J. Krishnamurti – Brockwood Park 1978 – Seminar 6 – Can I be a light globally?

J. Krishnamurti – Brockwood Park 1978 – Seminar 6 – Can I be a light globally?

Articles Blog

K: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 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? Q: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. K:Ah, that’s quite
a different matter. What’s going to become of you,
when you leave here? Is that it? Q: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. Q:Yes.
K:What you will do with it, or how will you carry on
from where you are now. Q:Yes.
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 really haven’t
touched at all. Which is,
be a light to yourself, and not depend
on anybody else. Q:Yes.
Q:Yes. K:That’s what
we began to talk about. Are you avoiding
discussing relationship? Frightened to open
that Pandora Box? Please, just tell me
which you want to discuss. Q:Are they both related?
K:Both? Q:Related.
K:Maybe. Q:Could we discuss
both of them? K: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, 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.
To continue that. 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… K: Which came first,
the egg or the chicken. Is this a game
you are playing, Tunki? Q:The actual problem
is relationship, obviously. K:Do you want
to go into it? Q:Yes.
K:Now wait a minute. 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 wife,
husband, sister – relationship, intimate
and not intimate, far and near. Are we aware
– please, this is not a talk, 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. K:Aware?
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 – the 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, pleasing another, and the other
likes to be pleased, and so on, the whole area
of our relationship. Are we aware of it? Come on, sir. Q:We can think about it.
K:Not think about it, no. Then you project
what you might like. Just actually what is
our relationship. Q:It includes the intrinsic
loneliness of life. K:What? 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 you know,
each one of us, what exactly our relationship is
with each other? Or is it all superficial,
casual, merely sexual, or a resistance,
an avoidance of relationship? Q:It includes
a bit of everything. K:I beg your pardon? Q:It includes
a bit of everything. 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:This is a dangerous
subject, you understand? Agree? It’s a very
dangerous thing, because… Q:It also means
sharing things together. K:Sharing?
Q:Sharing. K:Sharing. Yes, all that
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
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 … 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.
K:What? 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. Q:That’s one feature of it. 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? Just a minute.
What do you mean merging? Q:Where there is
no separation K:Is it, everything
is mixed up. Right? Merging, separating,
companionship, non-companionship – you follow? – it’s all a jumble.
Would that be correct? Q:It is so, it is as you describe it.
K:Not as I describe it. Q: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, 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 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. Q:In certain relationships, yes. K:In certain relationships.
Q:Yes. K:In all relationships.
You see how we are… Q:We’re
superficially aware, 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: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. Would you accept that?
Not what I’m telling you. Q:No. 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 nothing.
All the rest of it. If we are aware of that,
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 there is never clarity in it.
Would we say that? Q:Yes.
K:You don’t agree with that? Q:No.
K:What don’t you agree with? Q:Because, I think I am clear
about certain relationships. K:Certain – Tura, I said,
in all relationships, I may be very clear, in my relationship to
– what? – to my father? Q:Ya. K:To your father,
it might be very clear. But with your boyfriend,
if you have any, with your boyfriend
it’s mixed up. Is it 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 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: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, know, recognise, cognisant, conscious of what is
the movement in our relationship, whether it’s that movement
is distorted, confused, wobbly, and so on. See how difficult it is? Q:Are we looking at the entire
problem of relationship, including the relationship
to nature, to… K:I beg your pardon,
I can’t hear. Q: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, etc.
what your relationship is actually? What is happening
in that relationship? Q:To whom or what?
K:To you. Q:No, no, I mean my relationship
to what or whom? K:To your husband, son, wife,
boyfriend, girl – relationship. Q:In other words,
other human beings? K:Of course, I said that
at the beginning. Q:And is that only
close relationships or… K:I said, Maria
– 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. K:Comment? 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, 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:
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? Q: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?
Q:Yes. 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 it
– 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? Q:Yes. K:Then what takes place,
if you are so clear? You’re very clear that you ‘love’
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 – 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:Each one of us,
– talk about it, I’m not talking all the…
Talk about it. Does one want
to live that way? To know what it is
to live that way, and to pursue it
is the essence of neuroticism! No? What, sir? Q:It’s a fearful existence.
K:No, look… Q:A fearful existence. K: I know – 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 continue
that way, is neurotic! No? Are you neurotic? Sir, come on. Q: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.
