PJ: Krishnaji, this is the last discussion
in this series of discussions. The field is very complex,
consciousness and the mind. Most of us have a mind which is filled and occupied
with an infinity of complexities. Even though, perhaps, we made
some ingress into this matrix, the density of it
makes penetration or revelation of the full length
and breadth and width of it impossible to comprehend
in the very short while before us. Therefore, instead of pursuing these
fragments, which we have been doing, of this total consciousness… In all that we have said, there is one big question which
remains imprinted on the human mind, and that is the ‘how’ of it. Most people see that there is a
shrinkage of space in the human mind because of the various pressures
which operate on it, pressures of technology,
pressures of population, pressures of incapacity
to face complex situations, violence, terror, all of it is only increasing
to narrow the space which is available to us
within which to explore. I would suggest, sir, that in this
last hour and a half that we have, if you go into, not specific problems of fear
or what is the future, which all come
into the major problem of what is the future of man, but lay bare
the structure of the human mind, and bring us face to face
with the structure of thought. One of the major problems
we have is, most discussions concern themselves with the content and meaning
of human thought. Though content and meaning
are very important, when you are talking of a mutation
at the root of the human mind, I think the structure of that mind,
the structure of thought and the structure of perception and the action which leads
to an ending of these complexities, not piecemeal, but an ending, can only… – I won’t say come about –
can only be laid bare. It’s for each one of us to investigate for ourselves
into these complexities. I think if you laid bare
the structure, I’ve known you for many years, so I know you’ll never
answer ‘how?’ – yet the ‘how’ of it
is at the root of our inquiry. K: I think that lady
should come to the front. PJ: Why don’t you sit there,
you will find shade. K: Would you add something, sir? G. Narayan: May I ask something? Obviously, there is
an increase in suffering, especially man-made suffering
– poverty, war, and changes brought about by various developments
in mechanics and engineering. So, the young man is drowned
in this suffering and fear, and finds it difficult
to come to terms with life. In this context,
what is the nature of wisdom? K: You were asking
that same question yesterday. Sir, this morning
we talked over together fear,
the whole movement of fear. How do you listen
to those statements? How do you read
those statements? What is the impact
of those statements? We said this morning,
desire, time, thought, the hurts, the whole of that
is fear, right? And you tell me that. You say it very clearly
in words which are common, you have communicated to me
the truth of it – right? – not the verbal description
of desire, time, fear, thought. Your very statement,
and listening to that statement, I am not arguing
with that statement, I’m not opposing it, or comparing what you say
to something I already know, but I am actually listening
to what you said. It has entered
into my consciousness, that part of consciousness
which is willing to observe, willing to listen,
willing to comprehend entirely what you are saying,
what you have said to me. What is the impact? Is it a verbal impact,
or a logical impact, or you have talked
to me at a level where I see the truth
of what you have said. I would like to discuss
that a little bit, because that may reveal
the state of my own mind, not the state of your mind, but the state of my own
activity of listening, the impact of your statement, and the depth of the truth
of what you have said. What does it do to my consciousness? Would that be all right? PJ: I feel, sir, that we will
enter into another dialectic. K: I have a horror of all that.
PJ: I would suggest you take us further into it.
You have an hour. We are still at the periphery, unless you open it up and perhaps, later
enter into the discussion. But I think you have
to open it up much more. K: I don’t quite follow
how to open it up, I’m looking at it. What do you mean ‘open it up’? PJ: I am asking you the ‘how’ of it. K: Play devil’s advocate.
PJ: Yes. I will ask you. You’ve said
what you’ve said this morning. We are speaking
of the future of man, to the danger of technology
taking over man’s functions, man seems paralysed. You said there are only two ways – either the way of pleasure
or the way of another movement… K: Inwardly. PJ: I am asking you the ‘how’
of the other movement. Don’t tell me that there is
no ‘how’, and leave me. Q: Let me try and make it
a little more earthy. We have to quench fear
if we have to be free, otherwise we drown ourselves
in pleasures. Increasingly, in this world,
fear increases because of the processes
that have been set in motion. How do we begin to quench
certain aspects of this fear, so as to open the way
to freedom? K: Sir, when you ask ‘how’, you are asking for a system,
for a method, for a practice. That is obvious.
