if I say ‘No’ I’m under the illusion that I can’t love and yet I’ll leave this room and I’ll tell someone, ‘Yes, I love you.’ I mean is it that something we can know?
K: We're going to go into that question, sir. I'm asking, one is asking, can the individual, the separate, the thought that has created this individuality, can that individuality love? Because by its very nature and structure, it is separate, at least it thinks it is separate, and it wants to be separate. And when that exclusive division exists, can that individual ever know what love is? Sir, this is a very serious question, not just to be argued intellectually or bandied about, but one has to find this out, one has to come to this.
Q: The individual and love – to this person it seems a contradiction in terms, because I seem to know everything else but the state of which you talk.
K: But we say to each other 'I love you.' We say I love the country, I love my god, I love my nation, my family, with all the responsibility involved in that so-called love. I am just Sir, can there be love when there is the essence of separateness involved in it.
Q: Isn’t it that the separate prevents real understanding...
Q: ...of the other?
K: No, I'm not talking about the other, the other is like me - right? In essence. He may be a little more or a little less greedy, little more jealous, little more ambitious, but in essence, deep down, he is like me, like another. Right? We have seen that, I hope after five days discussion, that's clear.
And we're asking, when there is the reality that I am the world and the world is me, with that comprehension, with that realisation, in all its depth, individuality has come to an end. Is that so, or is it just a lot of words which we have bandied about?
Q: I don’t know if I have the critical or the mental apparatus to understand that, if that is so.
K: Understand what, sir?
Q: Understand if what you are asking is possible or true, whether one can die to the individual in essence.
K: Yes - have you?
Q: I doubt it.
K: You doubt it. So it means what? That you haven't really investigated your relationship to the world and the world's relationship to you. You haven't really gone into it.
Q: Or at least if I have tried to go into it, there’s been some kind of block, or something that has prevented me from truly perceiving.
K: All right - what is the block? Is it unwillingness, is it fear, is it the sense of loss, a sense of deprivation, solitude, a sense of isolating yourself and so are all those blocks? I don't know - which is the block? All of them or one of them.
Q: Perhaps all, yes.
K: No, sir (laughs) - all of them, let's examine all of them.
Q: But even so, if I can raise this question, even if we examine all of them will that eliminate the blocks, will that eliminate the mind of blocks?
K: Yes, the blocks will disappear. Because if you look at them very carefully - is it fear? Fear of what? Go on, sir, investigate it with me - many of you may be feeling that. That is, if I lose my individuality, what am I? Except my profession, my career, my particular idiosyncrasy and so on, otherwise what am I? So I am afraid of being nothing, of being empty in the sense, individuality has filled itself with a lot of things, possessions, attachments, so many things. And when that individuality comes to an end, you lose all that, and so there is fear, fear of what might happen if you lose.
Now, have you come to that point? Or it's just playing with it?
Q: No, I haven’t come to that point.
K: Then what am I to do, sir.
Q: I don’t think you can do anything.
K: Ah, no, you see, then communication between us ceases.
Q: Apparently it does at a certain point.
K: No, if it is a block. Fear is a block. Why can't we remove that block?
Q: That is the question.
K: I'm doing it, sir. Is it I'm afraid that if I lose my individuality I face a feeling of nothingness, of not being. Is that it?
Ingrid Porter: Krishnaji, it seems to me that we are trying to look at something new and unknown with the old tools, the thought process, and that's why we keep coming to this point. How with the thought process can I see this? You've asked, what is...
K: Yes, but we are understanding fear, you understand? Just
IP: But how can you understand fear with all this continuation of the thought process? How can you understand it?
K: Then can - all right, then attack it differently.
IP: What I'm trying to ask is, you asked us yesterday and again this morning, what is the state of the mind that has seen as a fact the ending of individuality. What I want to know is, what is the state of the mind that can perceive this fact. We haven't come to that.
K: What is the state of the mind that can perceive the fact that individuality is an illusion.
K: Now just a minute, let's hold onto that. What is the state of the mind that perceives or that realises the individuality is an illusion. Go on, sir, answer. Yep, (laughs) I've got it.
Q: I can see clearly what it is not, but I can’t just see what it could possibly be, something totally unknown.
K: First of all, we have seen the activities of individuality, where it has led us, humanity, human beings, individual as well as collective - we have explained that verbally, like a river flowing logically. And you have followed that. That is verbal communication, explanation through words which we both understand, and in the process of explanation your mind is following the consequences very carefully, without any effort, like water flowing. So when you are doing that, what is taking place in the mind? You understand what I'm asking?
K: You are explaining to me something. I follow it verbally and also I feel what you're saying to be more or less true, and I'm following it without any effort, like a river flowing, I'm following it. Now what is the quality of my mind when you have shown me the picture, the map, very clearly, and I've been watching it? What has happened to my mind?
IP: I can't refer back to anything I know.
K: Right. What has happened?
Q: It’s very passive. Watchful. It’s very passive, it’s watchful. it has...
K: All right. Watchful. You have watched, you have watched, you have listened, verbally you have understood, you have seen the consequences, it's all an even flow. Right? Without any effort. Now wait. Without any effort. Go slowly - understand this. Before you have made effort, struggle, find out, analyse, you follow? - you made great effort. Here you are not making an effort, any effort at all. Right? So what has taken place in the mind?
Q: I would say that the two minds in a sense become one, that you are tuned in on the same wavelength.
K: Yes. And also, what has happened? Before, you made effort, now you're not making effort. Right? So what has happened?
Q: Do you mean conflicts have gone away?
K: Conflict you have put aside, because there is no conflict in this, I am not persuading you, I am not pushing you, I am - we are in communication with each other, flowing with it. Right? So what has happened? It's very simple if you look at it. Before conflict, now no conflict.
Q: So there is no...
K: Wait, wait. Isn't it?
K: That's all. So the mind has become, is in a state of not having any conflict. Right? In this communication - that's all, you may have - we'll go into that. So what has happened? A mind that has made conflict, and a mind that says, 'I have no conflict.' Because it has seen and therefore it is intelligent. The other is not intelligent, this is intelligence. I wonder - that's all. Right?
K: Wait a minute, wait a minute. So we are saying a block. One may have a block of fear. Now examine it with the same thing, you follow? That is, without effort watch the whole movement of fear. Watch it, without struggle, without saying, 'I must be free of it, I must go beyond it, I must suppress it,' which are all efforts. Now just watch, look at that fear, the consequences. Right? Now as you watch it, what is operating? The intelligence that was not functioning when you were making conflict, now that intelligence is functioning. Right? So the fear is no longer there. I wonder if you get all this.
Q: Observation without the observer.
K: No, no. Yes - but I'm just saying, see the difference of a mind that has made an effort and a mind that is observing the flowing of the water without effort. Right? Then the block has gone. I don't know if you
Q: I see that very clearly but the block is coming back.
K: No, it won't, it won't. It will not if you... all right, let it come back. Go slowly, let it come back and again watch it, without making an effort. You get it?
Q: I see what you’re saying, we’re struggling against this, trying to get to the other side.
K: Other side.
Q: So that’s what is needed before one can reach the threshold of making that other step?
K: No. there is no other step. Sir, I have made effort, my mind has made effort to get rid of this block, which is fear. And it has struggled, it has analysed, and been to a psychotherapist and so on, so on, so on. It has made tremendous effort. Now somebody comes along, you come along and say, 'Don't do that, just watch it.' Right? And you're watching it. So there is a vast difference between the mind that made an effort and the mind is not making an effort. Right? Before, you were seeking a result, here you're not seeking a result. I wonder - right? There is a total change has taken place.
So if a block recurs, you want to find out why. Either you're so eager to reach the other end, (laughs) - right? Can we proceed?
K: So I'm asking, we're asking each other, what is the quality of a mind that is no longer separative, that has understood the whole nature of individuality - right? - the root of it, the separateness of it, the conflict involved wherever there is separation, two nations, two people, two ideas, two opinions, you follow? - wherever there is separation, there must be the expression of individuality. The individuality as the collective, as the nation, as the Catholic, you follow? - it's all the same movement, in the same direction. I don't know if you Right?
Now if the individuality has gone, that is, separative effort, then I am the world and the world is me, essentially. I may be a little more greedy than the other fellow, but he'll be a little less jealous than me, but jealousy is the same, greed is. We're not talking about relative greed but greed. Right?
So, shall we proceed from there?
K: No, don't, please, carefully - either it is an actual fact that you're facing, or you're just verbally playing with it. And don't play verbally with me, please, it's no fun.
Professor Wilkins: Can I make a point here, to avoid this, just words and thoughts, presumably what you've done is you've directed attention to what you might call a living situation of communication between yourself and a member of the audience.
K: Yes, sir.
W: And then by paying attention to this, people can without having a block, can see the nature of this process.
K: That's right, sir. Quite. You've understood that, of course. We are walking down the same path watching the river flowing. Right? The water is flowing. So we're both walking along it, both of us, as Professor Wilkins has pointed out. Now we come to the point, we must go on, otherwise we - not that I'm impatient or anything. So, what has happened to the mind when this individuality has come to an end? The ending implies the recollections, the remembrances of the individual activities. If that remembrance, recollections remain individuality still exists - that is the whole point. And I raised the question, can individuality love, can this entity that thinks it is separate, which is essentially an illusion, can that entity which thinks it is separate, love?
You understand? We are going against the whole current of civilisations, cultures. So is love personal and impersonal? I love my wife and I really don't care about what is happening, about something. You follow? I don't care what happens. My love is limited to that one person. Please, sir, this is very serious, you understand? Is that love? Or love, not being separate is both personal and impersonal - it is love, not my love and your love, it's just love. Do we meet this?
Q: That implies no discrimination at all.
K: No, don't, moment you use the word 'discrimination' you've already separated it. I don't know if I'm making myself clear. We said, love, which is, as an individual I say, 'I love you,' and I see that love is not love at all, because the individual himself is separate. Right? Oh, come on, sirs, you don't see the...
And therefore that love is not love because it contains jealousy, all the activities of thought which has created the individuality. I wonder - come on sirs!
Q: It was possessive love. I love you, that’s possessive.
K: I said that is not love.
Q: That is not love.
K: Therefore, no - so, then what is love? Does it discriminate? I mean, love is love, you can't say I'll discriminate and say, 'I love you, I don't love you.'
Now let's move a little further. Are we all together in this or am I just - no? Are we? No. You see, when there is the realisation that I am the world and the world is me, you know, that very fact is a tremendous revolution, you understand? It has an extraordinary feeling in it. I don't know if we realise it.
Solitude is never secure, it has no security. Right? Isolation can only be insecure, the individual can only be always insecure, for him there is no security. Come on, sirs.
David Bohm: I think, you see, since the individual is actually dependent on everybody...
K: Of course.
DB: ...and he pretends he's not, he's actually very insecure, it's clear.
K: So, if when one realises, when there is - not 'one' - when there is the realisation that the individual can never be secure, can never have protection, safety, certainty, when one realises that, and that the world is me and me is the world, in that there is tremendous sense of security. I wonder if you - because there is no separation.
DB: I think that maybe we should try to (inaudible), perhaps it's not entirely obvious.
K: Let's go into it.
DB: I mean I think first of all one may think of his material security, you know, he needs money, he needs...
K: So even material security is becoming almost impossible. Right? Individual security means, 'I am British, my interests are British, my safety lies in Britain, in this island, my security lies in opposing others,' and so this division is bringing greater and greater insecurity to me, to what I want as security as an individual is being destroyed. I wonder...
DB: Suppose now that several of us see this and we still feel that the others don't see it and therefore they may make us insecure.
K: What, sir?
DB: I don't know if I made myself clear. Several of us may see this together, but the world, we're surrounded by a lot of people in the world who don't see it and they may make us insecure.
K: What shall I do? That's it. The world round me, as Dr Bohm points out, is thinking security lies in isolation.
Q: They may attack us nevertheless, even though we see the point.
Q: They may do something to us.
K: Yes, they see that and you and I may see that separateness doesn't bring security. So they are going to do something to us.
DB: That's the danger. Then we see danger.
K: We can't do anything to them, because there are too many of them. Right? What shall I do? Come on sir, meet me! Look, you are all individualists, and your separateness, and there is one person who says 'that's all wrong, you can't live that way.' What are you going to do to that man? He's a danger to you. Right? Go and tell that to the Communists or to Mao Mao, or not Mao Mao. (Laughter) To who? Yes, Arafat. They'll kill you. See what's happened? Either they kill you or put you on a pedestal and say he's a marvellous, he's a freak - forget him. Right?
That's what you're all going to do.
Q: So it doesn’t matter
K: You either worship him or throttle it. So if there was a great many people, a group of us who felt this thing absolutely, you understand what it would mean?
Q: I don’t understand what that would mean.
K: What is the difficulty, sir? We explained, if you are one person amongst many who think differently, who act differently, who live differently, they either kill you or say, 'He's god,' put you on a pedestal and forget you. Forget you in the sense, you're god, and we'll worship, put a candle round you, but we carry on.
Q: But would things change even if there were...
K: Wait, watch it, watch it sir. Are you like that?
Q: That’s a sincere answer.
K: What is the answer to my question, are you like the rest of the world, or, sorry, no - you understand?
Q: Now I do.
K: Are you like that? What would happen if many of us did that? Many of us realise there is no security in isolation, either the family or individual, there is no security in separation. Gosh, talk to the politicians, they'll throw you out. And talk to the Pope, seven hundred million people are separate. So what will you do - you see that's what go on, sir, investigate, find out.
Fortunately when you are talking like this, they really don't hear you. Right? You understand, sir? You understand what I'm saying?
Q: They, you mean...
K: They, the politicians, the establishment, the police, the immigration people - (Laughter) I go through that, the immigration people, none of them listen to you, fortunately. Because they are so enclosed in, they won't...
So what will you do? Come on, sir - what will you do?
Stephen Smith: Surely, sir, this doesn't tell you what you will do, but it removes the lines on which you did things before, so you can't say you will do this or that.
K: No. Do you realise as a human being representing all mankind in essence, an integral part of mankind, when you see isolation is the most destructive way of living - right? - what is happening in your relationship with the world, with your wife or with your neighbour? Come on, sirs!
SS: A certain clarification takes place.
K: I am married, or I have got a girlfriend, and I see isolation is the most appalling way of living - death! And she doesn't realise it. Right? Face it, sirs. What shall I do. I realise it, my wife says, 'Nonsense.' Right? What is my action, what am I to do, what is my responsibility?
Q: I must change.
K: My wife says, 'Nonsense'.
Q: I love...
K: Be British, be etc., etc., Catholic or whatever you want, because she's entrenched, bound to that. What am I to do, what is my relationship with her? Apparently you don't face all this.
Q: If I have love in my heart I will be talking to her.
K: I can't hear. Somebody, would you explain?
Q: He says if he has love in his heart he’ll talk to her.
K: I have talked to her and she says, 'Go to hell!' (Laughter)
K: But sir, you're not facing the thing. She lives an individual life. She wants that, it's in her blood, it's her education, her conditioning, all that. And I see the truth that individuality is the most terrible thing in action. I love. What happens to my relationship to her - I can talk to her till Doomsday.
Q: Yes, there is nothing to do...
Q: There is no relationship.
K: Wait, find...
Q: What do you want to do?
K: We're going to find out what to do - don't say there is nothing to do, I will divorce, I will do something - let's go into it for a minute.
Q: Unless she is prepared to change what can you do?
K: That's what - she's not prepared to change. Look, are you prepared to change!
Q: That is the question.
K: For god's sake, you're my wives and my husbands - are you prepared to change?
Q: That’s the question.
Q: Fortunately there’s no attachment to her.
K: No, sir - look, what is happening now - you're my wife and my husband, we are in that relationship. What is your action, what is my action?
Q: If you have love in your heart, you...
K: Sir, I have love in my heart, I don't question it, I know what love is.
Q: You have a relationship.
K: Unfortunately I have you! (Laughter) My wife, my husband - what am I to do?
Q: I keep on talking, sir.
Q: He says, I keep on talking.
Q: I think there’s nothing to do: the person, the wife or the husband either comes to you, trying to understand you, or if he or she cannot, she leaves. There’s nothing you can do, you cannot change the mind of another person, can you?
K: I live in the same house, share the same bedroom, don't fool yourself.
Q: The fact is we have no relationship.
K: You are my wives and my husbands, what is my relationship with you?
Q: Maybe only nominally, only maybe in name, and no more. Maybe. Maybe our communication stops at ‘How are you today, it’s a lovely day.’ Maybe that’s as far as we can go. Maybe.
K: Is that all?
Q: Maybe. But if it is, we shouldn’t run away from it.
K: Sir, look at it - between you and me, what is happening?
Q: Well, isn’t there, sir, a feeling of compassion then, because you see they can’t do anything.
K: Sir, put yourself in this position. You are my wife or my husband, you and I, we have a relationship, sex and children perhaps - I hope not - then what is our action? Look, put yourself, here we are, sir.
Q: Your reaction is one of love.
K: Do you know what's going to happen? You may love, have that - I won't call it love - you may have lost your individuality, I haven't so what happens? I leave you, at the end of talking, talking, talking, talking, you're going to do exactly the same thing now!
Q: But if that’s the way it is, why shouldn’t we create another image to which we should attach ourselves.
K: You see sir, you're missing the point. The man who has lost his individuality, you're going to drive him out. Yes, sir!
Q: Unless I see the urgency of change, I can’t have a relationship with you, can I?
K: But you...
Q: This is an impossible question.
K: No sir, you're not facing it.
Q: I look, and I would simply be at a loss to know what to do and out of...
K: We have talked the fifth morning, this is the fifth morning we've talked, we've gone into it very, very deeply. And you have lost, really lost individuality, because you see the consequences of it, you have an insight into it. And so you have wiped it away. And I haven't. So what takes place? I drive you out of the house, which is what you're going to do here, when you leave.
Q: Well, let’s face that.
Q: No, let’s face that, since that is what is, let’s face it.
K: You are doing that, sir, now. (Laughs)
K: So let's go on. What is action without individuality. Right, sir? I want to move somewhere else. What is action without this separative concept of 'me'? You understand my question? I knew what was action from a self-centred point of view. Right? Right? I acted from that. And you come along and point out to me, and I've listened to you very carefully, and by the very listening I'm following you, my mind has become somewhat intelligent.
And I realise that intelligence sees what individual action has been, the consequences of it, the danger of it, the degeneracy of it, and now it says, 'What is action without this separative element in my mind?' You understand? Right, sir? You're following all this? What is that action? (Pause)
I don't know what that action is but I'm going to find out - I must. You understand, sir? I must find it, because that's how I started on it. What is a human being, surrounded by wolves - sorry - what is he to do? He can't kill all the wolves, and he can't become a wolf himself, so what is he to do? What is the mind that is not separative, what is his action? Oh, you're missing something marvellous - come on, sirs!
Q: Is it that he begins to learn from moment to moment...
K: No, sir.
Q: ...by being that moment...
K: I have been through all that. I've had an insight - please listen, sir - I've had an insight into the nature of individuality. And also have an insight into the organisations which that individuality has created. Right? I've had an insight into that, the organisations, that individualities, that separateness the separative element has created - I've had an insight into it. And that very insight has put away that. Right? I don't know if you are following.
And that insight now says - doesn't say - that insight is now - no, sorry - that has dropped it. I'm asking a question with regard to action. Can I have an insight, can there be an insight into the nature of action which is not individualistic? You get my point? Are you meeting me?
K: An insight.
SS: Is this a different insight, sir, or is it part of the same insight?
K: Insight is never the same. Insight is finished with that. Right?
SS: You mean it's not comparative.
K: No, no, no. I said it has had an insight into the nature of individuality, and all the structures and organisation that individuality has brought about. It has had an insight into it. And therefore that very insight has abolished individuality. Right? You might say, 'What do you mean by insight?' 'Is it continuous, or is it from moment to moment, or is it - what? Or it has no time.' That's it.
DB: When you say...
K: Now, this is becoming difficult.
DB: That the insights are neither the same nor different, that if there is no time, the insight...
K: I can only have insight into the individuality and what that individuality has brought about: organisations - insight, which is, that insight is not a remembrance, it isn't brought about through remembrance, through recollection, through argument, it is quick perception, and action. Therefore it is not brought about through time. Right? I don't know if you are following all this. Does it interest you?
And, I'm asking, is this insight the same as the insight there was with regard to individuality, has that insight varied when I ask the question? Is it a different insight?
DB: That's the question.
K: No, you're all getting too - your brains are functioning? Or you are all All right, let's put it that way. Our action has been based upon time. Right? I will do, I have done, and I remember what I have done, and according to that or modifying that, I will do. It's all based on self-centred recollections, projecting into the future and so on and on and on. All that is a movement of time. Right? Do you disagree with that? Right? Don't let me talk to myself, please.
And I'm saying, and the next thing is, there is an action which is not born out of time, which is the action brought about through insight. Now, what do I mean by insight. Insight means a quick perception into the whole nature of individuality and its organisation - quick perception of it, which is not intuition.
Q: May I ask you, sir? You said a quick perception, would it mean really quick in the ordinary meaning of time?
K: I'm going to go into it, sir. Perception which is not of time, which is not the result of careful analysis, examination or exploration. Seeing something immediately to be true. Right? You must have had all this, this is nothing strange! You hear something the speaker says, yes you quickly grasp it. That quick perception is insight.
DB: I think the trouble is the word 'quick' sometimes may mean time.
K: Quick - all right - quick means time. (Laughs)
DB: I think 'immediate' is better.
K: Immediate. Immediate perception and action. Our action is understanding, analysis, allowing time, and then acting. That insight can only take place when there are no arguments, no opinions, no conclusions but seeing immediately the truth of something. Right? Can we go on from there?
Q: So insight is beyond thought.
K: Obviously. Thought has said, 'Let me analyse, let me examine, let me explore and from that exploration come to a conclusion and from that conclusion act.' This is what we do. Let me think it over. Whereas we are saying, perception, immediate perception takes place when there is no movement of thought. Right? Are you meeting? Of course, of course.
So I want to know, what is 'I' - you understand? - what is action without this sense of individuality? You understand my question? Please, sir, come on - don't go to sleep, please! Because I am concerned our question was, living in this world, which is so deteriorating, degenerating, violent, all the rest of it, what is action without the individual, without the actor? Right? Now I can come to that point. Is there an action without the actor? You understand, sir? Have you understood my question? I have always...
Q: Verbally only.
K: No, no, not verbally. Just see, look, listen to the question first. I'm asking, is there an action without the actor? The actor was the individual, the actor was the entity which struggled, which analysed, which remembered, 'I must do this'. I'm saying, the actor is the observer, of course. Now I'm asking, is there an action without the observer, without the - what did I say - the actor? I must have quick, I must have immediate perception of it.
Q: Sir, it seems the only one we are aware of in our lives is when there is danger. The only one we are aware of in our life is when there is danger, this action, when we can actually see danger.
K: Yes - the danger we said exists only when there is the individuality who thinks he's permanent and separate. That is the greatest danger.
Q: Yes, but we have to see it.
K: Ah! That's up to you. I pointed out the whole thing for you, laid down the map, there it is - immediate perception of it. So I say, what is action without the actor, is there an action without the 'me'?
Q: Could we say it is simply being? Just the fact of being.
K: No, sir, don't say it - first listen to the question, see all the implications involved in it. Don't exercise your mind, say 'Let's examine it,' just look at it, like a river flowing, you follow it. That is, the actor is the individual, the observer. He said, I will do this, I must not do this, this is right, this is wrong, this I will do in the future, based on the memory of the past, that has been our accepted norm of action. Right?
Now that norm has disappeared. So now there is only the question: what is action without the observer? Is there action, action not in the sense of the word, of the individual doing, but action when I am the world and the world is me. That brings about great sense of love, great sense of non-isolating existence, which is love.
Now, what is action without the actor, without the observer? You're following all this? No. You are asleep? Yes, I'm afraid so.
Q: Krishnaji, every way I look at what you’re saying seems to come from some idea already that I have. So I really don’t know what the right action is.
K: We are doing it - find out, sir. But you haven't - have you lost have you had an insight into the nature of the individual and his organisations? Finished. If you have understood that, seen the truth of it, finished, you can never enter into that.
So my question is, what is action without the actor?
Q: An action which will derive from your new state of mind, which is a state of mind of compassion.
K: Have you that new state of mind? That's all my question.
Q: Yes, sir.
K: Go slowly. Have you, not M. Maroger, but I'm asking, have you dropped that individual concept, completely? You must have, it is inevitable if you realise the truth that you are the world and the world is you, in essence. What is action? Are you all tired?
Q: Immediate response to the...
Q: Krishnaji, I think we’ve come to a crossroads, as you mentioned the other day.
K: Last night I heard somebody for about 10 minutes about mysticism. Did you hear it? Some of you? He was a scientist and has studied science and had an experience of some kind and he's now pursuing mysticism. And dropped more or less, he says, I might go back to science but for the time being it's in abeyance. Now he's following various forms of mysticism. Now watch it carefully. He's still separate - you follow? - and he's pursuing something that is not separate. For god's sake!
Q: Could I have a go at this one, because I’m not clear about this question of your being in communication with someone else here. Then this communication involving insight or...
K: Is immediate.
Q: ...love without attachment and so on. This then is there. Now this may then lead one’s thoughts in this head or another head, an action to be carried out by the individual in one sense. But this is set in motion, so to speak, by this thing which is non-individual.
Q: I think, you see, where I’m a bit confused is that, I mean obviously you have this non-individual component and then you have this followed up by thought, arms and legs, which are attached to individuals, being in motion. But it seems to me, that if that state exists, then all thoughts will be springing from this sort of principle.
K: Yes, sir. Could we now - just a minute, sir. When I've dropped my individuality, I haven't lost my arms, I haven't lost my face, but the quality of separativeness has come to an end. Right? That has come to an end through immediate perception. And that perception and immediate action brings about a quality of intelligence, which is not thought. Right? A quality of intelligence that is not the product of environment, education, all the rest of it, but it is intelligence that has the quality of compassion, love, and the enormous responsibility involved in that compassion. Right? Responsibility.
Q: I think responsibility does introduce difficulties because it involves the idea of one individual being responsible we don’t feel that.
K: No, no, the feeling of being responsible, not for one individual, or for a group or for some idea or some cause, but the feeling of total responsibility. Otherwise I wouldn't talk here. I wouldn't open my mouth, if there was not the feeling of immense responsibility, not to a cause, to some divine purpose, all that nonsense.
Q: An intense involvement.
K: Not quite - I'm not involved. Again that's a dangerous word. Wait. So, intelligence has taken place when there was an insight into the individual, and his organisation - there is intelligence. Right? Now that intelligence is love, compassion. Without intelligence there is no love, no compassion, they all go together.
Now, what is the action of that intelligence - that's right - what is the action of that intelligence when surrounded by a million people who are not - forgive me (laughs) - intelligent, in that sense. They are all clever, they have all super knowledge, they have got immense power, position, prestige, all that. What is the responsibility of that intelligence and its action?
Q: It can only be love.
K: No, no, I've said that, madame. Without intelligence there is no love. I mean, the individuality says, 'I love you,' and it's full of jealousies, anxieties, ugliness, and that's not intelligence. So what is the action of that intelligence surrounded by people who are completely indifferent?
IP: Is there any action, Krishnaji? Surely it just is.
K: Therefore what does that mean? Go into it - that's what I'm coming to. If you are that in a world, what will you do, what is your movement?
Q: If you are not separate from the world, then the world need must be the trigger to...
K: Sir, you are the world, just now.
K: And you, 'X' happens to have this intelligence, compassion - really I mean it, he's got it in his blood - and feels utterly responsible for everything that's happening, responsible without guilt, without cause - the feeling. You know, you love somebody - now, when there is love, you care, there is care, there is attention, there is everything involved in it, which is - if I can use the word 'responsible', that's implied in that. You are the world. What is this 'X' to do with you!
Q: You’ve just replied there. You’ve just given the reply: care.
Q: He is saying that you care is the answer to what you are asking, but
K: Now, you are missing something. I have to go through it.
Gosh, hot, isn't it?
You are the world, you, and the 'X' here sitting in this chair says, 'What is my responsibility towards you?' He cares, he has love, compassion, and intelligence, those three go together absolutely. And you won't even listen, you won't even care. Right? Then what is he to do? He feels responsible, you understand, sir?
Q: Doesn’t he somehow touch...
K: Don't you feel don't you feel all this?
Q: What is this person to do, what is he to do?
K: I'm asking you, sir.
Q: I’ve no idea, I’m not that person.
K: Why aren't you?
Q: I’d like to imagine that.
K: Because you haven't given time, you haven't given your energy, you haven't listened.
Q: That’s perhaps the case.
K: Therefore you're like the rest of them, so what will you do with 'X', sitting in this chair, throw mud at him? You will, of course!
Q: I would not.
K: Of course sir, you are throwing mud at him, obviously, because you don't care. You don't face facts. Now, 'X' says, am I talking to you at the conscious level? You understand my question, sir? Please follow this, sir. You go to a class, physics or learning a new language, there you are learning, listening at the conscious level to acquire a new language, learn all about science, physics or mathematics, it's all at the conscious level. Right? Right, sir? Now are we talking to each other at the conscious level?
Q: No sir.
K: Before you answer 'No sir', find out, sir, don't... (laughs)
Q: That was the problem, before, with the wife, wasn’t it, why – the problem before with the wife.
K: I wasn't talking - I left my wife long ago. (Laughter)
Q: Are we receiving...
K: Sorry, poor lady - I haven't got a wife, so - anyhow. So I'm asking a different question, sir, totally different question. When the speaker is talking, is he communicating at the conscious level, as when you go to a school or to a college, university, you're learning various subjects which are at the conscious level, mathematics, history, whatever it is.
So that conscious level has acquired knowledge. Knowledge can never be complete, therefore knowledge always goes with ignorance. I wonder if the scientists will agree.
W: Yes, there is also a lot of unconscious conditioning during the learning of science.
K: Yes, I'm coming to that. So are we merely listening at the conscious level, or partly at the deeper level - partly? You understand my question? Which is it we are doing? Or, is there a listening with all your consciousness - the part, unconscious, the deeper, and the superficial, whole of it listening. You understand my question?
Q: This is the problem. This is the problem, because to have this kind of listening it seems that we have to have left our personality already.
K: No, no, no. Just to listen, sir. I'm not talking of leaving your wife, husband, daughters, etc. individual, nothing, I've moved away from that for the moment. I'm asking, we're asking each other, are we listening with the hearing of the ears, or listening with all your consciousness, with all your being, so that there is no part of you asleep, there's no part of you withholding - just listening?
Now if you so listened that listening is complete attention, isn't it? Complete attention. Professor Wilkins says something to me, and I am listening entirely, there are no barriers, there is no effort, there is no sense of 'Why, what do you mean by it?' None of that, I'm just listening to everything that he has said. That is, I have given complete attention. Right? Now, in that attention there is no 'me'. I wonder if you see. There is no centre from which I am listening. Do you understand what I'm saying?
K: Explaining, rather. So if one listens in the same way, without the 'me' to the nature of the individual, the nature of his activities and his organisations, then there is no problem, you have got it, because you are listening entirely without the centre.
Q: Action without will.
K: No. I'm not talking about action without will. I'm just listening. Now in the same way, can I listen to something that I've not even thought about, that isn't even anywhere near my consciousness, which is, is there an action without the actor, without the self-centred entity who has always acted, acted, acted?
We must stop now, it's nearly one o'clock. Lunch is more important than this, for the time being.