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. Q:It seems there’s
more pain in acting – 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 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, 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? Q:Isn’t that taking us back to what
we were saying yesterday, that we are unable
to face a fact? K:That’s what I’m asking. Q: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! Q: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? Q:No, I’m saying, relationship
is functioning to protect from pain. And then creates more pain. K:Therefore
what does it mean? Q:Escape. 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.
Q: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… Wait till
the calamity takes place? Psychological earthquake? Q:With the pain
always comes the pleasure, and because there’s
pleasure involved in it, we accept
the pain as part of it. K:I see. In this relationship there is
greater pleasure than pain, and so you accept
this relationship. Is that it? 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:Yes.
K:Obvious. Q:Why is it so obvious? K:Dr Shainberg
agreed with me, so ask him. I’ll take a rest! Q: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. 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 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
half an hour about something which is so obvious,
which we are unwilling to face. And that’s why
you all slither all around. Q:What can a person do if
he finds he is unwilling to face it? K:What?
Q:What can somebody do if he finds that he is
unwilling to face it? K:He is unwilling to face pleasure?
Q:Yes, to face the problem. K:I can’t do anything. His own intelligence,
discussion, talk, observe what is happening
must show him this. Q:But David has raised
a good point, because 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. Q:The same thing
with relationship, we get a kick. K:Are we in that position?
Q:Yes. K:Are we in that position,
that we are drugged? Q:No, sir.
K:Our brains are affected. Maybe – don’t deny it
so quickly. Q:Personally, I am not certain.
I am not. K:That’s one of the most
difficult things to say, I am not. 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 us up to change form, to be something else
that we don’t know anything about. Therefore we keep to what we are
even if we are in pain or in fear. K:So, sir, 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… Q: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 things
when they seem important to us. K:What? 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, 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,
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! Q:Perhaps the question, is that we actually do know
what our relationship is, if we’re very honest.
K:That’s right, sir. Q:But we also have a trick
whereby there’s an idea that it really shouldn’t
be that way, and it ought to be different, and
we like to believe it’s different, and in that way
we falsify the evidence. K:And we say, ‘Yes, it should not
be that way’ and just carry on. Q:Quite.
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,
Dr Shainberg said, that many relationships
were painful but we stuck
with the relationship because we were trying to cover up
another pain, or another inadequacy. K: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? Q: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:One is asking,
– 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: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: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:What is your relationship
with the person who is speaking here,
on the platform, the actual relationship,
not invented. You must be related
otherwise you wouldn’t be here! So what is your actual relationship
with this person? Q:I’ve told you,
I’ve reached a block, I come to a position
where I cannot experience it. K:No, sir – please,
you’ve not understood, or I may not have
made myself clear. There are you, and here,
the two people. Why have you come? Q:To listen to something
we don’t know. Q: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. to tear down together. K:Are you rationalising?
– just a minute – Dr Shainberg, you and I
have met for years, talked to each other
a great deal, etc. Now, what is your
relationship with this person? Q:Immediately… K: Don’t float around it.
I’m sorry to pin you. Q: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.
Q: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? Q:There are no words for it. K:No,
you’re full of words, Doctor, don’t come off…
don’t say there’s no word for it! Q:Can I try
to answer it for myself? I have come
to get something from you. K:Yes – that’s good enough, sir,
that’s good enough. You want something
from me. Right? Q:Yes.
K:What is that relationship? Q:I cannot get it because… K:No, no, please – I come
to you to get something from you, whether it is money, sex,
psychological freedom, etc., I want something from you.
Then what is my relationship to you? Q:Dependency, attachment.
K:What? Q:Attachment and dependency.
K:No, no! I want something from you. Q:Exploration. K:No, be simple!
It’s a merchandise! Q:There is no relationship. Q: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,
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:We’ll ask that question:
what is your relationship to us? K:I put it, not you! Q:You put the idea in my head.
Q:You care, sir. K:What?
Q:You care. K:You care. Do I?
Q:Yes. Q:No. 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. Q: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! 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? Q:How do you distinguish
that from pleasure? We try to distinguish the fact
that you’re saying, 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? Q:Can I say –
until I am a light to myself? K:Therefore,
what will you do? You want to find out, don’t you?
Q:Of course, yes. K:Ah, you see, you want
to find out, if being a light to oneself, – the implications of it
most of us don’t understand – will that give me