Q: Not from you. K: When anybody asks the ‘how’, ‘How am I to play the piano’, all that is implied – practice, a method,
a mode of acting. When you ask the ‘how’, you’re
back again to the same old pattern of experience, knowledge,
memory, thought, action. You are back in that system. I don’t know
if you are following my point. Can we move away
from the ‘how’ for the moment and observe the mind,
or our own brain, how to look at this
whole movement of fear, not the ‘how’,
but pure observation of it? It is not analysis. Observation is
totally different from analysis. I will explain if you want. In analysis, there is always
the search for a cause. In analysis, there is
the analyser and the analysed. That means the analyser
is separate from the analysed. Right?
That separation is fallacious. It is not actual, ‘actual’ being that
which is happening now. All that process is involved
in analysis. The analyser and the analysed,
seeking a cause, or the many causes
of that particular action and so on. Observation is
totally free of analysis. Just to observe.
Is that possible? To observe without any conclusion,
without any direction, without any motive, just pure, clear looking. Is that possible?
Obviously, it is possible. When you look at those lovely trees,
it is fairly simple. But to look
at the operation of the mind, the whole movement of existence, to observe it
without any distortion, which is entirely
different from analysis. In that observation the whole process of analysis,
cause, is revealed and you go beyond it. Am I opening it up? I can look at that tree
without any distortion, because I am looking,
optically. Now, is there an observation
of the whole activity of fear, without trying to find a cause
or asking how to end it, or try to suppress it, or run away,
just to look and stay with it, stay with the whole
movement of fear? By ‘staying with it’ I mean to observe without
any movement of thought entering into my observation. Then I say, with that observation
comes attention. That observation is total attention. It is not concentration,
it is attention. It is like focussing
bright light on an object. Attention is that. The focussing of that energy,
which is light, on that movement of fear,
ends fear. Analysis will never end fear. We can test it out. That is, is my mind
capable of such attention, which is to bring all the energy
of my intellect, emotion, nerves, to look at this movement of fear,
without any opposition, or support, or denial,
or all that? PJ: May I say something? K: Please.
It’s not one dog speaking. PJ: Thought arises in observation. Does one stay
with the observation of fear? Then what happens to thought? Does one put it aside?
What does one do? K: No, I explained. PJ: Thought arises,
which is also a fact. K: Just listen. You explained to me this morning
not only the personal fears, but the fears of mankind
which is this stream in which is included thought, that is desire, time, thought, and the desire to end
or go beyond it is all the movement of fear. To look at it, to observe it
without any movement. Any movement is thought. PJ: But, sir, this is where
I would like you to proceed. You may say any movement is fear… K: Is thought, I said, thought. PJ: But in that observing, thought arises,
which is also a fact. K: No, it doesn’t.
No, please listen. I said, desire, time, thought,
thought is time, and desire is part of thought. You have shown the whole
map of fear – just a minute – in which thought is included. Right?
PJ: Yes. K: There is no question
of suppressing thought. That’s impossible. PJ: Then what does one do
with thought, if it arises. K: It won’t arise,
when there’s complete attention. PJ: Sir, you are positing something. You take it for granted that
such a state of attention exists. K: No, I don’t.
I said, ‘First, look at it’. We hardly give attention
to anything. Right? You have just now said
something about thought. I’ve listened to it very,
very carefully. I was attending
to what you were saying. Can you – not you personally –
can you attend? PJ: But see, sir, the attending
is to what arises. K: No. Look. Find out, Pupulji,
what is attention. PJ: No, sir, I would like to…
K: All right. All right. PJ: For an instant, attention is.
K: Beg your pardon? PJ: For an instant, attention is.
K: Yes. PJ: In that state of attention, attention is not,
and thought arises. This is the state of…
this is the mind. There is no doer,
because that is pretty obvious. It is neither possible
to remain immovable nor to say
that thought will not arise. If it is a stream,
then the stream will flow. K: Are we discussing what is observation? PJ: We are discussing observation, in that observation,
I’ve raised this problem. That is the problem of attention,
that is the problem of self-knowing, that is the problem of our minds,
that in observing… K:…thought arises.
PJ:…thought arises. So, then what? Do you stay
with the observing of fear? Then what does one do with thought?
That’s what I want to make clear. K: When in your attention a thought
arises, you totally put aside fear, but you pursue thought.
Am I making myself clear? PJ: That’s what I wanted
to bring out. K: I observe. I observe the movement of fear. In that observation,
thought arises. The movement of fear
is not important, but the arising of thought. Then there is total attention
on that thought. Right? What next? Q: May I take it from…?
PJ: Please, sir. Q: May I raise another aspect? Sir, I believe that fearlessness… K: Aha. The end of fear.
Q: The end of fear. K: Not fearlessness. Q: The end of fear
is non-analytical. The moment you analyse,
you become fearful. K: We have explained all that. Q: But the consciousness
with which you observe, that consciousness requires
a renewal of thought, every now and then, otherwise you become a vegetable.
K: No! All right.
There is this stream of fear. Tell me what to do. How am I, who am caught in fear
of many kinds, how is it to end? Not the method,
not the system or the practice, but the ending of it. We said analysis will not end it.
That’s obvious. What will end it? A perception
of the whole movement of this, a perception without direction. Jagannath Upadhyaya: (In Hindi). Kapila Vatsyayan: (In Hindi). JU: (In Hindi). KV: Sir, he has taken
issues with you. K: Good. KV: You made a statement in speaking about fear – the observation, observation of the movement of fear. I am referring to that because
his issue cannot be understood, unless we go back
to your statement. He says that the distinction
that you have made between analysis and observation, and the rejection of analysis
which you have presented, is not acceptable to him. He believes that it is
only through analysis that the entire structure
of tradition and weight of memory
can be broken. It is only when that is broken
that observation is possible. Otherwise, to paraphrase, it would always be a conditioned
mind which would be observing. He believes that by your insistence on observation
as distinct from analysis, perhaps, he asks, there is
the possibility or probability of the type of accidents
or sudden happenings occurring, of which other people
have spoken or known, and if I understand,
(In Hindi) and that therefore there can be
the opportunity in which – the phrase that he uses
doesn’t need translation – of ‘shaktipat’ taking place,
that is the destruction of power. Accession of power. PJ: May I say one word? Is the nature of looking at fear – I’m answering part
of his question – is the nature of observing
or looking at fear, or listening to fear, of the same nature as looking
at a tree, or listening to a bird? Is it of the same nature, or are you talking
of a listening and a seeing which is an optical observing, plus? K: Plus.
PJ: If it is plus, what is the plus? AP: Sir, I would also like … K: Take this. Achyut Patwardhan: I see a great
danger in what Upadhyayaji has said. He says
there cannot be observation, unless it is accompanied
by analysis. And if there is observation
without analysis then that observation may have
to depend upon an accident, an accidental glimpse,
accidental awakening of an insight. That he concedes as a possibility. My submission to him is, that unless observation
is cleansed of analysis, it is incapable of freeing itself
from the fetters of conceptualism. The processes
in which we have been reared are processes where observation and conceptual
understanding go together. It is almost difficult
for a modern educated person to observe without simultaneously
bringing into operation, unconsciously and consciously, a process of conceptual
comprehension. Observation that has not cleansed
itself of conceptual comprehension disables itself from what
you would call pure observation. Therefore,
it is very necessary to establish that analysis
is the obstacle to observation. We must see this as a fact, that
analysis prevents me from observing, because analysis takes me
into the intrusion or interjection
of conceptual comprehension, which is not observation. KV: Sir, we would like you to… K: Sir, do we clearly understand that the observer is the observed? I observe that tree,
but I am not that tree. I observe various reactions such as greed, envy and so on, but the observer is greed,
is not separate from greed. The observer himself is
the observed, which is greed. If that is clearly,
not intellectually accepted, but actually the truth of it
is seen as a profound… I won’t use the word ‘experience’.
A profound reality, a truth which is absolute, I’ll get lost in all this. When there is such observation
in which the observer is not, the observer is the past, and when I observe that tree, all the past associations
with that tree come into being. I name it as ‘oak’, or whatever,
like and dislike. Now, when I observe fear,
that fear is me. I am not separate from that fear. So, the observer is the observed. Is that a truth
or just a conclusion? JU: (In Hindi)? PJ: (In Hindi). K: Wait, sir, I haven’t
finished this, forgive me. In that observation, where
there is no observer to observe, because there is only the fact,
fear is me, I am not separate from fear. Then, what is the need for analysis? In that observation,
if it is pure observation, then the whole process of analysis,
cause, the whole thing is revealed. I can logically explain everything from that observation
without analysis. I wonder if I’m making myself clear? I think that’s what we are missing, we are not clear
on this particular point that the thinker is the thought, the experiencer is the experience. Would you agree to that? The experiencer
when he experiences something new – what he calls new – he has recognised it, right? You are not meeting my point.
I’ve lost you. I experience something. To give to it meaning, I must bring in all the previous
records of experiences. I must remember
the nature of that experience. Therefore, I am putting it
outside of me. But when I realise
the experiencer, the thinker, the analyser is the analysed,
is the thought, is the experience, in that perception,
in that observation, there is no division,
there is no conflict. Therefore, the truth of that,
when it is realised, that truth can explain logically
the whole sequence of it. Have I made this clear
or clear as mud? KV: Sir, will you explain the distinction between experience and truth as known? How would you explain that?
K: I don’t understand you. KV: You said the experiencer
is the experienced. K: Not I said. No.
Please, just a minute. Is that a fact to you? Is that a truth,
an immovable truth? KV: Exactly. How does one know
whether this is a truth without the experiencer…?
K: Wait. Let us go slow. I am angry. At the moment of anger, at the moment of anger,
there is no ‘me’ at all, there is only that reaction
called ‘anger’. A second later,
I say, ‘I have been angry’. I’ve already
separated anger from me. I don’t know if you are following. K: Panditji? I’ve separated it a moment later.
So, there is ‘me’ and ‘anger’. Then I suppress it, rationalise it, ‘Why shouldn’t I be angry?’
and so on. So, I’ve already divided
a reaction which is ‘me’, into ‘me’ and ‘not-me’. Then the whole conflict begins. Whereas, anger is me. I am made up of reactions. Right? Obviously.
So, I am anger. Right?
Have we come to that point? I am anger.
What happens then? Before, I wasted energy
in analysing, in suppressing,
in being in conflict with anger, all that wasted energy
is now concentrated and there is no wastage of energy. With that energy which is attention,
I hold this reaction called fear. I don’t move away from it,
because I am that. Then, because you have brought
all your energy, that fact which is called fear,
disappears. SG: Sir, the fact called fear
may disappear, but if we take the example
of the same observation, analysis for the purpose of anger, if we do not rationalise it,
where do we go from there? K: I beg your pardon? SG: We do not rationalise it.
The idea is that we just observe, we do not let the thought emerge
out of it, or don’t encourage it, then that means there should be
no direction to this movement of… K: No, you have misunderstood,
madame. Do you personally see the fact
that anger is you? Don’t say, ‘Yes’,
go into it, hold it a minute. You are anger, you are envy,
jealousy, all that, you are that. What will you do? What can you do? I am brown or white or pink.
That’s a fact. I stay with it. Because I am capable of seeing
the truth of that, I can then rationalise, analyse,
anything you like, but that’s a fact. Then other things
don’t matter so much because there is freedom from fear. You wanted to find out
in what manner fear can end. Right?
I have shown it. As long as there is a division
between you and fear, fear will continue. Like the Arab and the Jew,
the Hindu and Muslim, this division, as long as this division exists,
there must be conflict. I am not browbeating you, madame, I’m not trying to force you
to accept this, but I am just pointing it out. PJ: Who observes? That is the natural question
which will come out of this. K: There is no ‘who observes’. There’s only
the state of observation. PJ: Does it come about
spontaneously? K: Now, you have told me
it is not analysis – just listen – it is not analysis,
it’s not this, it’s not that, and I discard it. I don’t say, ‘I’ll discuss…’,
I’ve discarded it. My mind is free from all the
conceptual, analytical processes, my mind now is listening to the fact
that the observer is the observed. PJ: You see, sir,
there are two things in this. One is that when there is
an observing of the mind, one sees the extraordinary
movement in it, which is beyond anyone’s control,
or beyond anyone’s capacity to give even direction to it.
It is there. In that state, you say,
‘Bring all attention on to fear’. K: Which is all your energy. PJ: Which actually means, bring all
attention onto that which is moving. Let me put it this way.
K: Of course. Of course. PJ: I have asked you this question
before, but I’m asking you again, when you question, the responses which are a reflex
with us, do not arise with you. K: I don’t quite follow.
PJ: When you question… When you are questioned
or you question yourself, in our minds the responses
immediately arise, your responses do not arise,
you hold a question. K: Yes, that’s right. PJ: What gives you that capacity
to hold fear in consciousness? I don’t think
we have that capacity. K: I don’t think
it’s a question of capacity. I don’t.
What is capacity? PJ: I will cut out
the word ‘capacity’. There is a holding of fear.
K: That’s all. PJ: This movement which is
like this, gets immovable. K: That’s right.
PJ: And fear is ended. PJ: With us, it does not happen. …that clarity, which love brings, hold it, not ask, ‘What is love?
What is not love?’. It is like a vessel
holding the water. You are all sceptical? Panditji, what do you say? You see, sir,
when you have an insight – I’m using a word which perhaps we can discuss – I’m using the word ‘insight’. When you have an insight into fear,
fear ends. The insight is not analysis,
time, remembrance, all that, it is immediate perception
of something. We do have it. Often, we have this sense of clarity
about something. Is all this theoretical, sir?
PJ: Sir, no, no. Q: Sir, I find that… when you speak of that moment
of clarity, I accept that. But it must come as a result
of something that has happened, and it must move from period
to period, from level to level. My clarity cannot be
the same as your clarity. K: Sir, clarity is clarity,
it’s not yours or mine. Intelligence is not yours or mine. Q: The content changes with each
change in the mass of knowledge. K: What are we discussing now?
PJ: Sir, I would like to go into it. I’ll start with one statement. In observing
the movement of the mind – I won’t bring in fear – in observing the movement
of the mind, there is no point
at which you say, ‘I have observed totally
and it’s over’. K: You can never say that. PJ: You are talking of an observing which is a state of being. You move in observation, your life is a life of observing.
K: Yes, that’s right. PJ: Out of that observing,
action arises, out of that observing,
analysis arises, out of that observing,
wisdom is that observing. Unfortunately, we observe and then enter into the other
sphere of non-observing, and therefore, always have
this dual process going on. None of us can say
we do not know what observing is. None of us can say we know
what a life of observing is. K: Pupulji, can’t you observe
– I’m taking this very simply – can’t you observe a person
without any prejudice, without any concept?
PJ: Yes. K: What is implied
in that observation? PJ: What is implied
in that observation is… K: You observe me or I observe you.
Better, you observe me. How do you observe me?
How do you look at me? PJ: Why should there be
a ‘how’ in looking? K: No, not ‘how’, what is your observation
of a person? PJ: I’ll tell you
what I would say. K: I’m asking you.
PJ: If you’re asking me, K: You about me.
Don’t bring in others. PJ: I observe you… It sounds very… saying it,
but I observe you… K: What is your reaction
in that observation? PJ:…with the energy… with all the energy I have,
I observe you. Please, it becomes very personal.
That’s why I won’t. K: I’ll move away from it.
Sorry. Forgive me. PJ: I can’t say
that I don’t know what it is to be in a state of observing
without the word. K: Could I take this example?
Excuse me for repeating this. I am married. I’ve lived with that woman
for a number of years. I have all the memories
of those twenty years or five days. Now, how do I – not ‘how’ –
in what manner do I look at her? Tell me. I am married to her, I have lived with her,
sexually and all the rest of it, and when I see her
in the morning how do I look at her – not ‘how’ –
what is my reaction? Do I see her afresh,
as though for the first time, or do I look at her with all the
memories flooding into my mind? KV: Either is possible. K: Anything is possible,
but what happens, actually? Do I observe anything
for the first time? When I look at that moon,
the new moon coming up, with the evening star, do I look at it as though
I have never seen it before? The wonder, the beauty, the light – I’m not going off
into some poetic romance – but do I look at anything as though
I was looking for the first time? Q: You are asking, can we die
to our yesterdays and to our past? K: No, sir. We are always looking
with the burden of the past. Right, sir? So, there is no actual looking. This is very important. When I look at my wife I don’t see her as though it’s the
first time I have seen that face, the causation of that
is the memories. Right? So, my brain is caught
in memories about her or about the politicians,
about this or that. So, I am always looking
from the past, right? Just listen to it, not only with the hearing
of the ear, but listen at depth. I am asking is it possible
to look at that moon, at the evening star, as though it was the first time
I’ve seen that beauty, without all the associations
connected with the moon? Can I see the sunset, which I’ve seen in America,
in England, in Italy and so on, can I look at that sunset and say, ‘By Jove, this is
the first time I have seen it’? Ah, don’t say ‘Yes’. That means my brain is not
recording the previous sunsets. No, don’t say…
This is the most… SG: It’s very rare,
but it can happen, sir. K: Not rare. Q: The question is how does one…
because I would say it is open, there may be that, very rarely.
How does one know it is so? Is it the memory
of the first looking coming in as the illusion of that? K: You are asking,
how do you know you are seeing the moon
and evening star for the first time? Q: It may be the memory of
the first time which is appearing. K: Just a minute.
I know what you are saying. That leads to another question, is it possible
– I’m just asking, investigating – is it possible not to record, except what is absolutely necessary? Panditji, join me, please.
What do you say? Why should I record the insult
I may have received this morning, or the flattery?
They are both the same. Why should I record it? Yes, you flattered me.
You said it was a good talk, or ‘You’re a marvellous person’, or he comes along and says,
‘You are an idiot’. Why should I record it? Ah, I am asking.
PJ: I am asking you. You ask the question as if
there is a choice possible for me to record or not to record.
K: There is no choice. I’m asking a question to
investigate, put the drill into it. Would you answer this question,
Panditji? Because the brain is registering. The squirrel on that parapet
this morning, the kites flying by, all that you have said
in our discussion at lunch, it is recorded. It’s like a gramophone record,
playing over and over again. It’s occupied.
The mind is constantly occupied. Right? Now, in that occupation you cannot listen, obviously,
you cannot see clearly. So, one has to inquire
why the brain is occupied. I’m occupied about God,
he is occupied about sex, she’s occupied about her husband, somebody else is occupied
with power, position, politics, and cleverness – why?
Why this occupation? From morning till night and even when you go to sleep
the brain is occupied. Go on, sir, you don’t… Is it that when it is not occupied, there is fear of being nothing? You understand my question? Because occupation
gives me a sense of living. But if I am not occupied
I say I am lost. Is that why we are occupied
from morning till night? Or is it a habit, or it is a sharpening itself?
You follow? Or this occupation
is destroying the brain, making it mechanical. I don’t know
if you follow all this. Now, I have stated this.
I’ve said, ‘Is it, is it, is it?’ How do you listen to that? Do you – not you Panditji, but does one see
that one is occupied, actually? And seeing that one is occupied,
remain with it, not say, ‘I won’t be occupied, I must not,
it’s good for the brain’. Just say, ‘Yes, I am occupied’.
See what happens then. Because when there is occupation,
there is no space in the mind. So, when I look at my wife,
as though for the first time, it is the mind
that is not occupied. We were going to talk about sorrow,
weren’t we, Pupulji? Or shall we’ll leave it now? I will do it on Saturday. Madam Simoneta asked a question,
is it personal or universal? Why are you not concerned
about the individual? That’s your question, isn’t it? Why do you make it
all into universal? What’s that? GN: From what you said this morning,
everything is universal and nothing is personal
and individual including consciousness and thought.
K: Of course. Are you an individual?
Not you, madame. Am I an individual,
because I happen to be tall, short, I have a name, a form, maybe
a bank account, or no bank account, certain capacities
– does that make me an individual? What is an individual?
Go on. Is my consciousness
individual, mine? Is my brain mine? Or has this brain evolved
through thousands of years? Brain, not my brain. But it’s my pride, my sense
of security, of independence, sense of vanity, all that makes me think
it is my special brain. This is so obvious. This leads to a totally different… Or, I am the collection
of all the experiences of mankind. The story of all mankind is me, if I know
how to read the book of me. So, you see, we are so conditioned, if I may use that word,
with respect, we are so conditioned to this idea that we are all
separate individuals, that we all have
separate brains and these separate brains
with their self-centred activity are going to be reborn
over and over and over again. Right, sir? I question this whole concept that I am an individual – not that I am the collective. You understand, sir?
I don’t know if you follow this. I am humanity,
not the collective. What time is it? GN: It’s 5:31. K: All right, sir? You disagree,
probably, with the whole circus.