greater comfort, greater strength, greater energy, 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.’ This person is in the same field
as the other, because that person is going
to cause the same problem. So, 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
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 into dependence. Don’t you depend on your wife,
husband, girl, – don’t you? No? Then we are all marvellous saints
– finished! Q:It’s all heroin,
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, 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 that relationship
will stop then, if we drop it. K:What? Q:Are we frightened that relationship
will stop when we drop it? K:So relationship… Q: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. 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. 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,
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. So in the same way, psychologically,
dependence breeds pain. Do you see that? Don’t say,
what do you mean by seeing – can you face it? Can you face
that in dependence there is pain? Q:This is what I see. K:See it, feel it
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? Q:I think, there’s a step
missing, that a person may stick
to something that is painful if he feels
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? Q:Not pain but one needs the dependence
that produces the pain. Q:One needs to depend,
you see, that was 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… Q: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,
that’s obvious. How do you know
you can’t stand alone? Q:Experience seems to indicate that.
K:What? Q:Experience seems
to indicate that. K:That you can’t stand alone.
Experience – whose? Q:Well, of our own.
K:No, go into it a little bit. Has your experience told you
that you can’t stand alone? Q:Well, in a sense, yes.
K:Not in a sense – face it. Your experience has told you
‘My friend, you can’t stand alone.’ Q: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. Q:Yes.
K:Right? How do you know,
or aware, or recognise, what tells you
that you can’t stand alone? Is it our education,
our religions, our society, your mother,
your father say, ‘You can’t, you can’t,
you can’t, you must depend.’ Q:All those things
have happened. K:Have happened?
Q:Yes. K:Yes. Therefore, what do you do?
Don’t you test it out? Why should… The churches
have said to you, you can’t be
a light to yourself, 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:Could we deal
with the fact of being alone, what happens
when you are alone? K:You’ve not…
I’m asking, 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
– I’m not being personal – but haven’t you had pain?
Q:Yes. 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. Q:Because the dependent person
perceives a worse pain. K:Comment? Q: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. 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?
Q:More or less. K:I won’t accept,
I don’t see the reason of it. Q:The reason is that any action
that upsets that, is perceived as a disaster
or a worse danger. K:You’re going back again
– that’s what I’m saying, you’re not facing the fact,
you’ve projected what might happen. Q:Right, but that is
the nature of dependence. K:Therefore I say,
face the fact! Q: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’ – 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. 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? Q: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 stand alone. Right? Which means, freedom – this becomes very complex
if you want to go into it – freedom from the known. Q:That’s the point you’re making
– are you facing the fact. K:What? Q:Just take the point of facing
the fact. You are facing the fact. Whatever that may be
– facing the fact. K:Yes.
Q:So you stay with the fact. K:Yes. I’m not describing,
I’m stating… Q: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 a light to oneself,
or to stand by oneself, the past with all its tradition
must totally vanish. Q: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… Q:You can say all that,
what it means, now. I want to know what it means.
K:What? Q: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. Q: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-cooperation. You follow, sir? To stand alone means
to live a life without any pressure
from outside or inside. You say,
‘that’s impossible.’ When you say it’s impossible,
you’re not facing… 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 entire humanity has said,
‘I must depend’ – right? They say in India, I must
depend on God, on this deity, on the book,
on 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’s 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! Q:There’s one important
point you said, you switched over from saying
can I be independent, to saying
can any man be free. K:Yes.
Q:Making it universal. K:Yes, that’s right, sir. Q: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 saying, can I be a light,
representative of humanity. Therefore can I be
a light globally, not for my petty little
backyard light . My backyard light
is just electricity. Right? Which can be switched off
and switched on from the main dynamo 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? 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! 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. I think, we’d better stop,
don’t you? Five minutes to one.

2 thoughts on “J. Krishnamurti – Brockwood Park 1978 – Seminar 6 – Can I be a light globally?”

  1. As it was in 1978 and as it is today, the human race won't budge. This utter stuckness shows up with great clarity in K's meetings with any people present, making these videos extremely revealing documents in the story of humanity. Even in our most intimate relationships, we are political, not full of love. But one can't say that it's impossible for us to not be stuck – there is that extremely remote knife-edge of possibility of freedom..

  2. The observer is the observed..
    The analyser is the analysed..
    Thought provoking discussions, k's spirit will live on forever.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *