In March 1977 Krishnamurti invited certain trustees from the various Krishnamurti Foundations to participate in small discussion meetings with him in Ojai, California.
Earlier, at a 1973 meeting at Brockwood Park in England, he had suggested that the future of the Foundations after his death was uncertain although he maintained that “the schools [run by the Foundations] have to go on, definitely, because they may produce a different kind of human being.”
In 1977 we had discussions with Krishnamurti three times a week from the third to the twenty-fourth of March at the head-quarters of the American Foundation and, as well as the trustees, one or two staff members of the KFA also attended.
Krishnamurti seemed to be fired with even greater and more dynamic energy than usual and, although these discussions were primarily concerned with the future of the Foundations, their scope and detail must surely have relevance to the way in which any enquiring group of people working together might relate to each other intelligently.
Krishnaji felt strongly that, as well as being responsible for organizing his talks and making these available in recorded and printed form, the Foundations should be of one mind, and able to convey “the perfume” of the teachings. He asks at the very beginning of the 1977 dialogues if there are people “who have drunk at the fountain, and can carry on from there. Not merely quoting K but getting the spirit of it, the truth of it, the vitality of it, the energy of it.”
At our first meetings, we seemed rather a disparate group; certainly we were very far from being of one mind! It was, however, remarkable how closely we came together as our meetings continued. Several of us who had been listening to, and working with, Krishnamurti for many years felt that these dialogues were truly revelatory and life-changing.
Krishnaji presented us with many challenges. Not the least of these was that we should be able, after his death, not only to convey the essence of the teachings but to give people who had never known Krishnamurti a sense of the quality of his life and work, and “meditation.” In his words “...if I had been in India when Buddha died, I would want to know what the Buddha was like. I would go to the people who listened to him. I would want to find out. I have read the books, but I want to touch that which you, who have known him for some years, have touched when he was alive.” A big challenge indeed which demanded our understanding at a truly deep level. (Incidentally, Krishnaji later made it clear that in relating this question to the Buddha he was making absolutely no claim to be the Buddha.)
Throughout the dialogues Krishnamurti pointed out that we were dealing with more than “the continuity of the Foundations.” He had said in 1973 “For me, it is a continual state of transformation... But we must see what happens with the Foundations. If something is operating in us, then something will happen, not the crystallization of the structure, but much more than that.”
Reading these dialogues now, more than thirty years after they took place, the impact is still extremely fresh and strong. Krishnamurti died in 1986: the Foundations, schools and adult centres are very resilient today. Conflicts which beset the Foundations before his death appear not so much to have been resolved as transcended, and there is a real sense of our being, though far-flung, of one mind. It seems that these 1977 dialogues did open wide many doors for us.
Krishnamurti: I thought all the Foundations should meet, to consider what is going to happen when K dies. At present, from what one has observed, K has been the centre of the work. K has held the different Foundations together, if I am not mistaken; and if K dies tomorrow, or in ten years’ time, what is going to happen? Will the Foundations break away from each other? That is one of the considerations we will discuss as we go along.
K’s teachings are a living thing, and the books, I am afraid, are not; no book is. When K dies, what is going to happen to the teachings? Are there people who have, if I may use the phrase, drunk at the fountain, and can carry on from there? Not merely quoting K but getting the spirit of it, the truth of it, the vitality of it, the energy of it. The books are all right, but they remain on the shelves. You pick them up occasionally, look at them, read them and forget them. I feel there must be amongst us some who have, if I may use the phrase again, drunk at the fountain, and for themselves see the truth and express it in their daily life. I think that is one of the major issues, as far as I am concerned, because for the last fifty-two years, one has talked a great deal about all these things, and I find – I hope you will forgive me for saying this – there is not one person who has seen that thing for himself and goes on with it. Please understand, I am not disappointed that there is no one so far; I am not looking for anybody to carry on, but I think we should consider all this.
It is a strange fact – I was told the other day in India – there were two disciples of the Buddha who really understood him; they were Sariputa and Mahanama. He considered those two enlightened ones too. But they died before the Buddha died! I don’t know if you see the tragedy of it. Those left formed a group, and it gradually deteriorated. Perhaps I may live another ten years, or by accident may die tomorrow, but I feel very strongly about what is going to happen.
Various people have told me very often that when K dies the real thing will flower, because “under the banyan tree nothing grows.” You know that saying? I have been told that, and also that it will be for the future and not for the present, that centuries later this will be understood but not now. But I think all those are various forms of excuses, and have no validity in themselves.
What are we going to do? How is this going to be sustained, nourished, and kept going – without representing, without saying that we are the body and nobody else understands, and all the rest of the organizational calamity that comes about?
So I thought it would be a good idea if we all met to discuss these matters, because the Foundations, so far, have been responsible for all this. There have been people who said, “Why are you the head of any organization like the Foundations? Why are you chairman of this?” In India, they don’t want my name mentioned as the chairman or anything of that kind, because, if I may represent them, they say, “You should not be on any of these Foundations because your name is sacred.”
So, there are all these problems, the publications, the schools. What is going to happen to the schools when K dies? Will these teachings be continued through these schools or just peter out, as teachings generally do? All these problems we have to consider. So, there it is.
I feel that all the Foundations are one body under the same umbrella; they are the same unit, though legally and financially separate. Perhaps some of the richer Foundations can help the poorer, but it is all one group, one body, not inwardly separate but one continuous thing that will go on. People have suggested, also, that when K dies, all these Foundations should be dissolved. I think that would be a pity because schools are involved, publications, and so on.
So what shall we all do together about these matters? I feel very strongly and rather seriously about all this, because every organization founded by a person deteriorates within forty years or less. This has been proved over and over again. What is going to happen?
These matters cannot be settled in a week. That is why we suggested that we take a month to be together, get to know each other and have time to think about these matters. These are the principal things we should talk over together, though we will also talk about the schools. We are here, if I may point out, only to talk over, discuss, come to some kind of understanding. Members of the Foundation in India have put down on paper what they think should be done in this gathering. We will go into that later on.
K will be eighty-two in May, and probably can carry on this kind of travelling only for another five or six years. After that, it will become much more difficult physically.
We have to consider how to raise money. There is the question of adult education. I don’t like that word adult, it sounds rather silly, but I have also suggested in India that the schools should have education for older people – education in the sense of discussing these teachings, living it. So there are all these issues which we really must discuss very seriously and at length, in detail, and settle them, not leave them all vague, because we may not have an occasion like this to meet again. Right? While you are here, especially Mrs Simmons and Mrs Cadogan, should have rest also.
Dorothy Simmons: I never felt better, Krishnaji.
Krishnamurti: I know, but you need a little rest too, to enjoy yourself in California. With the sunshine and the orange trees and the mountains and the clear light. So, please, let’s also have some restful periods, not have wrangling going on about anything.
My brother and I came here in 1922 – fifty-five years ago. Good God! We lived in that little cottage then, just a bathroom, one chair and a wood-stove. I feel Ojai has something special, I have always felt it.
My real concern, as I have talked it over with Dr Bohm, Mrs Simmons and Mary Zimbalist, is what is going to happen when I die. That is really my chief concern, and I think it should be the concern of most of us too. What is going to happen to the schools? Will they come to an end because K dies? That has been one of your questions too. Or will they go on? In India they will go on because those two schools, Rishi Valley and Rajghat, are very well known and supposed to be first class schools; and Madras too and the other schools. So, we have to discuss all these points very carefully, take time to go into it all in detail, so that we are certain about what we are doing, so there will be no doubt at the end of our stay here.
In India, Krishnamurti’s Notebook has created... I don’t know what it has created. Certain gurus are saying that he’s the living Buddha, that you must go and listen to him, touch him – mainly touch him [Laughs] because then you’ll get something out of it, and so on.
So what shall we do this morning? What shall we take up? Do you think we ought to draw up an agenda? Sounds awful!
Mary Cadogan: The way you have been talking, an agenda doesn’t seem necessary.
Krishnamurti: Let everything come out as it happens.
Cadogan: Yes, perhaps we could talk, and then after three days or so see how we feel. Perhaps the Indian proposals ought to be looked at.
Krishnamurti: I thought we would meet every other day, you know, so that one day you can go and look at the trees and the mountains, or go to Santa Barbara or wherever you like.
Mary Zimbalist: Krishnaji, may I ask if what happens after you are gone depends, in part, very strongly on what is done now and from now on.
Krishnamurti: Of course.
Zimbalist: Because it seems to me that we have arrived, all of us, at a point where the work of the schools and the adult learning centres, or whatever you choose to call them, is going to be much more active everywhere, and if all this results in something that is really vital and reflects your teaching, it should have a greater possibility of carrying on out of its own strength.
Krishnamurti: The adult centre. What shall we call it? Adult learning? No. Centre of learning? In India, the Sanskrit word ashrama means a place to which you retreat; as in Catholic places where anybody can go, non-Catholics too, and be quiet there, for as long as one likes. That word ashrama has been ruined by the gurus. So, “a place of learning”?
Do you know the origin of that word ashrama? I suggested it many years ago in India, but they didn’t do it; they’re going to do it now. When you have an adult place like that and a school operating together, then from the grown up people you will get some teachers who will come to the school and teach permanently, so that all the time there is a group of people feeding the school with the right kind of teachers. That was the original idea, but unfortunately it hasn’t been done. Now we are going to do it in India. So I thought we should do the same here, because otherwise it’s very difficult to find the right kind of teachers who know what K is talking about and who are committed to the teachings; not committed to their ideas about the teachings, but committed to the teachings and live them, and somehow convey them to the students. That was the idea of having an ashrama. I use that word very carefully for the time being. So we thought there would be both an ashrama and a school operating together.
Evelyne Blau: Do you feel that your name should be associated with it? I mean, should it be a “Krishnamurti” centre or...?
Krishnamurti: No. You see, then you are trapped. We will discuss that.
Simmons: From the books, Krishnaji, quite large numbers of people do apply to come to be part of the school; and the number of people who apply to be teachers is very high.
David Bohm: It seems to me that in the centre you could tell which people would be the better teachers by being together with them for some time.
Simmons: Well, I think you want somewhere where people could come and you can get to know them. Everybody sounds marvellous on paper, but the moment you live with them for a little while you begin to sort them out a bit.
Krishnamurti: That is why in an ashrama and school we can work it out carefully.
Simmons: Why do you have to name it particularly? Won’t that attract people like an advertisement rather than people who come out of their natural interest? The moment you say “adult centre.” With a possibility of becoming teachers implied, a certain sort of person turns up.
Krishnamurti: Don’t go into details yet. On this first morning, I just want to see the seriousness of all this, not what to do. We will discuss as the days go along, but can one convey the seriousness which K feels about all this? You see, it is not an authoritarian group accepting a teacher like a guru with disciples and with practices. We are not that. We are not followers of anybody; we do not believe anything; there are no doctrines, no rituals. So it becomes tremendously difficult to see the whole implication of all this and the seriousness of it. On this first morning that is what I would like to discuss a bit, not what the places should be called. We have plenty of time for all the details.
Bohm: Could we discuss what we hope would take place in this ashrama?
Krishnamurti: We can discuss that too, sir. That is what we were talking about in India quite a bit. People would come for three weeks and go away; nobody takes root there. We will come to all that presently.
Cadogan: There is a particular difficulty, I think, that some of us find when we think about your work in connection with an adult centre. Which again we might think about and then perhaps pool what our feelings are.
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes.
Cadogan: You might also be able to help us with the fact that when one is seriously interested in what you say, there are certain functions within the work which are very straightforward, like arranging the publications and so on. Running a school is far less straightforward, but it’s a very specific function because one is concerned with children who are growing and learning. It’s much more difficult when we come into this other area, because it seems as if so much of what you say has an approach which is, in a sense, essentially negative.
Krishnamurti: I know. Yes.
Cadogan: And it has become particularly linked in many people’s minds with a sort of scientific approach. It seems to me there is a feeling that that is all right, if you see what I mean.
Krishnamurti: Throw a little bit more emotion into it.
Cadogan: Somehow the world of art, or whatever else, doesn’t seem to come into this so much, and I wonder whether perhaps we might go into this, too. While we’re here.
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes.
Zimbalist: Krishnaji. Would it be useful for you to discuss with us what it is that communicates a certain enlightenment, for want of a more correct word? When you speak, it is evident to everyone. You brought up the matter of the Buddha and that only two people really understood him and that they both died before he did. Nevertheless, Buddhism has been a force, correctly or authentically or not. At least it has endured and been a very powerful thing. Now, it endured how? It endured in a way that, compared to today, is amazing. There were no real records as we know them today; there were no books, there was no technology. Someone wrote it down.
Krishnamurti: No, at the time of the Buddha there were already... It is all authentic; I believe so.
Zimbalist: They were keeping records when he spoke?
Krishnamurti: Yes, very authentic.
Zimbalist: Wrote it down?
Krishnamurti: Not wrote it down, they memorized. All that I know about it is that it is authentic, certain parts of it.
After all, there is the Jesus myth. Some doubt that he really lived at all, as you know. I don’t have to go into all that. It was written after sixty years by his disciples, and you can imagine what disciples will do – create an awful myth.
I don’t want to get away from fact. I do not know if you feel the seriousness of this gathering, the spirit of it, the intention of it. What we decide now has to be something “permanent,” in quotes; and so it becomes a very serious affair. And if I may suggest, if each one takes it very, very seriously, as I do, then out of that seriousness, things will flower. [Pause]
The first thing I would like to talk over with you is what will happen when K dies. I am very well, physically. I went to see the doctor the other day. He said, “It’s extraordinary at eighty-two. What is your philosophy?” I said, “Bananas.” [Laughter] I did not tell him that; I said it to myself. So, what is the common thing for all of us here? Do you understand what I am talking about?
Erna Lilliefelt: It seems to me the great concern is this enormous void which will exist when you’re no longer here, when you die. People for all these years have been looking to this one man, and the teaching of the one man.
Krishnamurti: Which is so fatal.
E. Lilliefelt: Therefore, the danger is going to be, for all of us, that they will turn to another person to replace you, or think that they are the ones who understand best. I think that’s going to be the great danger for anyone who will be representing you or who will be working in this adult centre, or has been seen with you on television and heard on the tapes and so on. I think that’s going to be a great danger.
Krishnamurti: Look, Mrs Lilliefelt, after all, the people I know in America, in Canada, in England and India are all of you. I’m with other people, but not so much. People will say to you, “You’ve known him more than anybody else.” They will ask you, “Are you living it; have you imbibed it?” If I were an outsider, I’d say, “Well, you’ve known him for fifteen, twenty, thirty years, what the heck, have you got something, or are you just passing the buck to someone else?” If you have not, what shall we do? You see, already in India one of the big magazines came out with “The Yoga of K.” They lay down a system, what to do, what not to do. The whole thing is worked out as another yoga. There are several yogas in India, so this has been added. And the gurus in India are now saying, “You are the world,” taking bits of all this. It has now become fashionable, unfortunately. So that is why I ask what we shall do when K dies. And you are the only people he really sees more often than anybody else. That is the literal truth. If I were an outsider coming from Seattle, and I say, “Please, you have known him, tell me what he means by meditation, what he means by this or that.” Would you say, “Sorry, go to the books”? [Laughs]
E. Lilliefelt: But when you tell them, what are you telling them? Are you interpreting? After all, they are asking in the light of you.
Krishnamurti: No, I come to you. You are a friend of Christ, if he existed, or of Buddha who did exist, so I come to you because you have known him for many years, you have talked to him. Tell me.
E. Lilliefelt: I would have to tell as I understand it, but I couldn’t interpret what you meant.
Krishnamurti: So, you would say, “I have understood a little, I will tell you about it.” That is the function of the ashrama.
Zimbalist: But there is a very subtle point in that, Krishnaji.
Krishnamurti: I know, I know the subtle point.
Zimbalist: Is it that one warns the person, “You are getting my understanding, but don’t stop there”?
Krishnamurti: Of course, you have to warn them. Are we prepared? You follow what I mean? If K dies tomorrow, what will you do? Will the money stop? Will the schools close? The parents must be anxious about it too.
Mark Lee: They are very anxious.
Krishnamurti: The schools in India will carry on, because they have reputations.
Simmons: What is different then; what makes them carry on, Krishnaji? Why will it survive in India?
Krishnamurti: Because they are fifty years old.
Simmons: That shouldn’t make any difference.
Krishnamurti: I am only saying they are fifty years old. The schools in India are well known. They have become ordinary schools, first class ordinary schools.
Simmons: Well, who minds if they carry on then?
Krishnamurti: I object to that kind of school. I have been objecting for years.
Simmons: I don’t see why one would do anything differently from what one is doing now, when you’re not here. It is not a hierarchical approach.
Krishnamurti: If you took away K as chairman, what would happen? I have been thinking about that, too; I will come to that. What would happen in England?
E. Lilliefelt: I don’t think it would make any difference. What will make a difference is when you die. It doesn’t make any difference whether you are the chairman of the board or not.
Simmons: I think it would make all the difference, because I think there’s nobody saying what he is saying. The truth is associated with his name; it’s not associated with anybody else’s name.
Cadogan: You mean if we didn’t use the name at all? But Krishnaji was only talking about not using his name as chairman.
Krishnamurti: Call it K Foundation but remove him as the chairman.
Simmons: What is the point of it? I mean, what is the point of taking it off?
Krishnamurti: I told you in India they objected to this.
Simmons: Why did they object?
Krishnamurti: Because they said – I am quoting them – they said, “Your name is sacred,” et cetera, et cetera.
Zimbalist: But they call it the Krishnamurti Foundation India.
Krishnamurti: No, keep the name but have no chairman as K.
E. Lilliefelt: So what’s the difference? Except that they feel that you as a...
E. Lilliefelt: ...holy man, a religious man should not be part of a legal entity.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that’s all.
Cadogan: When we think about what we are going to discuss, could all of us think very carefully, and then come together on this question of the role of the Foundations, so that we do not become interpreters?
Cadogan: How are we going to tread this sort of razor edge between saying what it means to us and being an interpreter?
Fritz Wilhelm: I think we come down to the question of how to communicate the teaching. How can we talk about it with other people?
Krishnamurti: I have heard K, several times. I will go and listen to K as long as he is speaking in different parts of the world. And I have understood a little – understood in the sense not verbally but deeply. I have the taste of it, the smell of it; it is in my heart. I have understood a little part of it. I would go out and say, “Look, this is what I feel. I am going to tell you what I have understood. I am not representing K, but this is what I have understood. Let’s discuss it, let’s go into it.” After all, that is what the ashrams are meant for. Which doesn’t mean I represent K; it is what I have understood.
Say, I have come from Seattle. I hear there is a place at Ojai where one or two people have gathered, discussing. I come there; I want to remain there for three weeks to really understand what it is all about, discuss with them, and go away. I might come back next year for three weeks, and so on. Various people are invited, or come and stay three weeks or a month. All those are details.
Blau: I think that there is an inescapable aspect of authority, though, because one is a trustee, and people would tend to say, “Well, because you are this or that, you must know something special.”
Krishnamurti: I know, I know.
Blau: And it’s rather intimidating.
Krishnamurti: Obviously. I would do that. I would come to you, or Dr Bohm or somebody. I’ve known you for years, you have known K for years, and I say, “For goodness sake tell me something about it.” To whom else am I to go?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, so long as you have a place that’s called a Krishnamurti place then people will come to that place.
Krishnamurti: Wait. Will you, who have known him for years, say, “Look, this is what he says as I have understood”? Discuss it with them. But you are responsible for this. You say, “Sorry, I’ve kept the accounts; I’m not interested in it.”
Cadogan: But Krishnaji, that happens all the time at a personal level already, doesn’t it?
Zimbalist: One meets people who say, “What is it you’re doing, what is it about?” and one has to respond somehow.
Krishnamurti: Is this what you are going to do when K dies tomorrow? That is my point. If K dies tomorrow, what is your relationship to the public, to X?
Ruth Tettemer: It couldn’t be any different from what it is now, I would think.
Krishnamurti: Ruth, it is somewhat different. I come and say, “You’ve known him for years, for God’s sake tell me something about it.” I want to hear it from you; I don’t want you to tell me to go to somebody else, or to ask me to go and read books. As a stranger I come here to Ojai and say, “Please Mr Lilliefelt, tell me what he was like. I want to know.” If I had been in India when Buddha died, I would want to know what the Buddha was like. I would go to people who had listened to him; I would want to find out. I have read the books, but I want to touch that which you, who have known him for some years, have touched when he was alive. I don’t know if you understand.
Jagdis Siddoo: How well do we know you?
Krishnamurti: It’s for you to beat it out of me. That is why I think it’s very important that we should be together. For the next few years, we should meet every year somewhere to discuss, be together. Don’t you think so? You seem rather doubtful.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, it’s important but our time is limited too. We might die.
Krishnamurti: It is for you to find young people. It is for you to fight for. Not become missionaries, for God’s sake, but...
Blau: I think probably the most important thing that we could do with the next few years is be together so that we have this firmly.
Krishnamurti: That is why I am asking. I have been asking for several years what is going to happen when K dies. To the whole thing, not just one aspect of it. If you have known him for so many years, have you drunk a little bit of that water? If you have not, what the heck have you been doing?
J. Siddoo: Well, can we drink some of that water in these talks now?
Krishnamurti: Water means all this, you see? I think it will materialize that some of the teachers from here, Brockwood and India should meet regularly, the teachers, not us, so that it is all one school. Then it creates something. And for that, one has to have special funds. And also have a special fund for people from the Foundations to meet every year. Right?
E. Lilliefelt: It takes money.
Krishnamurti: We have to collect it. It is important for us to meet. Do all of you want to go to India and be guests of the Foundation of India? Perhaps not this year because it is just beginning to grow, but next year; not this winter but next winter. I would suggest that. They wanted you to go this winter, but I am hesitant about this winter because you have already come here and it is expensive.
Cadogan: It would be marvellous if we could meet in India.
Krishnamurti: They want you to go, and they said you will be their guests. They will put you up properly, look after you, have the right food, laundry. [Pause]
You see, the word meditation is now spreading all over the world. If a man from outside whom you had known for many years said, “What does he mean by meditation? I would like to know from you. Krishnamurti is saying something about meditation which is entirely different from the rest, and I don’t know what you have done about it.” How would you answer?
Do you think with a centre at Ojai, a group here could tell a man from Seattle what it is about? I am just wondering how to meet this problem. I come here from Seattle to Dr Bohm and all of you, and I say, “Please, tell me about it. I’ve studied Buddhism, a little bit of the meditation of the Buddhists and Zen. I’m fairly educated along that line. I want you to tell me what K’s meditation is.” Could you do it?
E. Lilliefelt: Speaking as a collective group, it would seem to me that the difficulty will be that there will be several people. It’s one thing to discuss it in a group, it’s another thing for this man from Seattle to come and say, “All right, I’ll speak to Professor Bohm, I’ll speak to X, Y, Z of this group,” and he might get different...
Krishnamurti: Ah, that is just it!
E. Lilliefelt: And that’s the problem. Coming from you it is one thing.
Krishnamurti: Ah, no. That’s just it.
Bohm: It seems we have to establish that there is one mind here.
Krishnamurti: Absolutely. That is what I am trying to get at.
Blau: But there is one irrefutable source, and that is your own words.
Bohm: Not really.
Krishnamurti: Don’t tell me to go back to books! I’ve studied the books. I’m fed up with books! I come here. You are a group of people at Ojai who have known him for years, and I say to you, “Please tell me about it, about meditation, fear” – it doesn’t matter what, anything – “tell me about it.” If he tells me one thing and you tell me something else, I will say, “For God’s sake!”
Zimbalist: But Krishnaji, for the person who says, “I’m fed up with the books,” there’s a great big danger, which you see all around you today; which is that people won’t take the trouble to listen to you and try to understand you. They’ll go to someone else.
Krishnamurti: I know all this. I am a serious man. I have spent several years by myself studying all this. I know something about it. I come here, to Ojai, or Brockwood or India, and I say, “Please, you have known him for years, tell me.” If you say, “We have different minds,” I’ll say, “For God’s sake, what a group this is!”
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, but Krishnaji, even people who have listened to you all these years don’t just sit there and take what you say.
E. Lilliefelt: They listen to you, and then something happens within them. So therefore, it isn’t just a passive thing.
Krishnamurti: No. Something happens and they translate what has happened in terms of their conditioning.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes.
Krishnamurti: Therefore, it is something totally different.
E. Lilliefelt: Right, but that will happen to the man from Seattle.
Krishnamurti: That is what I’m saying; it should not happen here.
Zimbalist: But we shouldn’t do anything that promotes that. But you yourself, Krishnaji, cannot prevent the man from Seattle if he’s going to translate it into Christian Science.
Krishnamurti: No, that is different. Here we should not do that. I come and I say, “Look, you have known him for years. You have talked to him, you have discussed with him, you have listened to him.” And I know your background: you may be a scientist, a professor. Don’t translate what he says into professorial language. That means you are translating, you are conditioned by the professorship and then what you have caught you are putting into those words. I don’t want your professorship. I want you to tell me directly, not according to your conditioning. I am very serious about it. You can’t play with me.
Wilhelm: I think with that man it is possible to establish a communication. The words will not be so important. Of course, every one of us uses different words, but nevertheless we may communicate the same thing.
Krishnamurti: No, as Dr Bohm pointed out, we have to be one mind, sir.
Wilhelm: Yes, that’s what I mean. That’s exactly what I mean.
Krishnamurti: Are you all one mind?
E. Lilliefelt: I don’t understand what that means.
Krishnamurti: Thinking – you know what it means. He’ll tell you.
E. Lilliefelt: What does it mean?
Bohm: I think it means that we are really in instant communication in a way. Sometimes one sees in a group that people really understand each other. And if we are all talking to this person from Seattle, then every person is pointing toward the same thing, you see.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, I see what you mean, at the same time.
Bohm: At the same time, with the same intensity, and so on.
E. Lilliefelt: That’s why speaking as a group is better than speaking...
Theo Lilliefelt: Isn’t it really a question of communication amongst each other, amongst us? We are going together.
Krishnamurti: That is what I am saying. We must trust each other, we must have confidence in each other, we must have affection.
T. Lilliefelt: Yes. We are organizing buildings, we are doing this and that, but otherwise do we discuss this all together?
Krishnamurti: It is up to you, sir.
T. Lilliefelt: Yes. Well, that’s what I say. I think this is where the difficulty is, really, because we are a group organizationally but not elsewhere.
Simmons: In doing the organizational part you get to know each other.
T. Lilliefelt: Yes, but there is more to it. I feel we should get together more. If the man from Seattle comes and...
Krishnamurti: I am the man from Seattle.
T. Lilliefelt: ...and Professor Bohm says one thing, Mark says another thing and I say another thing, it means we haven’t really been able to drink of the fountain all together.
Krishnamurti: I give it up then; I won’t come here.
T. Lilliefelt: That’s right.
Lee: But, sir, the nature of the organizations is such that we spend so much of our time keeping the organization going.
Krishnamurti: That is just what I’m saying.
Lee: And there is no time for this other.
Krishnamurti: That is wrong.
Zimbalist: This is endemic.
E. Lilliefelt: You can’t dissolve the organization.
Krishnamurti: You have talked a great deal about it, so have I.
Cadogan: In Erna’s post box yesterday there was letter addressed to me from a man from Seattle. [Laughter]
Krishnamurti: This situation is going to arise. Face it now. You are going to have a centre at Ojai. A man comes from Seattle, who is me now, and I say to you, “I’ve come a long distance. I’ve been all over the world, because I have thought a great deal about all these matters. I want you who have known K for some years to tell me what he says about meditation. Not repeat what he says; but be authentic.”
T. Lilliefelt: There is reluctance.
Krishnamurti: No. Sir, you have no right to be reluctant. I have come, I am asking you, and you say, “I’m sorry, I’m reluctant”?
T. Lilliefelt: No, no, but I mean sometimes you feel that you don’t want to do propaganda.
Krishnamurti: It’s not propaganda. I’ve come to you.
T. Lilliefelt: Yes, true. Then you have to do it.
Krishnamurti: Will you?
E. Lilliefelt: But Krishnaji, the difficulty again is that we will try to convey something from you through us. It comes from us, but it stems from you.
Krishnamurti: It may stem from me, but you have drunk at the fountain. If you have not, what are you doing?
E. Lilliefelt: That’s right. But we are not the fountain.
Zimbalist: You say we have a little understanding. Some of us may feel that we have a certain degree of understanding, but we also may feel insecure about taking the responsibility to share that understanding with someone from Seattle.
Krishnamurti: No. Look, Maria. Say I haven’t been able to hear the Buddha, but I’ve heard about him, people have talked about him, and I am extraordinarily interested in what he has said. And you have known him for years, so I will travel any distance because I am really interested to see what you have felt about him, what he said, how much you have imbibed, how much you have learnt. I come to you and you say, “Sorry, we’re not of one mind, we don’t want to represent him.” I say, “Cut out all that, I want you to tell me.”
Zimbalist: I understand the motive of the man coming, but that man can easily go to someone else who may not have any inhibitions, who thinks he understands all that you said, and who will possibly give him something irresponsible. We feel terribly responsible.
Krishnamurti: You are the people I have come to because you have known him for years. Full stop. I don’t go to somebody else and say, “What did he say?” You are not getting my point.
Bohm: You are asking us here to be responsible for communicating this spirit that has come from the fountain. In other words, not merely to communicate the words. But I think I see a certain reluctance, a hesitation from all of us here to say that we have actually got something from this fountain.
E. Lilliefelt: If I were the man from Seattle, what would it give me if I asked you what you have understood?
Krishnamurti: No, I wouldn’t put that question.
E. Lilliefelt: If I were the man from Seattle I might.
Krishnamurti: I am the man from Seattle.
E. Lilliefelt: All right.
Krishnamurti: I say, “You have known him for years. You have talked to him, he has been with you, you have lived with him, you have seen him, listened to his talks, tell me what you feel about him, what is inside you about him.” I can read what he says in the books. You don’t seem to understand what I am talking about.
E. Lilliefelt: Are you talking more of a personal...?
Krishnamurti: No! You have been with him. It is like being with... if there had been a Christ, I would have travelled miles to find out what you feel about him.
Zimbalist: Would the person want to find out about the other person? They would come and say, “I’ve never met him, you have. Tell me what he’s talking about.”
Krishnamurti: Yes. That’s what I’m saying.
Zimbalist: That’s different. That’s not saying, “What has it done to you?”
Krishnamurti: “Tell me about him. Tell me what he said. Have you got something of it? You, as a group, or you as an individual, tell me. I’m tremendously concerned, interested. I might catch something from you.” But if you say, “Sorry, we’ve spent our life in organizations, buildings,” I’ll say, “For God’s sake!”
Zimbalist: But those people want someone to explain to them, or they wouldn’t come.
Krishnamurti: No, no, you have gone off. I’ll repeat it again. I’ve come from Seattle. I know a great deal about what other people have said about Zen Buddhism, Hindu and Buddhist meditation, Sufi ideas, and so on. I hear that you people have known him as a living person for a number of years. I come to Ojai. I will stay at the centre, and I will say, “Please tell me what he has said directly.” From you I want to understand. I know what he said; I have listened to the tapes. I have come here to find out what it means, whether you have got something.
Yesterday I was at the barber. I want to go and learn from a Master Barber [Laughs] what it means to cut hair properly. What is wrong with what I am saying?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, you’re the Master Barber but that doesn’t make us Master Barbers.
Krishnamurti: But I am learning.
Cadogan: Also, you talked about this one mind.
Cadogan: Well, that’s a very big question.
Alan Kishbaugh: But if K isn’t here and the man comes from Seattle, we are the Master Barbers. Because if we aren’t, then there isn’t anything.
Krishnamurti: You are the Master Barbers. You don’t say, “Sorry, we are just organizational entities. We talk about it, but sorry, we can’t tell you. Go and read the books, listen to the tapes.” He’ll say, “What kind of gang is this? Are they trying to avoid something?”
E. Lilliefelt: No, but also they are not trying to set up a hierarchy.
Krishnamurti: No. I didn’t say that. I want to know. For God’s sake, I want to know from you, who have known him for years, what he looks like, what it felt like.
Zimbalist: Well, that’s easy. That’s a personal...
Krishnamurti: I want that, give it to me. Help.
Zimbalist: But that’s the difficulty with your teaching...
Krishnamurti: You are missing my whole point. You don’t feel the way I feel about it. Sorry. You know South India? For miles and miles, when there were no trains, I would have walked all that way to find out what the disciples of Buddha said about what it felt like with him, what he was like, to feel what they felt. I don’t know what they felt, I would have wanted to find out.
J. Siddoo: Therefore, if you talked to that person with extreme passion...
Krishnamurti: No. Don’t tell me how you would talk. I want to know what you will tell me, the one from Seattle. Not how you will talk to me. This is going to arise. I assure you this will arise.
Lee: Sir, it happens now, when you’re not in Ojai.
Krishnamurti: Exactly. It is happening. You have to meet it.
Simmons: But why aren’t we meeting it? I mean, how do you exist without meeting it?
Krishnamurti: I don’t know how you meet it. Is Mrs Simmons at Brockwood saying something different from those in India?
Simmons: Somewhat. It will be, by location.
Krishnamurti: Then you’re already dissipating the thing, tearing the petals away. If you are all saying things with a different content, then you have already dissipated it.
What is the difficulty? I don’t understand this. I come to you and say, “Tell me about that man you are in love with.” Wouldn’t you tell me? You’d be a little shy, but you would tell me.
Zimbalist: But aren’t you talking about two different things? You are talking about what a person is like, and you’re talking about a man’s teachings.
Krishnamurti: I’d want to know. If I had been a South Indian and heard about the Buddha, I would have come to you. I would want to know what he looked like, what he said, what he felt. You can’t say, “Sorry, it’s too emotional, too personal,” too this and too that. He’d say, “For God’s sake, I’ve travelled all this way and you brush me off?”
Zimbalist: No, but isn’t the crux of it the degree of understanding that we have of your teachings, and not what you look like?
Krishnamurti: I’m interested in everything about him. For God’s sake, get that.
T. Lilliefelt: I don’t feel that pessimistic about it.
Krishnamurti: I’m not pessimistic.
T. Lilliefelt: Just a moment, just a moment. Here’s a man coming from Seattle; he’s passionate. We meet, and it’s very serious. Now, when the seriousness is there, I will be able to give it to him, because I have got something.
Krishnamurti: Sir, sir, if you loved a woman, you would tell me all about her, wouldn’t you? Your love would tell me, wouldn’t it?
T. Lilliefelt: Of course.
Krishnamurti: That is all I am asking. That’s all I am saying.
T. Lilliefelt: Yes.
Krishnamurti: If the dead Buddha’s disciple were here, that disciple who loved him would tell me everything.
T. Lilliefelt: Of course.
Krishnamurti: That is all I’m asking.
T. Lilliefelt: It will happen.
Krishnamurti: Are you all in that thing? That is what he means by one mind.
Cadogan: Yes, that’s a different meaning; I see.
Krishnamurti: If you were all in love with a woman, each may represent it differently, may tell it differently, but it would be love speaking, not...
Kishbaugh: Not catechism.
E. Lilliefelt: Can that love, then, be transmitted?
Krishnamurti: Wait! Your love will do something to me, to me from Seattle. Not your love for me. After all, there were Matthew, Mark, Luke and John; they all put it differently. They invented a damn lot, I’m quite sure, but they loved that image. There’s a Greek scholar in Rome who says Jesus really never existed, that the Christians invented it. And St Paul was walking from Damascus in summer, and it was tremendously hot. He had sunstroke. In those days, sunstroke was considered a blessing. So in that sunstroke he saw a figure.
Bohm: Isn’t there kind of a fine line dividing this kind of love and worship, because I think people began to worship the image of Christ?
Krishnamurti: Quite, quite. [Pause] I think that is the first thing we have to consider seriously: how to bring about “one mind,” in quotes.
3 March 1977
Krishnamurti: Would you tell me briefly what you discussed yesterday?
Cadogan: We decided, amongst other things, that we would meet together several times, without making a schedule or anything, and we would talk about some aspects of the teaching and what the whole thing means to us. Yesterday we talked a lot about what you said about being “one mind,” and we discussed some things which we saw perhaps a little differently. I’m sure other people can say more clearly than I can what we went onto after that.
Zimbalist: Well, we spoke of the considerable responsibility that we have in light of what you said the day before.
Krishnamurti: Suppose I die tomorrow, K dies tomorrow, what will happen? And who will hold the whole thing together, all the various Foundations, publications, schools, to see that in the schools these teachings are taught to the children, and so on? Who will be responsible for all that? I think we ought to discuss that now, if you don’t mind, apart from what we discussed the other day when I was here: that books are not enough, but there must be some people in all the Foundations who have listened, understood, live, and are deeply involved in the teachings. Apart from that, which we will again go into later on, who will be responsible for all this to hold it all together, to see that the schools are really what they started out to be, and be responsible to see that the schools, the Foundations, the “ashramas” in quotes, are maintaining the real spirit of the whole thing? Who will take charge of all that?
At present, when I go to India, when K goes to India, he goes to the two schools, and we discuss, we talk a great deal about all this. When I was there last time in Rajghat, all of us talked a great deal. At Brockwood and Ojai, who will see that the whole thing is held together, that the teachings are put through to the students, to the teachers, that the teachers understand it, so that it’s all one movement, one vital, creative, energetic movement? Who will be responsible for that?
It was suggested to me at Brockwood and in India and also a little bit here, that there should be a group of people, not authoritarian, not hierarchical, not pope-ish, but some who will be the group who will see this thing is done.
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, we spoke this morning about the memorandum that Sunanda [Patwardhan] gave you in Bombay.
Krishnamurti: Yes. Let me explain. That memorandum [written by a small group in India] was given to me in Bombay.
Zimbalist: Shall I?
Krishnamurti: Yes, please, if you like.
Zimbalist: Well, it’s entitled “Some Salient Points for Discussion at the Ojai Meeting, March 1977.”
“1. The survival of the Foundations to hold together when K is no more will depend upon the capacity of the members to give primary concern to the inner nature of the teachings, to the process of self-knowing, and to be a light unto themselves.
2. The Foundations should also take great care to induct young people into the Foundations and associate them with the work and make them capable of taking over the responsibility in the years to come.
3. One or two members from each of the Foundations should meet once a year, alternately in Ojai, Brockwood, India, and probably Canada.
4. An apex body should be formed, consisting of representatives of the Foundations. This body will have no power or authority but the members will act as guardians for preserving the purity of the teachings, discuss major problems if and when they arise, and hold the Foundations together in spirit and structure.
5. Next meeting of the Foundations should be held in India, probably in the winter of 1977/1978.”
Krishnamurti: Can we discuss that a little bit? Who will brood over the various Foundations? Who will be responsible for it? Who will be concerned with it and not assert, not guide, not force, not assume authority or any hierarchical position, and all the rest of that? What shall we do about that? I think it is important now to begin with that so that we come to some kind of agreement.
E. Lilliefelt: Excuse me, Mary, would you mind just reading again the statement about the apex?
Zimbalist: [Re-reads Item 4.]
Lee: I would like to ask how that would be different or why it would be different from trustees, who do that right now?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, as I understand it, that would mean a representative of each of the Foundations would meet together and perhaps go from place to place at various times to see what is being done.
Lee: One, is it necessary and, two, is it desirable? Are we not narrowing in some sense all our involvement? We’re not that big a group as it is now.
E. Lilliefelt: No, but if I understand what Krishnaji is talking about and what they must have discussed in India, we are separate, geographically separate, legally separate organizations.
Krishnamurti: Financially separate.
E. Lilliefelt: Because we are legally separate, we have to be financially. But still we want to keep this very strong link with the Foundations so that we won’t go off in different directions, but, if it is at all possible, to look at things, the teaching, and so on, and see that the schools develop and so on, in a somewhat similar way. In that way, instead of having a legally, international organization, we would have a...
Krishnamurti: A brooding body. [Laughs]
E. Lilliefelt: Well, yes, but still representatives. It wouldn’t have to be the same representative of each organization every time they met, but someone from each organization who could meet.
Lee: But aren’t we doing that now?
E. Lilliefelt: I don’t think so.
Lee: You don’t feel that that’s what we’re doing now?
Ahalya Chari: No, it is not possible for all the trustees to meet at any time, so there have to be representatives.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, that’s right. And it depends on whom the Foundations select as their representatives. The trustees then would have the right to elect their own representative.
Lee: That is not what I am wondering about. It is that we make a formalized group with a formalized name.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, I don’t think that was the intention.
Zimbalist: It just says an apex body. It can be just a few people. Call it what you like.
E. Lilliefelt: I don’t think it should be organized.
Krishnamurti: The apex.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, that’s right.
Krishnamurti: And if I die tomorrow, the apex won’t hold; things will break up. So they have all suggested, in India and also in various other places, that there should be a group of people or a body of people, without any authority, without becoming the popes and all the rest of it, to brood over the whole thing and hold it together. That’s all.
Lee: Yes, but isn’t that, in effect, what we have done when we’ve had trustees? They wouldn’t necessarily be the same people who would meet.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, they should, I mean, at least a representative should meet. This is a group that represents not just the trustees in this country or in India or in England, but...
Lee: No, no, I understand. I didn’t want to see another division, is what I meant.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, they wouldn’t be different people.
Zimbalist: The point is to avoid division.
Kishbaugh: Would this in any way diminish the working together of the Foundations? Or would it all focus then on these three?
Lee: That’s the question I’m asking.
Cadogan: Yes, that’s an interesting question.
Lee: That’s exactly what I’m asking.
Krishnamurti: Would it divide...?
Kishbaugh: Would it diminish the responsibility of the various Foundations?
Krishnamurti: No, on the contrary.
Simmons: If it were done properly it wouldn’t do that.
Kishbaugh: But wouldn’t there be a tendency to push the responsibility onto that apex group?
Krishnamurti: No, no. Look, suppose I’m the apex now with half a dozen people representing Foundations with me. It is what I am doing now. It doesn’t diminish your responsibility at Ojai. On the contrary, we will all be working together.
Tettemer: But what will be the function of this group?
Krishnamurti: I don’t know, I am just... We talked about in India. They said, “It’s very difficult for us to go to America or to Europe or to Canada, even two or three of us, because it’s very, very expensive and we have hardly any money, and the government is preventing more and more people from going abroad, so there must be somebody, one or two people representative from each Foundation who will go from country to country, year after year, and see that everything is operating properly.” Their responsibility is not to force them. The Foundations have their own responsibility. They are responsible for what they are doing, but the apex body would see it as K is doing now. That’s all.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, K is doing much more. You are the link, now.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that’s what the point of that is.
Zimbalist: But it was quickly said that it’s different from this group, and I’m not clear on that. How is it different from what we’re doing right now?
Krishnamurti: Surely, it is different, isn’t it, without my explaining? It is different. Say, for instance, they don’t know what is happening in Canada. They should know. They might learn something that the Canadians are doing that the Indians are not doing; the Canadians might learn what the Indians are doing. As the Indians can’t travel too much all over the world, they said, “There must be somebody representative from the various Foundations who will act as the apex, who will be in your place when you die.”
Cadogan: And who is able to travel. One person perhaps.
Krishnamurti: One or two, I don’t know. We’ll discuss the number of people who will be in the apex, and so on. But what K is doing, that is, travelling around, seeing, meeting them, discussing with them, seeing the schools, and so on, that’s all. Perhaps making suggestions.
Blau: Exchanging ideas.
Kishbaugh: And bringing energy and ideas.
Krishnamurti: Yes. That’s what I understood and that’s what was suggested, and that’s what they would like to happen.
Cadogan: Krishnaji, do you think that it should be a group which changes?
Krishnamurti: We’ll discuss first the principle and then the details.
Blau: Certainly this would eliminate the possibility of any one person setting themselves up as a...
Blau: ...successor in that sense.
Zimbalist: Would you visualize that they’d all go together to one place?
Krishnamurti: Oh, yes.
Blau: At the same time?
Zimbalist: And then another year at another place.
Krishnamurti: Another group of people.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, is the purpose simply to keep a link with all the Foundations?
Krishnamurti: What K is doing, the apex will do, apart from talking and so on, hold them together.
Cadogan: But wasn’t there also something about protecting the purity of the teachings? What was that?
Zimbalist: Well, it says that the survival of the Foundations to hold together will depend upon the capacity of the members to give primary concern to the inner nature of the teachings and to the process of self-knowing and to be a light unto themselves. If I understand that, it means everybody; the apex comes later.
Cadogan: The apex thing, did you say something about staying as we are?
Zimbalist: It will have no power or authority, but the members will act as guardians for preserving the purity of the teachings, discuss major problems if and when they arise, and hold the Foundations together in spirit and structure.
E. Lilliefelt: That’s the danger.
Chari: That’s the double edge.
E. Lilliefelt: That’s the difficulty, because will it be just those...
Simmons: Well, of course that applies to everybody.
Radha Burnier: I think the function of the apex body can be understood if we think of what the Foundations will be without Krishnaji.
Burnier: If we can imagine that, then we see the need for something to hold it together.
Blau: The thing that troubles me a bit is characterizing it as an apex, which assumes a certain kind of authority.
Krishnamurti: In principle. Cut out the name apex.
Blau: A group.
Krishnamurti: A group.
Blau: A rotating group.
Lee: How would they function without power and...?
Krishnamurti: Wait. First in principle, sir, then we will go into details.
Cadogan: It’s a little difficult to approve the principle when one doesn’t really know the structure, because if there were, say, three people who were to be permanent...
Krishnamurti: No, no, don’t, please. Look, K dies tomorrow, and there is nobody who will keep the thing together. Right? The idea is that when he dies – it may happen tomorrow or ten years later – there is a group of people to see that it is all held together.
Cadogan: Yes. That seems very logical.
Krishnamurti: That’s all.
Cadogan: But no, Krishnaji, because I think this question about protecting the purity of the teachings...
Krishnamurti: That comes a little later. We’ll discuss that. I said don’t rub it in too much about that.
Cadogan: All right, but it depends how it is to be interpreted by the group.
Krishnamurti: I know. That’s how the popes began.
Simmons: If you had a rotating group...
Krishnamurti: Rotating group, then the thing would be...
Simmons: Yes, and then it’s the responsibility that you already have.
Cadogan: That’s different, yes.
Chari: And it doesn’t preclude the individual responsibility of different Foundations.
Cadogan: No, quite.
Krishnamurti: Of course not, of course not.
Chari: Each one of us is responsible at a particular level, and this group is only a linking group.
Cadogan: That’s different. A linking group is one thing...
Chari: A linking group, and each Foundation, each member having a function.
J. Siddoo: I think I’d prefer to call it a “link” rather than an “apex.”
Chari: Yes, it’s meant to keep the thread together.
Krishnamurti: If K dies tomorrow, wouldn’t you want this? You yourself, all the Foundations?
Cadogan: Something like it.
Krishnamurti: That’s all. In principle, something like it.
Cadogan: So long as there is no absolving of other responsibilities.
Krishnamurti: In principle, you would yourself demand a thing like this.
Cadogan: I would not have demanded it.
Krishnamurti: Why not?
Cadogan: I would have hoped, I think, that we, together, as trustees of the Foundations, could have found our way of doing this without another body.
Krishnamurti: I’m dead now; how would you do it? Put it there.
Simmons: This is a safeguard to see that you don’t become The English Foundation, The Indian Foundation.
Chari: I think a link...
Cadogan: A link is fine.
Lee: I mean, for instance, we are here, but all the trustees of all the Foundations are not here. As many as could come have come. And this wouldn’t be really a separate body would it? It would be representatives of the Foundations who can travel and get together.
Kishbaugh: This is just an assurance that we would do it at least once a year. But if more people could come and would want to come, they would be welcome.
Krishnamurti: If K dies tomorrow, wouldn’t you say, “What is happening in India, what’s happening in Canada?” You’d want to know, wouldn’t you?
Cadogan: Very much.
Krishnamurti: That’s all, that’s all. So can’t we agree together that one or two members who change, and all the rest of it, would act as a link, holding the thing together?
Cadogan: And go to the different countries.
Krishnamurti: Different countries, different schools, looking at them, discussing with the principals. That’s all. Which I have been doing.
T. Lilliefelt: I think the word apex has created some concern.
Krishnamurti: Cut out the word apex, sir. They wrote it very quickly.
E. Lilliefelt: Why can’t we simply agree, as four Foundations, that representatives of those Foundations meet once a year in the various Foundation countries? That’s all. You don’t need a separate group. Just simply formalize an agreement that representatives will meet every year.
Krishnamurti: Representatives meet every year to do what? Could we agree that from the various Foundations one or two get together every year and feel that they are holding the thing together, that’s all, and not break up the whole affair. And to see, for instance, what they are doing in Canada, whether their members are really interested in what we are doing, to see what they are talking about, or whether they are only casually interested; to see how the school is going on. I would like to know. So this body would go to Canada, live there for a while, for whatever time we all agree.
Zimbalist: Then you’re suggesting that the group visits each place, not that the representative from England and the Canadian representative each describe what they are doing, but that this group visits all the four places.
Krishnamurti: They must, they must, as I am doing.
Zimbalist: Yes, so that it’s not just a meeting somewhere once a year, it’s visiting four places?
Cadogan: Did you mean that, Krishnaji?
Krishnamurti: No, we’ll discuss the details. I am doing it now, visiting all the places.
Zimbalist: It means that if you were the one from England, you would have to come here, to Canada and India every year.
Blau: That wouldn’t work, because then you’d never get back to your own place to report what’s going on; you’d just be travelling round and round.
Simmons: You have your trustees, who are communicating in any case, and this group, whoever is selected to do that, is binding together and focusing on that point at that particular time, and reporting back. Next time, they go to another place. It could be twice a year, perhaps. The trustees should contact each other.
Krishnamurti: No, wait a minute. How do you keep in contact with Canada?
Simmons: I write letters.
Krishnamurti: What I am trying to find out is how to hold the whole thing together, keep all Foundations linked, so they know what is happening, everything that is going on in each Foundation. That is all I am talking about. I don’t know how to do it, I really don’t know how to do it, but in principle I think that is right. Then let’s discuss how to do it, if you agree that in principle this is right.
J. Siddoo: Krishnaji, could there be a body of people that we would agree on to whom we could refer a particular problem?
Krishnamurti: Quite right. Quite right.
Cadogan: I find that difficult to understand because I felt that the essential thing of the work we are doing is that we are facing this responsibility. And yet you’re proposing another body now that we go to for advice.
J. Siddoo: Not every day. You don’t just run to anyone every day, but we’re just beginning; we haven’t gone through all the problems that you have, and we’re going to need help. I mean, we’d feel completely isolated if something happened to Krishnaji right now.
Cadogan: So you would very much welcome someone visiting?
J. Siddoo: Yes, we would.
Cadogan: I understand that, but remember this body is only us. It’s only going to be from us, isn’t it? It’s not a super-body.
Krishnamurti: But what she means is that Mrs Simmons has much more experience, Ahalyaji has more experience. Ahalyaji has been the head of all the schools of India, working with the government, and so on; and they would like to consult about their difficulties.
Cadogan: Yes, I understand that. There’s only us, really.
Krishnamurti: May I say something? They are going to talk to me, one of these days, about the school in Vancouver, about whether they should do this or that, and so on. And they want somebody from another Foundation with whom they can communicate, discuss, go into their problems.
E. Lilliefelt: Krishnaji, then couldn’t Sarjit come here and talk to Mark, or Mark or Mrs Simmons go to Canada?
E. Lilliefelt: But that isn’t a “super body;” that’s for a specific purpose.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that’s a different matter, also.
Zimbalist: But Krishnaji, these people would not be geographically together for a whole year so that you could ask them, as a group, for advice, and they could discuss it and act as your surrogate in giving a reply.
Krishnamurti: We are going off the rails.
Zimbalist: I agree that it’s absolutely necessary to visit the place.
E. Lilliefelt: But can’t that be done by representatives from the various Foundations agreeing to meet once a year? The important thing is to agree to do this.
Kishbaugh: It could be described as a liaison function instead of an apex body.
Krishnamurti: Liaison function. Put it any way. Cut out the word apex, sir.
Burnier: I think it has to be something more than just meeting once a year in some place.
Krishnamurti: I agree with you.
Wilhelm: I would say, for example, that the representatives of the different Foundations should also speak to the students in the different schools.
Krishnamurti: I think Radhaji means something different, sir.
Burnier: Yes. The representatives who will feel responsible throughout the year for keeping this link and a close communication between all the different groups, which involves something more than just meeting and then going back home and forgetting.
Simmons: But what?
Krishnamurti: Find out. Wait, wait. Find out. She means something.
Simmons: Yes, and I’m trying to find out.
Krishnamurti: No, no, not that way. Find out. Have an insight into it. I don’t know what she means. I’m trying to get the meaning of it. Before we attack her, ask her what she means by it. I want to find out. When she says “something more,” I think there’s something in it.
Blau: Could I clarify something, please? This would be in addition to the yearly rotating meetings that the trustees would have, visiting each year another country as a body?
Krishnamurti: I think so. We’ll come to that. I think so, but we’ll see.
Radhaji said something, which is that it is not merely keeping the link, it’s not only helping each other. Those two, Mrs Simmons and Ahalyaji, have tremendous experience in education, so I, from Canada, say come, we will pay if necessary, come over, help us with this thing, we are rather stuck. That’s a different matter. But Radhaji is saying there is something much more involved in this than merely the “apex” body, in quotes going round and brooding over it, seeing that it’s held together, and so on. There’s something much more involved in it. Forget the apex word, sir; I am using it to convey quickly the whole content of what we have said this morning.
You see, I think what she means, if I can understand it, is whether there is somebody, or a group of people, who have the perfume, who have really, however little or however much, drunk at the fountain, and go around. Not to tell them what to do, not to tell them this or that should not be, but to bring that perfume to each place. Do you follow what I am trying to convey?
I think I have what she means. I’ve listened to the Buddha or K. I’ve listened a great deal. I’ve understood somewhat. I’m living it somewhat, and I feel, as I’m a member of one of the Foundations, that it’s tremendously important for me to go around and say, “Look, I’ve understood a little bit, let’s talk about it. I am not telling you what to do, I am not telling you how to run the Foundations, nothing of that kind. I have understood something. I have been with him for many, many years and I think this is what he means. I’m not putting my personal views, I’m not being personal, I don’t want position, I don’t want authority, none of that, but I want to talk to you about this thing which I have captured because I have been with him for a number of years.” I think that may be what she means.
J. Siddoo: We’re already trying to do that, Krishnaji, because you haven’t come up to Canada.
Krishnamurti: Ah, no, no. You’ve gone away from the point. I’m trying to find out what Radhaji said, which is much more than this travelling back and forth.
E. Lilliefelt: But you’re talking about one person.
Krishnamurti: No, maybe half a dozen; I don’t care.
Cadogan: But somehow this implies that these people are separate from us.
Krishnamurti: Look, have you understood K, very deeply? If you felt tremendously passionate about it, wouldn’t you want to say, “Look, I want to go to Ojai and tell them”? Listen. I am bursting with it, and I want to see if they have got this. If not, I will give a little bit of what I’ve understood.
Cadogan: But I thought we were going to do this anyway.
Krishnamurti: Who is going to do it?
Cadogan: All of us here.
T. Lilliefelt: These trustees would come together.
Krishnamurti: I agree. But I am trying to find out more of what she means.
Zimbalist: Well, couldn’t we ask Radha what she means?
Krishnamurti: Ask her.
Burnier: I think this external coming together, giving help by giving advice and information won’t keep the Foundations together. It has to be as Krishnaji says, something different, a feeling, an intensity that has to keep the whole thing together. I find it very difficult to say what it is.
Krishnamurti: Yes. Do you think you will all hold the Foundations together if K dies tomorrow? I am asking if you would see that you will not break up, that the schools are functioning, doing what they are meant to do, the publications, the whole thing.
Cadogan: Yes. And I think something of what we’ve said today seems a very good way of doing it.
Burnier: I think that, as it is, it won’t hold together, sir.
Krishnamurti: You see?
Cadogan: But if we say that, we immediately block it.
Burnier: No, it’s not that. It’s a question of seeing the fact.
E. Lilliefelt: But look, what is it we’re holding together? The Foundations really have to have their function of preserving the teaching and making it available. That certainly is the great responsibility wherever we are. That’s why we have the Foundations in these various places. That seems to me more important than trying to keep the four Foundations together. I’m not denigrating the importance of that, but certainly what is done in the various countries is more important.
T. Lilliefelt: This also involves a selection process.
Krishnamurti: No, sir, no, sir, it’s much more than that.
T. Lilliefelt: Well, I am just saying that, if it does, then we are in a dangerous patch.
Krishnamurti: No, they will be much more than that, sir. That is all childish stuff.
T. Lilliefelt: I know.
Simmons: You see, I think we’re all hiding behind each other, in a way. There’s no vitality, there’s no sort of passion about actually doing it.
Burnier: But what is all the teaching about? After all, it is about a mind which is not divided, and if in disseminating the teaching we are going to be divided, the whole thing is destroyed.
Blau: Yes, but you suppose it is. You start with a premise that it is divided unless we do something like this.
Simmons: You are in America, I am in England, somebody else is in India; we are actually divided.
Krishnamurti: That’s just it. I am dead and who is going to do this? That is my question.
Zimbalist: Every time we’ve ever come together, be it just between Ojai and Brockwood, it’s been a tremendous change in seeing and talking and being together. The actual physical division disappears.
Krishnamurti: I know, I know. Fortunately. What were you going to say?
Cadogan: Are we moving towards feeling that there should be three or four people from the trustees who will make their whole life a dedication to this aspect of the work? In other words, they would no longer be concerned with the day-to-day responsibility, the nitty-gritty nuts and bolts. Other people will do that. Are you feeling that there should be three people, say, who will go wherever they need to go, at any time, and who, when they are not travelling, will be living this, without any sort of responsibilities which might dissipate that kind of energy? I am asking.
Krishnamurti: Yes, I understand, I understand. You see, while I was in India, I had to force an issue to bring a certain thing to a crisis. A crisis came, and I saw to it that there was a change; and I said it is the responsibility of the Indian Foundation to have done this. But they couldn’t because they were very far away from each other in Delhi, Benares. They couldn’t face the responsibility of a certain change at Rishi Valley. We forced it, in the sense of looking at it and facing it. Now, who will do this if the Foundations are becoming slack?
Suppose – forgive me, sir – Mark Lee decided to go on slowly and make it all comfortable for himself with a leisurely little group. Would you stand up and break it?
E. Lilliefelt: Of course, of course. I don’t see a problem there.
Krishnamurti: Here it’s fairly simple because we’re all here in one place. You see him every day or every other day, therefore you know exactly what is happening. But when you are so far away, as in India, things become extraordinarily difficult. The neglect of Rishi Valley is the responsibility of the Foundation. They neglected it. I’m not talking behind their backs; it is so. They know it. I’ve discussed it with them. And it could have gone on indefinitely.
Kishbaugh: You’re saying this is not peculiar just to India though; the potential is everywhere.
Krishnamurti: Unless one is tremendously awake to all this, and feels the great responsibility of it. Because the parents entrust the children to you. The place was got together for the teachings, essentially. You see, Ojai is very simple, because you know each other, you discuss these things every day, you meet practically every day, you know exactly what is happening there.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, but I couldn’t conceive of anybody from the United States or England or Canada going to India.
Krishnamurti: No, no, I am not talking about India. I am saying, please, here it is very easy. You are at Ojai, all of you. You know, you are treading on each other’s toes all the time. In India it becomes tremendously difficult; they can’t do it. You understand what I’m saying?
E. Lilliefelt: Well not quite, Krishnaji, because I think they must do it there.
Krishnamurti: Ask Ahalyaji; she will tell you.
Zimbalist: But if within one country it can’t be done, how can it then be done on a worldwide basis by some outside group?
Krishnamurti: That’s what we’re trying to find out. I’m not saying it should or should not. What are we going to do if K dies tomorrow? You are faced with this problem. I keep on repeating that.
E. Lilliefelt: You say we are faced with the problems not only of the individual Foundation but we’re faced with the problems of all the four Foundations.
Krishnamurti: That’s all.
E. Lilliefelt: So the American Foundation is responsible for the Indian Foundation and vice versa?
Krishnamurti: I think so. That’s what I feel. It should be that way.
Blau: It will be more difficult for the Western Foundations to be able to help the Indian Foundation because of the language barrier; and the Indian mind, if I may call it that, that is much more complicated than... [Laughter]
Krishnamurti: There she is. There they are! The Brahminical mind: well oiled. [Laughter] There they are, two of them. Please, they represent the Foundation from India. Whatever they agree, the Foundation will agree. So you tackle them.
T. Lilliefelt: I think we should visualize what would happen. Somebody from America goes to India. You want him to be able to solve any problem in India?
Krishnamurti: No, sir, not problems.
Mrs Cadogan, I die tomorrow; I am not there. I am no longer chairman, I am gone. What will you do? What will you, as a member of the Foundation in England, responsible for the Foundation in England, do when K has said you are responsible for all the Foundations?
Cadogan: Yes, what would we do?
Krishnamurti: If you are responsible for one Foundation, you are responsible for all the Foundations.
Krishnamurti: So K has gone, is buried, burnt, finished. What will you do tomorrow to hold the thing together, to see that the teaching is not dissipated, corrupted. It has been corrupted; other people are doing it.
Cadogan: And this will happen more and more.
Krishnamurti: More and more. What will you do?
Cadogan: I would feel, first of all, that we would have to meet together.
Krishnamurti: Do it! Find out.
Cadogan: Well, I hope we’re going to do that here. That is what we would do, I think; we would feel that we had to meet, and in fact, we are meeting now for this very purpose, so that we don’t have to do it in a hurry.
Krishnamurti: So how will you do it? You have a month to settle all this. How will you do this? Without creating popery.
Cadogan: Absolutely. Yes, without creating popery.
Krishnamurti: Without creating a temple, a hierarchy saying, “This cannot be done, that can be done.”
Cadogan: And without making any people working feel that any of their responsibility is being removed.
Krishnamurti: You are responsible.
Cadogan: For all that, yes.
Krishnamurti: And I feel that Ahalyaji and Radhaji, who are representing the Indian Foundation, are responsible for Brockwood, for Canada. When you are responsible for one Foundation you are responsible in your heart for everything, all the Foundations. As I feel it.
Cadogan: Could we try now to do this, while you are here?
Zimbalist: I don’t like to bring up something personal, but I have had the experience of being a trustee of three Foundations. I would feel that I had to be at Brockwood for considerable time before I could begin to really know what was going on there. I resigned from India because it was meaningless. I had no right to express an opinion, in my view, about anything in India because I knew nothing about it. I didn’t know what the problems were, so I resigned. You have to have an intimate knowledge of the other organizations in order...
Krishnamurti: Ah, I’m not talking of organizations. I’m not talking about that. Ahalyaji, you are responsible for Rajghat. You are a member of the Foundation and you are the Principal, you are the whole works, at Rajghat. Do you feel responsible for Brockwood? Don’t say it vaguely; either you do or you don’t.
Chari: I think that must come.
Chari: I see the need for it; I feel it in the heart. That’s all I can say now. For the whole of India, these other schools in India also.
Krishnamurti: I’m not talking schools. Feel responsible.
Krishnamurti: Look, I feel responsible, very deeply for what happens at Ojai, what happens at Brockwood, in India, Canada. I feel responsible.
J. Siddoo: Krishnamurti, if we are truly of one mind, then what is the harm in all of us just looking and seeing, well, perhaps some of us have gone more deeply into this, and delegate that particular function to them?
Krishnamurti: Yes, but for the moment that is not the point. Please, I put my heart into it when I go to Rishi Valley; when I go to Rajghat, I put my heart into it; and at Brockwood, and here. Who will do this?
J. Siddoo: Can’t we agree on someone?
Krishnamurti: I don’t know. K is dead, gone. What will you do tomorrow?
Blau: Yes, but we can’t replace K. I mean, does one have to do what you are doing?
Krishnamurti: Do you feel responsible so completely for all that is happening, in India? Not the details, not what is happening at Rajghat or Brockwood. I don’t know what is happening at Brockwood in detail, or in India.
Simmons: And neither do you, Mary, in detail, but you make a very real contribution there. If you’re concerned about the general implications of the teachings, you don’t have to know all the details, you bring a feeling of that with you.
Zimbalist: Yes, but you have to go there.
Simmons: You wouldn’t offer suggestions as to how this should be done, or anything else like that. That would be quite impossible. I don’t think Krishnaji does that, I don’t know.
Krishnamurti: I don’t. I tried to do it in India for ten years, and they didn’t do it. They said to me, “You come like a storm; we’re glad when you leave.”
Simmons: Well, you do that everywhere. [Laughter]
Krishnamurti: But it doesn’t matter. I mean, they express it that way.
Cadogan: Can we function in this way more, even now, while you’re still with us?
Krishnamurti: Do it now; that’s what I’m saying.
I wish Pupul and Sunanda were here. You would get to know them, talk to them, make them feel responsible for what is happening here, what is happening at Brockwood, and say, “Look, since you feel responsible, I must be responsible for what is happening in India.”
Krishnamurti: I think that may be what Radhaji meant when she said: “more.” There’s something much more still, which I would like to go into later, but I want this settled. [Long pause]
You see, in Madras [Now Chennai.], there’s a little school, a kindergarten school. While I was there this time, I suggested that they buy a hundred acres outside Madras, and from the little school, grow. And they have found a place, they told me yesterday. They want to buy sixty acres. I said, “Don’t buy sixty acres, it’s too small. Buy a lot. It doesn’t matter if you have no money for building, it will come, but you must think large.” You follow?
Cadogan: Yes, Krishnaji, Yes, I do, and I know Erna is appreciating this very much, yes.
Krishnamurti: What is this?
Cadogan: No, Erna is appreciating what you are saying, because you’ve said this here and we feel this always happens with you.
Krishnamurti: Yes. So, I am going to ask someone to write to Sunanda to buy a hundred acres and more, because the school must grow.
Cadogan: Yes. This is for little children, for very young children.
Krishnamurti: From the little, young, to high school and college and all the rest of it. Somebody must be doing this.
Cadogan: I would like to know, and Ahalya is going to talk to us, because some of us still are quite vague as to the structure of the schools in India. She is going to tell us about it all, because we do not know, some of us, the whole setup of the schools, and even how many schools there are in India.
Krishnamurti: You see, when I was at Benares, Rajghat, I suggested to her having an “ashrama,” in quotes, and she jumped at it, because she said she saw immediately the possibility of having outsiders, so that you could find teachers from them. The whole thing would operate together. And they are going to do it. I am doing this now. If K goes tomorrow, I have a feeling that, unless we are very, very careful it will just peter out.
When we came here, they wanted to buy five acres. I said, “For God’s sake, don’t buy five acres, buy that entire park.” They had money then. Aren’t you glad now you have fifty acres, Dorothy?
Simmons: [Laughs] Sometimes I wonder!
Krishnamurti: So, if I may suggest, I am not here. Proceed. How to keep the whole thing together and see that the whole thing is flowering, is not just kept together; I think that’s what Radhaji meant, flowering more.
You see, we have been talking to Mrs Simmons. (I call her Mrs D. Everybody calls her Dorothy so I must vary it by calling her Mrs D.) We have been talking at Brockwood about whether we should have older children, older students, not the young students, have more older people, because it’s a tremendous burden having younger children.
Krishnamurti: Right? They are into sex and drugs, and constant watching becomes a nightmare for the staff.
Simmons: Sixteen, that sort of age.
Krishnamurti: Sixteen or eighteen and up. Nothing has been decided. Don’t say the school is closed!
Simmons: We have the cottages to house some of them.
Krishnamurti: We have the cottages and we have other things. We’ll get what we want, we always have.
So, if K is gone tomorrow, will you all see to it that all the Foundations, with their schools, with their publications, are flowering; not just keeping the organizations together, but flowering, growing, becoming a light in the world.
Sarjit Siddoo: Excuse me, I’m a little puzzled about what you just said about Brockwood and flowering, and talking about cutting back.
Krishnamurti: No, no. No. You know, they have students from age fourteen up, or eleven up.
Simmons: We started with ten-year-olds, or went down to ten-year-olds, and up to twenty years old, and the age span was too great, we felt. So we’ve let those children grow up until they’re now fourteen, and we’d like to go up until they’re sixteen. That’s the sort of cutback that I think you were talking about.
Krishnamurti: That’s what we were discussing. Nothing has been done.
S. Siddoo: But those are universal problems that would occur in any school, and I think it’s something that really has to be dealt with. I would think that it would be more advisable to have them from a younger age.
Krishnamurti: That’s what they’re going to do at Ojai.
S. Siddoo: Exactly. But it seems as if the duty toward the children wouldn’t be fulfilled.
Krishnamurti: You see now what is happening? Please, you have to understand the whole situation, which is that Mrs Simmons and one or two others are taking the responsibility for the whole thing; the others don’t want to take responsibility. Some of them do, she’s making them do it, but all that is weighted on her.
Simmons: Brockwood is run by the staff, Krishnaji.
Krishnamurti: Yes, I know, the staff. But she [is the one who] has to talk to the police and others. You tell them. I don’t have to tell them. Do tell them.
Simmons: Well, one has to do in miniature, in small, what Krishnaji does for everything. You have to hold it together, which is the most difficult thing of all, and each person wants a different thing. You have to listen to it, see the implications of that suggestion about having young people. Everybody wants a young school at Brockwood. The facts are that the buildings are not big enough. We would need another building. At the moment we just can’t undertake that, so we are doing what we can do, which is the sixteen year olds or the fourteen year olds, to the twenty year olds.
We are also renting some cottages, thinking it would be very nice for some people who haven’t been to Brockwood, say twenty year olds to thirty year olds, to be exposed to all this, to bring them in, even for six months. Something might catch fire. They could talk together, have discussions, do things together. We are trying to put that into action at the moment.
Krishnamurti: So, please, I’m gone. Now it’s your problem. How are you going to face it? Not only the schools, not only the ashramas or adult centres. What will you do?
Blau: Once a year we will meet as an international group.
Krishnamurti: Yes, but actually what will you do? Look, at Ojai there’s going to be an “ashrama,” in quotes. Now, I am using that word very carefully. There is going to be an ashrama and a school down there. Fritz, with the help of Dr Bohm and myself, and so on, we’ll bring it about. Now, K has gone; what will you do with that ashrama there? Suddenly he’s gone. Discuss it. What will you do there? You can’t leave it to Fritz and say, “Well, run it, old boy, we have other things to do,” and just forget it.
Blau: That actually brings up the question that I think we haven’t really resolved, as to what those ashramas are actually going to do.
Krishnamurti: Do it. I am saying do it now. He’s gone.
Zimbalist: Well, it’s going to be very different in one sense, but what is done is not going to start then, it must start right away.
Krishnamurti: I am saying that. You see, Ahalyaji has come from Rajghat and also she is representing the Foundation of India. She says, “Let’s discuss. What are you going to do? It will help me there.” What will you do? You have a person here. What is he going to do? What is his responsibility?
Chari: Krishnaji, even when you talk about one school, it’s not just the structure or this sort of thing. I think we have to clarify for ourselves, all those of us who are working...
Krishnamurti: I’m gone.
Chari: ...What the implications of the teaching mean for education. We have not touched even the fringe of it.
Krishnamurti: I know.
Chari: I know in Rajghat and elsewhere in India, and I’m sure we all have common problems, but it’s not those problems. The implication of the teachings for education, I think, is something that we have to go into and give our life to. I mean, we have to get started right now with you. I don’t think we have touched it.
Krishnamurti: I know we have not, but we can do that. We’ll do that now, because you, the teachers, we are all here, so we can do that. We have a month. But the first thing I want to be clear about is what you are all going to do with the ashrama here and how you are going to create it, how you are going to help him to flower in it? Sir, you’re responsible for it. You are responsible for it, and Ruth, and you, all of you, what are you going to do? We can discuss it, we can talk about it. We will, but K is gone, what will you do?
Tettemer: I don’t think it’s a matter of a new technique, Krishnamurti. We surely will go on as we’ve gone on before, trying also to enlarge so that we can keep in touch with all the other branches.
Krishnamurti: No, Ruth, please. You’re going to have an ashrama here. What are you going to do there? That’s my first question I am asking you.
Tettemer: The Centre?
Krishnamurti: Centre, call it Centre, whatever you like to call it. We’ll keep the word Centre for the moment.
Tettemer: Well, Krishnaji, if you don’t mind, we have not discussed that at all, really.
Krishnamurti: No, we have not. But I am gone; what will you do?
Tettemer: I haven’t the slightest idea without getting together with everybody and discussing it.
Krishnamurti: Discuss it. Discuss it. I am gone.
Zimbalist: But you keep stressing your being gone as though that were a future problem. It’s a problem right now.
Krishnamurti: I am telling you this! I am just telling you. I am not here now. I’m a silent watcher. Sorry. [Laughs] You don’t like “silent watcher;” all your reactions to Theosophy burst out.
Tettemer: I think it would be very good, but would you open a discussion on the Centre?
Krishnamurti: No, don’t do that now; wait. I just want you to face the problems.
Tettemer: In a way, Krishnaji, we are facing them every day. It’s only to know what you would specifically like that can be added.
Simmons: But doesn’t something grow in itself? I mean, you get a group. First, there’s Mark only here; then a group of teachers come; then parents begin to come, and students; and they begin to be part of the Centre by working and participating and doing some function or other.
Krishnamurti: Yes. Now, wait a minute. K goes away. Will that Centre die?
Simmons: You don’t know.
Krishnamurti: No, no, my darling, just a minute. Sorry. Mark Lee had K behind him, his name. That’s why the parents came. K dies, and he’s left there. Or you are all left with it. You are not facing the problem. I know what I would do if I were there; it is very clear for me. You see, you are waiting for me to tell you.
Zimbalist: What is being done today, will make it survive.
Krishnamurti: So, what I am trying to say is: Can we all help each other to flower, help the Foundations to flower, the schools, the ashramas? That’s all I’m saying. And the people who are responsible, like Ahalyaji, Mark Lee and Fritz, and a few of us, put our heads together and say, “Look, what shall we do with all these problems we have?” Not “problems,” they are not problems; they can be solved if we all put our heads together and see what is the right thing to do in all these places.
Blau: I certainly feel, as far as the Centre in Ojai goes, the first step, obviously, is to create a place where people can come. They are waiting to come.
Krishnamurti: I know. Same thing at Rajghat.
Blau: And out of that will grow the... That’s the seed of it.
Krishnamurti: So let’s go back and settle one or two things; otherwise we’ll go on.
I’ll use the word apex, forgive me, to convey a group of people representing various Foundations who will hold the whole thing together. We all may feel responsible for India, for Brockwood, for Ojai, for Canada, feel responsible deeply. But we are miles away, thousands of miles away, so there must be, at least I think there must be, some group of people who travel around or are together.
We will discuss the details of it. Such a group should exist to hold the thing together, which K is doing. That’s my whole point. If you agree in principle then we can discuss in detail. But we haven’t agreed in principle. That’s what the Indians, Pupulji and all the rest of them from India, that’s what they want, somebody to be the liaison, to use your word, if you don’t like apex, somebody who goes around.
Bohm: If there is trouble in one of these places, they may not go so far as to make a very serious criticism of the kind you made in India.
Krishnamurti: Yes. I would criticize. What the heck? [Laughs]
Cadogan: Can this be something that we ponder on until we meet a little later in the month?
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes, yes.
Cadogan: And then bring all our feelings together on this.
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes. That’s why I say we must have a month.
Cadogan: So we can talk together.
Krishnamurti: Together, go into it, brood over it, you know, till something comes out of it.
T. Lilliefelt: After all, it’s a question of intensity. You say, “I would know exactly what to do.” Now if someone has intensity, he won’t discuss schemes.
Krishnamurti: We don’t have it, sir.
T. Lilliefelt: We won’t discuss schemes; we will know what to do when this intensity is there.
Krishnamurti: We haven’t got it.
Zimbalist: I think I would take issue, if I may, with saying, “We’ll know what to do at the time.” We’re here to discuss what’s going to happen.
Zimbalist: Well, obviously the quality of that, the intensity, Theo, will have to function within that. But let’s not say, “Well, we’ll figure it out later, and intensity or some intelligence will tell us.” We are here to decide these things. Not today, perhaps.
T. Lilliefelt: A scheme?
Zimbalist: Well, yes, a scheme.
Krishnamurti: Sir, don’t go off on the point of ashrama now. I just want to decide first whether we all agree in principle that there should be a person like K, not with all the aura and all the beastly business round him, but just who holds the Foundations together.
E. Lilliefelt: A person like K?
Bohm: It would have to be several.
Simmons: A group.
Krishnamurti: A group of people who will hold the thing together, as K does. Apart from other things, his talks and teachings, K is now holding it together, because he goes round, to India three months, three months here, three months at Brockwood, and so on. He holds it together.
E. Lilliefelt: Well that’s K.
Krishnamurti: Yes, my dear lady, it is K. I said, apart from K, can you create such a group of people who will hold the thing together? Who will criticize if something is wrong, say, “Look, this is wrong, it must be changed, let’s work at it.” Otherwise, I have a feeling it will all go to pieces. Please, let’s talk about it, let’s see what we can do, whether it’s the right thing to do or the wrong thing to do.
K goes to India, criticizes, and they pay attention. Why? Because they think they respect him. They think he might have some other clarity, insight, so they respect him. Right? And so they say, “Well, all right, we’ll do this.” They ask me always, “What do you think?” I say, “What do you think?” You follow? I’ve been through all that with them.
So, can we create such a group of people within the next ten years, before I pop off, who will criticize, who will see? A group may be two from India, two from England, two from Canada, two from Ojai, who will say, “Look, we are impersonal. We don’t represent America or American interests, or Canada; we are a group of people who are totally disinterested, who are completely committed to the teaching. We have to see this thing, that you are right, doing the right thing.” Which K is doing. You follow what I mean? And they will pay respect and accept if they feel that you really mean this.
Now, can we, as a group, create that? I think that’s what Radha meant with the word more, other than forming an apex and going round saying things. In India, they have very bright, Brahminical minds, well oiled, and they’ll topple you over.
Blau: Sir, are you speaking then of a permanent body?
Krishnamurti: No, a group of people, doesn’t matter. It may be permanent, may be impermanent, change, but a group that will say, “This is right, and we mean it.”
Blau: But individuals change within that group?
Krishnamurti: Doesn’t matter. I mean, a group, individuals, a group of people who will be respected in Canada, here, in Brockwood, in India.
Zimbalist: This group would exist now? It would come into being now?
Krishnamurti: Yes, during my lifetime. My lifetime may be a week or ten months, ten years.
S. Siddoo: Are you saying that the flame must be awakened in us?
Krishnamurti: You have lived with K for so many years, and you have been his friend. He has talked to you, you walked with him. You have done everything with him together. They wouldn’t come here unless you are respected. Isn’t that so?
So during this month can we talk it over together and see that such a group is formed within my lifetime? So that when K dies there is at least a group who will say, “My God, there is something that can be respected.” Not the books only. A group who have no other interest. I have no other interests; I am not married, I am not sexual, it doesn’t interest me, money, popularity, nothing. To me the other thing is total, complete. So, when you have that kind of feeling they respect you. It’s only such a group that will hold the thing together. Otherwise, it’s gone. Right?
I ought to have a hammer and sickle. I work at that thing; it’s my job. But you have to help me in this. Agreed? Right. Finished?
5 March 1977
Krishnamurti: How did your discussion go yesterday?
Zimbalist: We had an active discussion.
Krishnamurti: No hair flying?
Zimbalist: Feathers flew.
Krishnamurti: So what is it that is disturbing you about the apex? I explained very carefully “apex” was used merely to convey a group of people who will hold the thing together, without any authority, without any spiritual, assertive, dogmatic, statements. I have discussed this matter very carefully with the president of the Foundation of India, Sunanda, Pupulji, and the others who are involved in all this in India, and I pointed out to them that, when I die, whoever holds the whole thing together, there is no apostolic succession. You know what that means? Oh, you don’t know. Jesus laying hands on his disciples, and the disciples laying their hands on the pope, the pope laying his hands on... down to the poor little chap down there. There’s none of that in the word apex. It was merely used to convey very, very briefly the intention of that group in India. I think it would be unfortunate if you have any suspicion that India wants to put something over on you, because suspicions are very difficult to get over. So please, if I may suggest, don’t suspect anything. Let’s face the fact, which is to know who or what will hold these four Foundations together. That’s the real problem. So, let’s work it out and get on with it.
T. Lilliefelt: Let me say the first thing. There has never been any suspicion of anything. We didn’t feel that at all. The only thing that I have been concerned with is the establishment of a hierarchical principle.
Krishnamurti: Agreed, sir. I mean, there is none of that.
T. Lilliefelt: You have to be very, very cautious because this somehow happened in the past.
Krishnamurti: Oh! Don’t tell me.
Suppose, sir, I said to you that K will appoint X, Y, Z to hold the whole thing together and see that the teachings are not corrupted. What would you say to that? What would you all say to that? What would your reaction be? That is the authority. If I said that, what is your reaction to that?
E. Lilliefelt: That would bother me very much.
E. Lilliefelt: Because, as you say, you are laying on hands.
Krishnamurti: No, I just say, “Look after this.” It is not laying on hands. I point to you, Bohm and Mrs Blau, and say, “Look after all this, hold it together,” and I die tomorrow. It is not laying hands on you. I am not going to do it, so don’t worry. But suppose I did that, what would you do?
E. Lilliefelt: What is the point of Foundations, Krishnaji?
Krishnamurti: I’m asking you what your reactions would be. If I say to those three in that corner, “I’m gone. Look after things, hold it together, see that the school is run properly, get money, have no corruption;” if we said that I leave it in the hands of those three, what will you do?
T. Lilliefelt: The psychological impact is tremendous.
Krishnamurti: Therefore what will you do, sir? You’re not answering my questions.
E. Lilliefelt: I know what I would do.
E. Lilliefelt: I would say I couldn’t do it, sorry. If I were nominated, I would not...
Krishnamurti: No, no, I don’t nominate you. Sorry, I die and leave a will appointing you three.
E. Lilliefelt: I’m not sure it would be legal.
Krishnamurti: Face it.
Cadogan: But Krishnaji, I think this also makes a problem, that if you do appoint anyone, or any group of people...
Krishnamurti: I am not going to.
Cadogan: No, if you did, then they will die. Now, if instead of that you set up a structure where the Foundations are responsible for either making a group, or doing...
Krishnamurti: Do it now.
Cadogan: ...Then it goes on.
Krishnamurti: Do it now; that’s all I am getting at. You say Foundations will do it.
Krishnamurti: I am not here now. I am dead. What will you do?
Cadogan: Well, yesterday I think we went further.
Krishnamurti: Where did you go?
Cadogan: Well, I think we all felt that we leave aside the piece of paper [from India]. It was a very good thing that we had it; we could start with that, but it caused difficulties and reservations. So we said we would leave that piece of paper with those recommendations aside, and we really started to look at it from then, and asked what we would do. We didn’t reach a conclusion, but I think everyone felt that we really had to find something on the lines of that. We never worked out any detailed structure. One of the difficulties, Krishnaji, seemed to be that we felt we had to examine the way it would function as well as the principle.
Krishnamurti: Yes, do it now.
Cadogan: Well, that brought up the fact that for the people who are concerned with the day-to-day work, like Mrs Simmons with the school, Mark and so on, it would be very difficult for them or any of us who are doing the day-to-day work to leave that and possibly travel for a year.
Krishnamurti: Yes, I understand that.
Cadogan: So it might turn out that those who could be free to do this might even be people who weren’t so aware of some of the...
Krishnamurti: ...Details, day-to-day work and all the implications.
Cadogan: Yes, and we felt that meeting together as we do, whatever we are, we’re a sort of organic group. We represent the various aspects of your work. That’s fine, but once we chose one or two people, there could be the possibility that those people would, in a sense, be a less organic group representing your work. So we then thought that we might have a revolving group of people from each Foundation who made it their business for a year or two years, or whatever we said, to put this first, this linking and bringing together. This would involve meeting in the other countries and some travel, but also those two or three people would keep in very close touch with each other and all that was going on. Then perhaps each year they could meet this group and bring all their feelings and findings. We didn’t adopt this, but we were discussing this. Wasn’t this the thing that we ended with? That was one of the snags, that we felt we had to know more about the practical operation even before the principle could be approved.
Krishnamurti: All right. She put it in her way; would you tell me, somebody, what you have understood, because you may put it differently, may slightly vary, and that’s how I would be clear.
E. Lilliefelt: Surely, the idea would be that there would be a group, a small group of people who are travelling, but they would be responsible to all the trustees.
Krishnamurti: To all the Foundations.
E. Lilliefelt: All the Foundations, and they would come back and report to the Foundations.
Krishnamurti: And that group would rotate every two years or every year, something like that.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes.
Krishnamurti: What do you say, Dr Bohm?
Bohm: Well, we hadn’t finished discussing this question. I think that we hadn’t reached unanimity in this discussion when we finished.
Krishnamurti: You understand our difficulties.
Bohm: Yes, I’ve been thinking over the difficulties.
Krishnamurti: How would you, Fritz, or Kishbaugh end this thing? How would you tackle this problem? What would you say? How would you settle this question? That is, K dies, all the Foundations must be held together, all the schools must be one unitary movement, the teachings must be kept as they are, not corrupted, and so on. How would you see to it?
Bohm: Well, I think we would have to all agree on some procedure to understand each other; but I think that the general idea which you propose is on the right lines. I don’t know about the detail, but we must have some liaison.
Krishnamurti: Who would be the liaison? Remember there are temperaments. It’s very difficult, this question.
Bohm: Extremely difficult.
Krishnamurti: Their conditioning, their prejudices, their desire for power.
Bohm: And also the difficulty which I remarked on yesterday, of going to a strange place and understanding what is going on.
Krishnamurti: How would you tackle this?
T. Lilliefelt: It is extremely difficult.
Krishnamurti: Do it, sir. That’s our challenge.
E. Lilliefelt: Krishnaji, you’re still starting on the premise that we will not be unified unless we have a special group.
Krishnamurti: I did not say that.
E. Lilliefelt: But if we say we should have one, we are starting with the idea that we are not united without it.
Krishnamurti: That’s correct. But if those two Indian ladies hadn’t come – India is pretty far away, how will you keep the whole thing together, so that they don’t break away? There’s a tendency to break away.
E. Lilliefelt: Is there?
Krishnamurti: Oh, yes, definitely.
E. Lilliefelt: I certainly don’t think there is a tendency to break away. From what?
Krishnamurti: I’ll tell you. First of all, the Indians don’t know you.
E. Lilliefelt: But some of them do.
Krishnamurti: For the first time now, they have met you for a month.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, but we’re all expendable, we won’t be here.
Krishnamurti: How will you do this?
Kishbaugh: We explored that a little bit yesterday when we talked about exchanging the Heads of schools for a while. Perhaps Dorothy might go to India for a while, for three months at a time. We could exchange teachers of various schools as well.
Krishnamurti: You see, Kishbaugh, I am doing this now, because you all trust me. You all see that I won’t become personal and all the rest of it. You see I want to hold it together. I am doing this at present. If I didn’t do it, would it break away? You say not.
E. Lilliefelt: We’re dependent on each other.
Krishnamurti: I’m asking you.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, we’re dependent on each other, all of us are.
Krishnamurti: I’m not sure.
Bohm: Maybe if you could explain in more detail what you actually do in this line.
Krishnamurti: What I’m actually doing?
Krishnamurti: I went to India. For the first time, I said that all the Foundation members who are really involved in it, seriously working together, should be with me for three months.
[To the Indians] Please, you are there, confirm it. If I am saying something inaccurate, please correct it. And so the President, Sunanda, a few of them, travelled with me for three months in Madras, Rishi Valley and so on, and we discussed all the time about the schools, about the publications, about the Foundation’s work, and Vasanta Vihar [The Foundation offices in Madras/Chennai.] They listened to all the talks. They were there at all the discussions. So they began to understand what I was doing. You have understood it here because I have done a great deal of it here and in Brockwood.
Now, K, it appears, is holding the whole thing together. Would you and Ojai hold India together, keep it closer? I’m not saying you wouldn’t. I’m not starting on the assumption that it will break up. Would you hold it, as K has done, go to India every year?
E. Lilliefelt: You do so much more. You give your talks, which is the primary thing...
Krishnamurti: I give talks, I give discussions; there’s a lot of “singing.”
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, but you’re still talking. That won’t happen, obviously.
Krishnamurti: That won’t happen.
E. Lilliefelt: There won’t be talks, there won’t be the public coming together.
Krishnamurti: Unless there’s some medium through which I talk. There won’t be. [Laughs] All right; carry on.
T. Lilliefelt: There’s something involved in it which means respect.
Krishnamurti: I said that when we last met. Will India respect you, not knowing you as well as they know me and I know you? They respect me, and therefore if I say, “Look, they are all my friends,” they will say yes.
Blau: Doesn’t the respect for each other, for the Foundations, come through our interest in this teaching, in our dedication to the teaching?
Krishnamurti: Mrs Cadogan, suppose you went every year to India. Suppose. Talk to them, remain with them, you know, they begin to trust you.
Cadogan: Yes, we trust each other.
Krishnamurti: You trust them and they trust you.
Krishnamurti: Because you know them, their way of thinking.
Krishnamurti: And they say, “Yes, by Jove, these people are really dedicated to the work and they mean it; there is a certain sense of communication.” Now, how can this be done?
Cadogan: I think even now, when you first said come here for a month, I thought a month was a long time; but one realizes this isn’t going to be long enough. I thought yesterday that we didn’t bring it to the point of a conclusion; but I thought that the feeling that there might be this revolving group that would then come back to all the Foundations and bring them all together every year, was more or less something we were all moving towards.
Krishnamurti: Will you do it now, before I die?
Cadogan: We felt it should be done straight away. We should do it now.
Krishnamurti: I say that group goes with me to India.
Cadogan: As soon as that, if it were practically possible.
Krishnamurti: I am asking you.
Cadogan: This we would have to work out.
T. Lilliefelt: I see that it could be very important that there should be associated with it some kind of a democratic principle.
Krishnamurti: You appoint them each year, or two years, or four years. I don’t care.
[Much discussion among trustees about who travels.]
Krishnamurti: So, please go ahead. Let’s get on with it. There are so many things to discuss. You see, I’m going to India this winter. I’d like one or two to come to India, travel there with me, attend the talks, be with all the other people, eat together, so you get to know them very well, and they know you well. So you agree to trust each other. Therefore, let’s get going. If that is the general consensus.
Cadogan: But I think this is something we have to talk about. Don’t you think, Krishnaji, that, having got this far, we should all meet again and go into this, which is the sort of nitty-gritty, you know, working out the immense practical problems. Don’t you think we should do that and then come back to you?
Bohm: Are you expecting to continue to go to India for a number of years?
Krishnamurti: I would like to go for a few years more, till I completely collapse. Not till the last moment.
What do you suggest, Radhaji and Ahalyaji?
Burnier: Very good. Let some of them come to India with you, sir.
Krishnamurti: No. You understand; not “let them,” but do you think this is the right thing to do?
Krishnamurti: You know, as long as Dr Besant was there, she held the whole thing together, kept the thing alive more or less. That’s what we want to do; and is this the right way to do it? Ahalyaji, what do you say?
Krishnamurti: Don’t afterwards say... I want it from you both clearly, so that you represent the Indian Foundation. You can write to them that this is what we all think is the right thing to do and that you have agreed, without any reservation.
Chari: Absolutely. In fact, we had wanted to start now and go on. We do see it is important for a group...
Krishnamurti: So you agree to this?
Krishnamurti: Both of you?
Krishnamurti: All right. So you choose whom you want.
Cadogan: Then we’d have the opportunity to learn from our mistakes while we are all together, even if we have to change things as we go along.
Krishnamurti: Sunanda coming here has helped a tremendous lot. You talk to her, she replies to your letters quickly. Right? So there is a contact, there is a feeling of affection, a feeling of knowing each other, that you are responsible, and so on. [Pause]
[Much discussion among trustees about when they will go.]
Krishnamurti: I would suggest that two from England, two from here go with me this winter to India; this winter, 1977, be there as long as possible, travel with me. You’ll have to see Rishi Valley, Rajghat, get the feel of it. You can’t get it in a few days or a month. You’ll have to soak into it a little bit. You’ll have diarrheal, you’ll be ill. [Laughter] The climate you have to adjust to. Sorry.
T. Lilliefelt: I’m just thinking over the burden of the recipient country, too, you know? It’s a burden.
Burnier: No, sir, we will be happy to have you. It’s not a difficulty.
Krishnamurti: They have told me, Pupul has told me, Sunanda. You will be their guests. They will put you up, see that you have the right kind of food, that you don’t fall ill.
So, there it is. So you choose whom you want. I’ll leave that part to you all. I am not included. Sir, how does this strike you?
Bohm: Well, it seems a good plan.
Krishnamurti: No, not the plan, the idea of a group rotating, travelling with me so that they all get to know each other and trust each other. That’s the main thing that I feel. At present, the distances and not knowing each other create the barrier. Sunanda and Pamaji were here, and now that you know Ahalyaji and Radhaji, you begin to say, “Well, I can trust them,” or, “By Jove, I’ll have to be careful a little bit here.” There is that feeling. [Pause] What was the next thing?
Cadogan: The adult centre.
Krishnamurti: Yes, shall we discuss the adult centre?
Lee: Sir, are we talking about the adult centre in Ojai, or all the adult centres?
Krishnamurti: All the adult centres; because it is all one. You experiment in one way and help India or Brockwood. You are independent but together.
Now wait a minute. What is the function of the adult centre? Why should it exist at all? Can we start from that question: why should it exist? I think it should exist because it will help the schools. Will it help the schools? Some people who come to the adult centre may be interested in teaching in the school. Why else should it exist?
T. Lilliefelt: Because there’s a tremendous interest from all the people for that, great interest. Some people are more interested in that than in the schools.
Krishnamurti: I know that.
Simmons: They’ve helped to create these places, haven’t they, to make these places possible.
Krishnamurti: No, apart from that, in principle should we have it? We’re starting as though we are questioning everything. Then, if we have questioned everything, what we decide will be right. So we are questioning whether it should exist at all, doubting whether it should exist. When you begin with doubt, you end in certainty, but if you start with certainty, you end up in doubt. So, after that little sermon, we can proceed.
So, I would have it. You gather an older generation for three or four weeks at Ojai, for instance. You discuss with them, talk to them, not as superior and inferior, but as equals, to discuss, inquire, penetrate, understand. They go out at the end of three weeks and another group comes, so there’s a constant flow in and out. And that will help to create a sense of a living thing. If K is here, that would happen. Right? There would be a place to meet. I would meet them every other day for three weeks. I would take a week’s rest and begin again. So there will be a constant in and out. Also it will help to make the thing not a verbal, superficial thing, but a really living thing. Right, sir? You’re shaking your head.
T. Lilliefelt: No, I am saying that maybe the parents would also be...
Krishnamurti: Parents, everybody. So I think it should exist. It will help the school and it will help the people who are interested in the teachings. They will come together. And that is why we should have it.
Lee: So do you see this as a twelve month, ongoing thing, or in these segments of time that you were talking about, three weeks?
Krishnamurti: I’m only saying three weeks. We tried it in Eerde, Holland. When we had Eerde, the castle, there used to be three weeks when people came, and I was there to discuss with them. They went away and another group came.
Lee: So it’s not just an open house twelve months of the year where people could come and stay?
Krishnamurti: As long as I was here, that would happen. If there is somebody permanently here, it would be all the year round. Except you must have a holiday. It would be a fountain that is flowing all the year round. At least, that’s how I feel. Please, I’m only stating. Correct it; let’s discuss it. Others help to create this, here?
You see, Dr Bohm comes two or three months to California and he can give some time, his energy, his capacities to this, to help Fritz or you, and he goes away at the end of three months. Will you be able to carry on? How will you carry on? What’s your responsibility? How will you do it?
I don’t like “the adult centre,” but we’ll call it adult centre for the moment. If you all think it’s important to have such a centre, what will Fritz do? We will go step by step.
There’s also Brockwood and India, and also Canada. If I were in Fritz’s place, I know what I would do here. I’m not speaking as K, but a man who is in charge of an Ojai centre. “In charge” in quotes, in the sense not the boss of it or the authority of it, but one of the people helping here. If I were not K, and you have appointed me to “take charge,” of the centre, having heard K and being deeply interested in K’s teachings, and living it – not just verbally saying I agree with it, but actually living it – my function would be to gather people round me. They would come there, and I would say, “Look, I’ve heard K talk, and I have understood what he has said. I am not interested in putting forth my ideas about it, my opinions, my evaluation, because I happen to be a physicist or any of that. But I’m really interested in what he has said, and so I want to tell you what he has said, actually, what I feel in my own words about the thing that he has conveyed to me.” Right, sir?
So I put aside my personality, my opinions, my judgments, my capacity as a physicist or a dentist, or whatever I am. That’s irrelevant to me. I’m there to convey the thing which I have understood, which I am living, which is to me the most profound thing in my life. I would discuss with them, not as an authority, not assertively. I would say, “Let’s talk about this, let’s together investigate. You’re going to be here three weeks; we’ll meet every other day or every day and work at it. So that when you leave you have caught something of that; not of what I am saying, but of what he has said.”
That’s how I would operate if I were here. So there is no person involved in it. Totally, absolutely impersonal. That has tremendous vitality. I don’t know if you feel that way. You understand?
I come from Seattle. [Laughs] I am the Seattle man today. I meet a few of you. I say, “Look, tell me. I want to know everything, not merely his teachings. I want to have that perfume, that atmosphere, that sense of whatever it is, immensity, all that. I want to understand all that.” If you say, “Sorry, read the books,” he’ll say, “Well, I’ve read the books in Seattle. I come here not to read the books but to work together, to find out what it’s all about.” Can you supply it? That’s the question. Can whoever is going to be here supply that? It’s the same thing in the ashramas in India, which they are going to have in Rajghat and Rishi Valley. We’ll see that it takes place. You’ve already started the ball rolling in Rajghat, in Benares. When the new Principal goes there, he’s going to do it. I’ve already talked to him. We’ll see that he pushes that. So, if we all agree to this, will you do it?
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, there will be many, I think, who will come not only to find out but to peddle their own notions.
Krishnamurti: Of course, that’s understood. We will soon put them out. Those into Transcendental Meditation, or Krishna Consciousness, or some other bilge, will show themselves very quickly. And I will say, “Out!”
Zimbalist: Well, suppose someone comes with a background in some other idea and really wants to discuss seriously.
Krishnamurti: Have they left it?
Zimbalist: Well, do we demand that they do so?
Krishnamurti: I would.
Cadogan: Well, suppose they are inquiring?
Krishnamurti: Inquiring is a different thing. But if they say, “I’m going to stick to my guru, he’s better than your guru, let’s fight it out;” [Laughs] if they stick to their guru and say, “Well, I’ve come here with that fixed notion,” what can you do with them?
Zimbalist: What if people don’t say?
Krishnamurti: If you’re sensitive or quick enough, you will spot it in five minutes. What will you do with such a man? Will you keep him out?
Blau: There would always be the possibility of change for an individual.
Krishnamurti: Yes, but he is not going to change. He says, “I’ve found that satisfying to me.” You see, they are dependent on satisfaction. Like that man I met the other day. He said, “I’m practicing knowledge.” A young man said, “I am practicing knowledge. I know what it means. I have understood it. It is my truth, it is my life. It is the most marvellous thing.” And it is fixed. And he comes to you and his intention is to convert you to that.
Zimbalist: Suppose someone comes and says, “I belong to the such-and-such monastery up in San Francisco, and I’d like to come down and talk with you and discuss these matters”?
Krishnamurti: I’ll say, “Come, discuss with me.” But if we say no system, no method, no practice, they are stuck.
Bohm: You have to answer a man when he says that you are stuck too. He’s going to argue that you too are stuck, you see.
Krishnamurti: Oh yes, I’ve had that too.
Lee: Sir, there are many people who are in the business of comparative religion, and they enjoy coming around to all the various centres to play with these ideas. Are we open to people like that?
Krishnamurti: I know. That’s what I’m asking you. What will you do with them?
Blau: Well, couldn’t one be open to them, but not permanently?
Krishnamurti: You’re stuck with them for three weeks.
Blau: Three weeks is a short period of time.
Krishnamurti: Ah, no.
Lee: They could affect the quality of the atmosphere.
T. Lilliefelt: How about the others who are serious?
Krishnamurti: That’s just it; what happens to the others? I can deal with the Krishna Consciousness people very well.
Cadogan: Before someone embarks on a three-week session, isn’t it necessary that they come first and meet for a day with someone like Fritz, who talks with them?
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes, do. You can meet them a few days beforehand and choose. But are we going to convince somebody? Is that what we are?
E. Lilliefelt: No, but certainly the people who come, I would think, would want to come to really find out what the Krishnamurti teaching is all about.
Krishnamurti: They come under the cloak of that, but their deep interest is to convert you.
Zimbalist: And this is the part of the world where people abound in affiliations to endless odd persuasions.
Wilhelm: I think you would find out very quickly.
Krishnamurti: That’s just it, sir. So what is our function? Let’s be clear on that. What is our function, sir? You tell me, you discuss. Fritz and you and you, you’re going to be here. What’s our function, Mrs Lilliefelt?
E. Lilliefelt: As the adult centre?
E. Lilliefelt: I would feel that our function is to have a place where people can come who are seriously interested, who have studied Krishnamurti, read a book or heard about him, and are seriously interested to find out more intimately what it’s all about, and what it means to the people who have been here, or are here, who might help me clarify it for myself.
Krishnamurti: Help each other.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes.
Krishnamurti: Will you do that? I come from Seattle; I’ve read a great deal, I’ve studied a great deal, Zen, Tibetan meditation, the various meditations of India, and so on. I come here. Will you argue, discuss? I come there with all this knowledge, and I say, “I want to discuss with you what K says about meditation. He says something totally different from all the things which I’ve collected. Tell me what it is about.” I want to discuss with you, I want to inquire.
T. Lilliefelt: When you face a person with affection, which obviously you do, you immediately establish a personal contact.
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir, apart from that. I want a good brain to meet my brain.
T. Lilliefelt: Well, we do the best we can.
Krishnamurti: Ah, no, no. I want a good brain. [To the Indians] Remember in Benares when we met those people who were supposed to be great scholars and pundits and high up Tibetan monks? That’s what I’m asking. Will you meet such people; and bowl them over, not just say, “I agree with you,” but knock them over? Sorry to put it that way. Otherwise, you’re going to make it...
T. Lilliefelt: Without appearing arrogant about it, I think we can do it.
Krishnamurti: All right. We’ll see. There it is, you’re going to have the centre. It’s up to you.
Blau: Sir, would you mean to refute their arguments?
Krishnamurti: Not only refute their arguments but also go beyond them. Show them how shallow, repetitive, it is.
Blau: So one wouldn’t necessarily have to speak with an intimate knowledge of Transcendental Meditation or whatever?
Krishnamurti: No, I know nothing about all that. Shall we do it, sir, now, while I’m here?
T. Lilliefelt: I would like to, but it may have practical problems. Could we put up thirty people, or how many people would we think about?
[Much discussion among trustees about Krishnamurti’s trip to New York and having a group of people stay after the talks in Ojai.]
Krishnamurti: Can we do it now, while I am here? Can all of us meet such people?
Kishbaugh: Don’t people come up after the talks and want more? And we’re surely going to do that. Is that not a good time to do so?
Krishnamurti: I want to do it while I am here, while we are all here.
Simmons: Couldn’t you send out to people you already know are interested, and they could accommodate themselves in Ojai while you are all here, and have meetings?
Krishnamurti: I think it will help him, later.
Lee: I think we could get together. We could get a small group together.
Krishnamurti: Right. Go ahead, sir, do it. Let the ball roll.
Krishnamurti: Now let’s get back. That’s fixed. So, what is the function of the adult centre? I think you have to have, if I may suggest, more than ten to fifteen people. We’ve tried it. After two or three days you get to know each other’s minds very quickly and it becomes monotonous; but if you have between twenty-five and thirty, then it is a constant... What do you suggest?
Bohm: How many are you thinking of?
Krishnamurti: I think that’s about the right number, thirty.
Simmons: It’s too many.
[Many voices discussing.]
Krishnamurti: I am only thinking of the adult centre. When there are thirty people it makes it much more alive. We’ve experimented with this in Eerde. We started out with ten people. It became terrible. We got to know each other very well in a few days. We then moved to twenty; that’s much too small. Between twenty-five and thirty, I think, is about right.
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, would you consider having certain of these three week periods for teachers only, on education, and stick to education?
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes.
J. Siddoo: Krishnaji, why do you differentiate the function of the adult centre and the discussion of the adult centre from education...?
Krishnamurti: I’ll tell you why. The teachers want to discuss how to teach, what to teach, how to transmit the teachings to the student.
J. Siddoo: That’s right. That’s very important.
Krishnamurti: But we’re talking about the centre. As you say, give them three weeks for the school, for the teachers, and the rest of the time for the others.
Chari: Krishnaji, would the adult centre also offer a place for someone who wanted to come for a week for meditation? Such questions have been asked.
Krishnamurti: What do you mean by meditation?
Chari: They want a quiet place; they want a place in a K centre; they would like books; they would like to meditate.
Krishnamurti: Have it, have the adult centre, we need it. Right, sir?
P: Of course.
Krishnamurti: So we all agree to that. And we all agree it is a place where people come to discuss, not just chatter, but to discuss, investigate, explore, go into things very deeply. And the people who are dealing with this are not offering opinions, judgments, et cetera; they are not putting out their conditioning. Right? They are really there, not as representatives of the teachings, but as representatives of that which they have really understood and are living. I think that’s clear. Right, sir? So, from that, what do we do? They must have a place to live, not in hotels and motels outside.
Wilhelm: I think that living together is essential.
Krishnamurti: It’s essential, yes. Eat together and so on. Not fall in love with each other’s wives or husbands. [Laughter]
E. Lilliefelt: How are we going to stop that?
Krishnamurti: God knows. So, all right, we need a place for thirty people to stay. They can eat with the school. I think that’s a very good idea, to eat with the children, with the school. They need a place where they can make their own tea as at Brockwood. And they stay for three weeks. Nobody stays there permanently. They don’t take roots there. I think that’s very important, don’t you?
[Much general discussion.]
Lee: I think on the question of the name, the Krishnamurti Foundation itself is enough for most people, if they know that there is a centre attached. In this country, there are many adult centres, and they are for different purposes.
T. Lilliefelt: Adult education.
Krishnamurti: Let’s get away from that word.
Cadogan: Why has ashram become such a dirty word for us?
Krishnamurti: Because it’s a concentration camp [Laughter] run by gurus. It is no longer what it should be.
Cadogan: So we can’t use it.
Krishnamurti: Because the guru is there, the disciples are there. They obey what he has to say. They follow him, and if he says, “This morning we are going to dig in the garden and for the next two weeks we’ll fast...” There is all that kind of stuff. It is a spiritual concentration camp. I’ve told them that.
Zimbalist: Could we settle on a name or no name, or something?
Burnier: Couldn’t it just be called the centre? Because there’ll be the school and there’ll be several other things, and then there’s the centre.
Cadogan: Well, Brockwood is, isn’t it? Brockwood is Brockwood Park Educational Centre.
Krishnamurti: That’s enough? I think so.
7 March 1977
Krishnamurti: Could you kindly tell me what you discussed yesterday?
Cadogan: We went into the question of the people who would come from the English and the American Foundations to India with you. Certain names were suggested, and there seemed to be generally great satisfaction when they all accepted that they would be able to go. We wanted to tell you about that. Then we talked a lot about how we would get closer together through exchanging various things connected with the work, like archives, tapes. There was a great deal of talk about how we should preserve the archives, look after them and make copies for each other, so that if any got lost we’d always have copies.
We talked about the adult centres and what was going on, how things are beginning to build up in India. There was a lot of discussion, too, about how it began to happen at Brockwood Park and how much we should use publicity and how much we should let the thing grow rather organically. It was very interesting to compare notes on this. We also questioned how we should proceed to make contacts with universities to make some of those people really actively interested in our work. It was very interesting to hear what they were doing in Canada about that, where there seems to be a very good link-up already.
Do you want to know some of the things we said about money, Krishnaji? Because we went into travel quite a bit.
Krishnamurti: Before we go into all that, I would like to, if I may, go back to something which we were discussing the other day. Who is going to hold the entire thing together? I’d like to go back to it and go into it a bit more. I was thinking about what we suggested, that two or three people would go from country to country, in rotation. I don’t think that’s sufficient. It’s all right while we are all alive, but what’s going to happen when we all are gone?
So what is going to happen? I’m sorry, I must go back to it. Because any strong person can take charge of the whole thing, become a member of the Foundation, and drive every other person to his particular point of view. Then we are back again into the old pattern. All this has been done before. I don’t know if I’m making myself clear.
After the walk yesterday, Dr Bohm and Maria [Mary Zimbalist] and myself very briefly talked about someone who has been going around, who has written several books, talking about healing, and now, I was told, is becoming a guru in India. A really very strong person, with vitality and drive, might say, “I will come and join you.” And when I die, gradually such a person could take complete charge of everything. How are you going to prevent all this?
Cadogan: I don’t see how that could happen, Krishnaji. I don’t see how that could happen now.
Krishnamurti: It couldn’t?
Cadogan: I don’t see how it could happen.
Krishnamurti: Why not? I don’t quite see.
Zimbalist: Because we wouldn’t accept it.
Krishnamurti: You wouldn’t accept someone, but if they come in very friendly. Not just this one; but somebody else.
E. Lilliefelt: We’re dead, mind you.
Cadogan: Yes, we’re dead but our constitution isn’t.
Krishnamurti: We are dead, all of us are dead.
Cadogan: But our terms of reference and our constitutions are very specifically tied to your teachings.
Krishnamurti: My lady, I know; but they will say, “I’m going to interpret these teachings. I’ve met him, I know him, blah, blah, blah,” and push it in a different direction altogether, the schools too. This has been done.
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, isn’t any organization only as strong as its membership?
Krishnamurti: I know all this. What are we going to do? Do you understand my question?
Cadogan: You see, whatever we do now, the same problem arises in any group of people. Every time a generation begins to die off, they have to face this problem.
Krishnamurti: Yes, so how will you prevent it?
Bohm: In one sense what you have said lays us open to this danger, because you say we don’t understand this fully. Now somebody comes along who will say words that are similar to yours, in a skilful way, and who is quite strong and energetic. He can say or imply that he does understand it.
Simmons: Well, you can think up all sorts of hypothetical possibilities.
Bohm: I don’t think it’s hypothetical.
Krishnamurti: I don’t think this is hypothetical at all.
Bohm: I think this place will be very attractive.
Krishnamurti: This has happened in so many cases. We haven’t found a right solution for this. We’ve talked round it.
E. Lilliefelt: Many people are telephoning and writing, and I’m sure you have letters saying they’ve had the same experience you have, that they know exactly what you’re talking about, and that, therefore, you have something in common with them.
Krishnamurti: Oh, rather, rather. I have dozens of letters saying, “My kundalini is awakened like yours.”
Zimbalist: And your Notebook has set off all sorts of people.
Krishnamurti: All sorts, crazy. So you can’t push this aside and say, “Well, we have settled it.”
S. Siddoo: Krishnaji, could we incorporate something into each of our constitutions that a single person is not to be allowed to take over the Foundations?
Krishnamurti: How can you? Yes, then someone collects half a dozen people, and...
Wilhelm: I don’t think legally you can do anything. It’s not a question of the constitution.
Bohm: Another point is that somebody might come along who is genuine. Then you couldn’t exclude that person.
Krishnamurti: Yes, exactly.
Cadogan: You have often pointed out the dangers of interpreters and successors in that sense.
Krishnamurti: If may I ask, are you satisfied with what we have discussed so far about this question?
Cadogan: I felt we had come to the point where we had certainly made a beginning, and that we were giving ourselves a year to work on it.
Krishnamurti: No, are you satisfied with that beginning? A few people going around, meeting each other, getting to know each other, and so on. Is that the solution?
Cadogan: I don’t think it is the solution, because we all felt that we would do this now for probably a year and see what came from that, and that would give us time when we all met again to look at this further.
E. Lilliefelt: Weren’t there two different things? Maybe not different, but we were talking more of a liaison, a link between the Foundations, and then this interchange of visits would strengthen that link. But you’re bringing in a different thing now, and I wonder whether we have to review again the purposes of the Foundations.
Krishnamurti: Not review. We must do something about it, not just review. We have reviewed and reviewed.
E. Lilliefelt: What is our purpose in the future, after you are gone?
Krishnamurti: That is just what I want to go into much more deeply, if you don’t mind.
Chari: Could we identify younger people who are very much with us, and groom them or work intensely with them?
Krishnamurti: Who is going to do it? Suppose you invite half a dozen young people here who are interested, and you want to help them to join the Foundation, and so on. Will you do it? Will the American Foundation see to that?
Blau: We’d have to.
Krishnamurti: It is a question that you would have to, but will you? You know, human nature is so strange. You cook them, you help them, you do everything, and they go off, do something else.
E. Lilliefelt: Krishnaji, what are we trying to do? What is the purpose now of the Foundations?
Krishnamurti: What is the purpose of the Foundations?
Lee: To establish schools, to disseminate the teachings, to arrange for your travel.
Krishnamurti: And the ashrama, centre.
Lee: And archives, et cetera, and the adult centre.
Bohm: It seems to me that a new purpose is required now, considering what will happen when Krishnaji is no longer here. The Foundation must assume a new purpose beyond what it has been doing.
Lee: What is left if you don’t reorganize the constitution and if you don’t rely on grooming new generations of people, successively, generation after generation? What else is there to do?
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, but the danger is in what you say about grooming new generations of people. It seems to me we ran onto thin ice when we started a school, when we started an adult education centre. It is simple, straightforward, to publish books, but the first delicate step we’ve taken is to do this with children. How are you going to do it with adults? And there’s this added thing when Krishnamurti is no longer here.
Wilhelm: I think the question is that we don’t have full understanding of the teaching, but have a limited understanding of the teaching. With that limited understanding of the teaching, what can we do? Can we determine, can we find out if somebody comes along, whether he’s a fake or he’s not a fake? How can we find this out? Or when we are talking to people, how can we communicate that we have some kind of understanding, that we do not want to communicate any kind of knowledge about the teaching, but maybe about the way of investigating into the teaching and into life? You see, this is a very deep problem because we have to act without authority. A person coming along, adopting authority attracts usually many more people than a person who says, “I have no authority,” and acts that way.
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir.
Wilhelm: So I think in this area is our problem.
Krishnamurti: Or are we asking an impossible question, because in the future, say ten years, things will radically change in the world, and we are asking something that cannot be answered.
T. Lilliefelt: I don’t think there’s an administrative solution to it. Super bodies and so on won’t solve it.
Krishnamurti: Not administrative. First of all, let’s look at it anew, if I may suggest. What is our problem? My question is, what is going to happen when K dies? Who will hold the whole thing together, India, Brockwood, Canada, Ojai, the schools in these places, the publications, see that the thing is maintained, sustained? Not just books, but a living thing, a flowering all the time.
Simmons: Do you think any one person is capable of doing that, Krishnaji?
Krishnamurti: Or a group. I’m just putting that. That’s my question. I’m not asking you to answer it.
Simmons: The way the schools run suggests that each person is attempting to do that. I mean, if it isn’t alive, then...
Krishnamurti: You think that. I may object to that, say I don’t think it is possible. I don’t say it, I’m just supposing. Please, don’t answer anything. I’m putting my question to you. I’m concerned that the whole thing should flower, keep on flowering, not gradually become sterile, as all organizations and all teachings have become sterile.
Simmons: You have to attempt it from another point of view. They’ve always come from hierarchical organizations.
Krishnamurti: No, I’m not asking you to answer my question! Sorry. Find out what I’m trying to say. That is, K is concerned that the whole thing flowers after he dies: the schools, the centres; that everything is moving, living, flowering. It has never been done. Right? And we may be asking an impossible thing. Because it is impossible, I think that it’s possible. There is a possibility of it.
Zimbalist: Sir, do you remember the question that came up in Rome, which you wanted to bring up at these meetings, which bears on this?
Krishnamurti: It doesn’t matter.
Zimbalist: That was that someone can have a perception, be it religious, whatever it is. That is conveyed to others. They see it but they don’t live it, so it becomes intellectual theory. From that it becomes dogma; that becomes structure; from that comes tyranny; and then eventually there’s revolution. And it goes through history, through psychology, through sociology, through religion, through everything when the living thing becomes intellectual and turns into dogma.
Krishnamurti: Then it’s not flowering. It’s just sterile. Then it dies.
E. Lilliefelt: Can we talk about this flowering?
Krishnamurti: A school, for example, can follow a pattern, be a marvellous school in following that pattern, and that’s finished.
Bohm: You mean by flowering that there’s always something fresh coming up.
Bohm: Not due to a pattern.
Zimbalist: And the freshness would come out of the living quality.
Krishnamurti: First, do you understand my question? K says all organizations, all the previous so-called... the Buddha included, became gradually sterile. You know, you have seen it. We are saying that must be prevented. Right? And it may not be possible. And because it may not be possible, I want to find an answer for it.
Bohm: You can’t really quite mean that it’s impossible. You can’t quite mean that it’s entirely impossible.
Krishnamurti: That’s it, exactly.
E. Lilliefelt: There must be a possibility, because what is the purpose of all this if it isn’t possible to continue it?
Krishnamurti: You see, when we dissolved the Order of the Star in the East, Dr Besant said, “It is a great thing that you have done, but when you die they’ll form religions round you. You’ll be another great teacher and that’s the end of it.” She was getting old, and she took time to say it.
T. Lilliefelt: Isn’t the only thing that a group of people become so charged with it that they can pass on the perfume? But that’s theory.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, Dr Besant didn’t mean that if you hadn’t dissolved the Order the same thing wouldn’t have happened.
Krishnamurti: In India, especially over some shoddy little guru, they make a temple and worship him. Good Lord!
Cadogan: But until recently with your work, there is very much the feeling that you were speaking essentially to the individual. There was no question of any organization. Do you remember? It wasn’t very long ago. With no organization, with no building, just a tent that we put up and took down, one felt then that what you had to say was so true that, whatever happened in the future, this teaching would remain pure because it would speak to the individual through the coming centuries. There would always be the sheep and the goats, there are always some who would try to corrupt it, but there is also a gravitation towards the truth in hundreds of thousands of people. It was as if the teaching would protect itself.
Krishnamurti: Look at the Theosophical Society – forgive me – if they had no property in Madras and other places, what, what would happen? Is property going to hold us as it generally does? Do you understand what I’m asking?
E. Lilliefelt: The teaching isn’t going to die even if we don’t have the property, even if we don’t have the Foundations.
Krishnamurti: I’m not talking of that. I’m talking of something else. Is it at all possible that the thing doesn’t wither away into books and worship and the good old stuff? [Long pause]
Do you remember that joke? A cardinal goes to heaven and wants to enter the gate. Peter is there. He says, “May I ask you your name?” He said, “I’m Cardinal So-and-so.” Peter looks through whatever he looks through and says, “I don’t find you.” “But I’m Cardinal So-and-so.” Peter says, “Oh, I beg your pardon, I was looking at the real estate.” [Laughter]
E. Lilliefelt: Suppose we had no Foundations at all? What would happen to the teachings?
Krishnamurti: Publishers would go on while it pays them. If there are schools, they will go on.
E. Lilliefelt: But they can become polluted and become ordinary schools.
Krishnamurti: Of course, that’s what I am saying, they will go on. Because good schools are necessary, they will go on. That’s all.
Zimbalist: Then into that vacuum can step another, and make an Order of Krishnamurti.
Krishnamurti: Someone much stronger, much more energetic, with more brains, may take charge of the whole circus. What should we do? It’s your responsibility. What are you going to do? Knowing all the dangers, pitfalls, what probably will take place, as it is the responsibility of every Foundation to prevent this, what are you going to do?
Zimbalist: Isn’t it only by having more vitality that you can prevent other people from.
Krishnamurti: Who is going to give it more?
Zimbalist: Ultimately, nobody can, Krishnaji, except the individual.
Krishnamurti: So you’re saying we are posing a problem which cannot be answered.
Zimbalist: It can’t be answered by a decision of a group. It can’t be answered by words.
Krishnamurti: No, you haven’t understood my question. As a member of the Foundation of America, if you feel a deep responsibility, how will you prevent this taking place in California at Ojai? There you are. There are so many of you members here of the American Foundation. Feeling the tremendous responsibility of it, not verbally, but deeply, fundamentally, passionately, what will you do? What will you do, sir?
T. Lilliefelt: Well, one thing is trustees. When we die the new trustees come in; we have to be extremely careful.
Krishnamurti: What will you do, I’m asking.
Wilhelm: Well, the only true thing is to live the teaching.
Krishnamurti: You’re not answering my question. I put the question to myself instead of putting the responsibility on the Foundations. I feel passionately responsible for this; what am I to do to prevent a circus happening from other people, stronger people? So that the thing doesn’t wither, is not corrupted by some crook in the name of God, in the name of truth, in the name of peace, in the name of love of K, and so on? What am I to do? Now, not eventually in ten years time when I’m dead.
T. Lilliefelt: But in a way we are already doing it.
Krishnamurti: What? No.
T. Lilliefelt: We’re immersing ourselves in it.
Krishnamurti: No, sir, I am not doing it.
T. Lilliefelt: We are passionate about it.
Krishnamurti: I am not doing it. Don’t answer it so easily saying, “I am doing it.” I am not doing it.
Blau: But, Krishnaji, you’ve brought the teachings.
Krishnamurti: No, I understand all that. No.
Blau: It’s here.
Krishnamurti: You’re not answering my question. First, I said it’s the responsibility of the Foundations, who feel passionately, et cetera, et cetera. And they say, “Yes, more life, more young people, we must put more life, in the future, sometime.” More means future. I say, when you feel so strongly, when you feel responsible, what do you do?
E. Lilliefelt: It’s your responsibility.
Krishnamurti: For God’s sake. I put that question. So what am I to do? And he says, “You are doing everything.” I said, “Sorry, I’m not.”
So what am I to do? Radhaji, what am I to do? To me, every other thing is a secondary issue. We’ll discuss the centres; we’ll discuss what the teachers should teach in the schools, and so on. That can all come in its place. But this is the main thing that is occupying my mind. So what am I to do? I will go on talking till I can’t talk. I’ll travel as long as I can while the body lasts. Not till the last moment because I don’t want to die on the platform. I will go on as long as possible physically, but that is not good enough. You understand?
E. Lilliefelt: What more can you do?
Krishnamurti: I have to do... You people are all so... I have to do something. Blow my blood vessels.
E. Lilliefelt: You can’t live forever.
Krishnamurti: My darling lady, I am saying I can’t. But now, it is my responsibility. You haven’t felt, as the Foundation of America, this passion to see about it. You haven’t, nor has the Foundation in India, and as they feel rather lukewarm and rather uncertain, it becomes my responsibility. I say, “What am I to do?”
You see, in England, the Foundation members are these two ladies and some others. [Laughs] In India, with the circumstances, the heat, the cold, the appalling poverty, they don’t take it passionately serious, as I take it. So I ask myself, what I am to do. This has been going on and on in my mind, not just now but for a couple of years. And I have to find an answer. Or there may be no answer at all. Historically, somebody comes along, talks about everything, and it gradually withers away. I think this is wrong.
Radhaji, what am I to do? I’ve laid down all the circumstances, all the things that might happen. We have talked a great deal about this. At the end of it, we haven’t found an answer. And I turn to myself and say, what am I to do? Do you understand what I am saying? What am I to do? If you each put that question to yourself...
Burnier: It hasn’t been put particularly...
Krishnamurti: Do it! I’m doing it. For God’s sake, I’m doing it now.
Burnier: Yes, sir.
Krishnamurti: What will you do? If each one of you, as members of the Foundation, felt this as passionately as I do, what would each one of you do?
Burnier: The question wouldn’t have to be answered.
Krishnamurti: I’m asking. You’re not facing the issue.
T. Lilliefelt: Well, we’re asking ourselves the same question.
Krishnamurti: Therefore, if you have asked, sir, the same question passionately, what’s your answer?
S. Siddoo: Krishnaji, what’s your answer? You’ve posed the question. It’s most important to you. You’ve brought the teaching. You’re very concerned about it. What is your answer?
Krishnamurti: What, if you have a baby, what are you going to do with that baby? Wouldn’t you be passionately concerned?
S. Siddoo: Yes.
Krishnamurti: What will you do with that baby, you?
S. Siddoo: There is also a limited amount...
Krishnamurti: No! Don’t say limited. What will you do with that baby?
S. Siddoo: You care for the baby to a point. The baby is also not you. It doesn’t belong to you.
Cadogan: I was thinking of that too. I was thinking of the question in terms of the child, and how with the child there is this absolute immediacy. From the second the child is born, there is this immediate care and this total concern. One’s whole life changes.
Krishnamurti: Total dedication to it.
Krishnamurti: You get up at two, one, three...
Cadogan: ...and you breast feed, you...
Krishnamurti: ...change diapers all day. You’re burning with that child.
Simmons: You have to let it go.
Cadogan: You do eventually have to let it go, yes.
Krishnamurti: You are going miles ahead. I said, you have that baby now. When you have a baby, you look after it. You spend from morning till night with that baby, with hardly any sleep. You go through tremendous travail.
Simmons: But so what, Krishnaji? So what?
Krishnamurti: Are you doing it?
Krishnamurti: With a baby which you have now?
Krishnamurti: All right. Then you are not concerned about the future.
Simmons: How can I be concerned about the future?
Krishnamurti: Please listen. Find out what this poor chap is talking about. You’re not concerned about the future. You’re concerned about that baby now. And it’s growing. In five years time he’s gone. Are you equally going to be concerned with that baby, with that boy or girl, in five years time? Right education, right food, keeping at it till he... Or do you say, “Please, we’ll send him off to boarding school or residential school,” then wash your hands, and that’s the end of it – he joins the army.
Cadogan: Krishnaji, when you have a baby, a change takes place in you. And I wonder still whether there is something more to come in the situation that you are posing about the future of the work.
Krishnamurti: Yes, I’m beginning to see something. Don’t you see something?
Krishnamurti: What is it? I won’t tell you, but you tell me. You have a baby now. You have given your time, energy; you’re really dedicated completely to that baby. Right? You don’t go out to play golf. He’s there. No other interest for next five years. Right? And will you let it go at the end of five years, knowing all the other boys are going to corrupt him? The schools, the education, society, everything is going to destroy that baby and he will end up in an army and without legs.
S. Siddoo: But isn’t there a time that baby is incorruptible?
Krishnamurti: No, you are missing my point!
Kishbaugh: Sir, is it a question of time, the time that you spend attending to that child?
Krishnamurti: You have, sir, and you are. You don’t spoil him. You don’t spoil the child. You look after him; you are dedicated, you watch him. Haven’t you done it?
Kishbaugh: Yes, yes.
Krishnamurti: When there were a couple of babies in this house, I used to do that.
Kishbaugh: But after thirty or forty years, you don’t continue with that.
Krishnamurti: No. Something else takes place. You’re not paying attention to this. Our traditional habit is to look after the baby till three or four years of age with all our heart; we kiss him, hug him. You know what is happening in the world. At the end of five years, six years, we send him off and he gets corrupted and he is gone, finished. Right?
Cadogan: I don’t accept that.
Simmons: I don’t accept that, either.
Cadogan: I don’t think it’s true. I think when the child is born, you’re consumed with it. There’s a sort of chemical thing; there’s a tremendous thing, and I think that care goes on and on and on through every aspect of their life.
Krishnamurti: Oh, no, you don’t.
Simmons: Who says we don’t?
Krishnamurti: I question it!
Simmons: I question the fact that it’s not being done by some people.
Krishnamurti: You’re missing my point. For God’s sake!
Burnier: What baby are you talking about?
Krishnamurti: If I had a baby, a physical baby, I would look after him, wouldn’t I? I would change diapers, feed him at two, three, four in the morning.
Simmons: That’s nothing at all, though.
Krishnamurti: Wait, listen! I mean it. Let me finish. And I look after him to age three, four, five.
Simmons: You’ll look after him for a sight longer than that.
Kishbaugh: Ten or fifteen years.
Simmons: Twenty, at least.
Krishnamurti: Oh, for God’s... I’ll look after him, won’t I? Don’t limit it to five years; I’ll look after him. At the end of my looking after, he joins the army.
Simmons: No, he doesn’t.
Krishnamurti: Doesn’t he?
Simmons: Why should he?
Krishnamurti: They generally do.
Simmons: Because they generally do and you’ve taken this care, why should he?
Krishnamurti: They do!
Simmons: I don’t think so, not all of them. Large hosts of people are not doing so.
Krishnamurti: They go off and join communes; they take drugs; there is the sexual nightmare, and so on. Right?
Simmons: Yes, the large proportion.
Krishnamurti: Ninety-nine people, point nine.
Zimbalist: What is the...?
Krishnamurti: What is the point?
Krishnamurti: This is that baby now.
Cadogan: In a way, Krishnaji, I think that baby hasn’t been born yet. Because, you see, when you have a real, physical baby, the baby is there. It’s like your cobra, that you used to talk about. The challenge is there. But our baby, that we’re all talking about, perhaps we haven’t yet seen that baby born because as long as you’re with us...
Krishnamurti: So you want me to die for the baby to be born?
Cadogan: No, but maybe that’s a little bit how we think.
Zimbalist: It’s your baby, and you’ve tended the baby and we’ve just stood around with the bottle.
Krishnamurti: So you’re answering my question: it’s not your baby.
Krishnamurti: Wait, wait. Wait, no “buts.” It’s not your baby.
Zimbalist: We are...
Krishnamurti: No, I’m sorry. Stop talking.
E. Lilliefelt: It’s your baby.
Krishnamurti: You have taken my baby and are looking after it. Right, sir? So far, it has been my baby. I’ve been looking after it for fifty-two years, more. And you have all accepted my baby. And you say, “What shall we do with this baby?” Right? You would never say that if it were your baby. Am I wrong? Radhaji, am I wrong?
Krishnamurti: Yes? Wrong? What, what? You can say it. Am I wrong?
Burnier: No, you’re not wrong. It isn’t our baby.
Krishnamurti: Be simple. It’s not your baby.
E. Lilliefelt: We’re either foster parents or we have babies of our own.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that’s all. You are foster mothers for this unfortunate baby. If it was our baby, as the husband and wife produce a baby, man and woman produce a baby, in the same way, if it was our baby, the whole thing would change. You’re always saying, “K’s teaching. K.”
Bohm: You even began the discussions on that basis here.
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, you have said throughout your life that truth does not belong to anyone.
Krishnamurti: No! It belongs to me. What do you mean, it doesn’t? K has produced this blasted baby!
Zimbalist: But the perception of truth is...
Krishnamurti: No, no, no. You are going off into something else. If you felt it was your baby, you would be as passionate as K is about it.
S. Siddoo: How can you feel that way?
Krishnamurti: Don’t say “how.” Eat a lot of bananas! That is the real issue. And he’s always saying, “Share it, let’s think together.” When I am in India, they say, “Your teachings, your yoga. It is K’s new yoga.” You follow? “It is K’s school.”
Cadogan: Krishnaji, I think this brings in the fundamental question of authority. You see, we say “K’s school,” “K’s teaching,” to do just what you said at the beginning, in a sense, to protect this from other people coming in and making it a different thing. It gives it something recognizable. And as long as you’re here, it seems an arrogance on our part to do certain things which you obviously do.
Krishnamurti: Yes, I understand all that. But if you said, “It is my baby as well as yours,” then you would do something, wouldn’t you?
Krishnamurti: You would protect it. You would see that it is not scandalized. As you have had a baby, physically, you protect it. You would have no time for anything else but this.
Cadogan: Yes, it consumes the whole being.
Krishnamurti: So what am I to do? That’s my question. Apparently you have become the foster parents. And the mother who produced, or the father who produced that baby says, “Please, don’t become foster parents. It is your baby.”
You see, if I had a baby, I would look after him. After five, six years or seven years, they generally go; some peculiar change takes place at seven or eight. Isn’t that so, sir?
Lee: Many changes, yes, all along the way there are changes.
Krishnamurti: All along the way. And it is my responsibility to see that he doesn’t end up in the army, into drugs, become a mediocre, stupid, little entity. I don’t want to spend ten years of my life for him to become a stupid little man. [Pause]
So what shall I do? And everybody treats the baby as though they are foster mothers. What shall I do? Drown the baby? Expose it to the sun as the Romans used to do? Kill it? What shall I do? All that I can do is to convince you – no, not convince – to let you see that it is your baby.
Zimbalist: How can we see that it is our baby?
Krishnamurti: By this process that we are doing now; preventing you from escaping into verbal mistakes, saying, “yours, yours, yours.” Didn’t you protect your baby physically?
Cadogan: Yes, yes, of course.
Krishnamurti: And looked after it for years.
Cadogan: But it still goes on, Krishnaji, even when they are adult.
Krishnamurti: No, no. She gets married off.
Cadogan: No, no, but I mean, it goes on, the care.
Krishnamurti: No, no, madame, it goes off in a sense of worry: “Oh God, I can’t do this. I get worried.” I have seen mothers. And this baby is going to remain as a baby.
I am getting it now. If the baby is pure, it is so far totally unadulterated even by the parents. In a couple of years they will spoil it with their bourgeois ideas, with their conditioning. Now this is a new baby. Can you, as the foster mother, keep it as a baby, not let it grow up into some monstrosity?
It is very strange, you know, the children of the parents who are interested in all this generally are not. Why? Is this same thing going to happen to this baby? It is not a physical baby, it is something much greater than a physical baby. And also it is a physical baby in the sense that there is a school, and so on. Will you let it grow up into some monstrosity?
You see, we are trying to do something very difficult. At least, I am trying. It is my baby. I am going to see that it becomes your baby. I am using “baby” in the sense of innocent, clear, clean, healthy, beautiful. See that this baby doesn’t grow into some ugly, brutal monster, which is church, ritual, dogma. That is a monstrous thing.
So, how shall we keep this baby clean? What am I to do?
T. Lilliefelt: Well, you have to stop acting like a foster parent. I think the reason why the children usually don’t follow their parents is because the parents are not real parents. They’re not really taking care of their children; they act in a kind of secondary capacity. Therefore the children are not interested in what the parents try to convey to them.
Krishnamurti: The parents have no love for them, sir. They have spoiled them. They use them like toys.
T. Lilliefelt: That is right.
Krishnamurti: Don’t talk about it. So what shall we do? What shall I do? What do you say, madame?
Tettemer: I don’t agree with you.
Krishnamurti: What don’t you agree with me?
Tettemer: About parents and children. I think there are far more people who love their babies than do not love them; but they are stupid.
Krishnamurti: Love, no, no. If they loved their babies, Ruth, they would see that the society was different, that they will not grow into monsters, machines who earn money and are into sex, drugs. You know what is happening in the world.
Tettemer: You always talk as if that is all of it, Krishnaji.
Krishnamurti: No, I don’t.
Tettemer: Sex and drugs.
Krishnamurti: There is also a little bit on the periphery of it, like beauty, that they enjoy. But basically, ninety-nine point nine per cent are like this. When you say you do not agree with me – they may love them, but if they love them, they will see that society is different.
Tettemer: But I am interested in what you said, that the parents have children whom they think they love, but somehow or other they have been unable to get something over to them. That interests me very much because I have my own children.
Krishnamurti: Yes, you have had children. Why isn’t one of your children interested in this?
Tettemer: I think it was my incapacity to share with them.
Krishnamurti: My darling Ruth, that is not the point. It has happened – a strange phenomenon this.
Tettemer: Yes, very strange.
Krishnamurti: Sorry, but I feel, K feels very strongly, passionately about this; and he asks if this can be kept alive, flowering forever, timelessly. In this world, not in... Because it has never been done before. Never. Therefore, it is possible for it to be done now. I am saying this to myself. There was never a jet plane; but they produced it. It has never happened before in this field; therefore it has to be produced, it has to be made. Because it has never been done, it is a challenge. I will do it. [Long pause]
Could we put it this way? The Foundation is the vessel; and the vessel must contain the fire – fire, water, whatever it is. Can that be done? Probably it is there now, but when K pops off, is “gathered to his fathers,” or to the monkeys, the thing must flower and go on flowering. [Long pause]
Is there something else to discuss? We will leave it for the moment; I will come back to it.
Cadogan: Krishnaji, is there something more to come?
Krishnamurti: It will. Before I have finished with this, something else will come out of it. Let’s stop talking about this now and, if I may suggest, go to something else?
Zimbalist: You just used the analogy of fire. Why doesn’t one catch fire?
Krishnamurti: Oh, I don’t know. If I ask, “Why don’t you?” what would be your answer?
Zimbalist: Well, the implication...
Krishnamurti: No, no, please, please, just listen. Don’t answer, listen. Please listen! If I asked you why you do not catch fire, what would be your answer? We are talking in the big sense. We are not just doing little bits here, but the real thing. Instead of asking someone else why you don’t catch fire, what would you say? There is nobody who can answer you. Suppose you are by yourself in a desert with nobody to respond to the question, what would you do? Not go off into monasteries! Brush all that aside. What would you do? Taking vows and all that is worthless. [Long pause] Shall we stop for this morning, or any more discussion? [Long pause]
May I break this silence by asking a question? Sir, we object to apostolic succession, don’t we? Do you object to it?
T. Lilliefelt: That’s the way it has been done.
Krishnamurti: Yes, but go behind the idea. Behind the idea is...
T. Lilliefelt: The reality hands itself over on its own.
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes. So, carry that, move that.
T. Lilliefelt: The recipient has to be ready.
Krishnamurti: No, no. Don’t answer it yet. You are too quick. In the Catholic church there is “apostolic succession.” It also exists in India. Remove all the symbols and the absurdities and the nonsense around it, and what is the truth behind it?
You have seen the truth. Right? You have seen the truth; you live it. To you it is a burning thing. And I am your “disciple,” quotes, I am your friend. And you have given it to me – not in the sense of “giving”...
T. Lilliefelt: It has its own energy.
Krishnamurti: No, no, no! Don’t talk. Listen. [Laughs] You are all too quick.
What is the truth behind it? A man has seen the truth. Buddha saw the truth and because he saw it he shared it or he gave it or he passed it on. It doesn’t matter what word you use. What is wrong in that? But when it has been passed on to X, X then begins to build a church and...
T. Lilliefelt: Then it has not been passed on.
Krishnamurti: No, no, no, wait. X passes it on to Y. Y then has not the original thing, so he spoils it. Do you understand what I am saying?
T. Lilliefelt: Yes, but if it is true, it cannot be spoiled.
Krishnamurti: No, no, no, no. My darling sir, yes, for God’s sake, of course.
You have seen the truth. I am your friend. You passed it on. We will use the words “pass it on.” You gave it to me because we are friends. You held my hand and showed it to me. And I say, “Yes, I have got it.” There is a direct contact, you understand? And you have gone, you are dead. And I pass it on to A. I have already lessened it. Or, I have not lessened it, but it is not the same as what you passed on to me. I pass it on to A, and A passes it on to B. It gets weaker and weaker. Just listen. But if it doesn’t get weaker, then what is wrong with it?
T. Lilliefelt: It can’t get weaker.
Krishnamurti: Oh, yes, sir. That is what has happened, sir.
Blau: Can it be passed down?
Krishnamurti: Please, I am using words. Do not stick to words. He has seen the truth. And because I am his friend, have walked with him and held his hand, I have got it. He has passed it, given it, shared it; we have drunk at the same fountain. The words don’t matter. Then he is gone. I pass it on to A. Unless A drinks it as fully as I have drunk, it is already weaker. And it gets weaker and weaker. This is what has happened, sir. Don’t have theories about it. Don’t have theories.
Simmons: How can truth become weaker? Truth is truth.
Krishnamurti: Darlings! You deal with theories! The fact is this: the Buddha gave it to Saraputta. But Saraputta died. Suppose he had not died. He passed it to A, still fairly clear. Then it goes down. This is a fact.
Zimbalist: Yes, obviously.
Krishnamurti: Not theories.
Zimbalist: Because each one along the chain...
Krishnamurti: ...goes weaker and weaker and weaker.
Zimbalist: ...because they are not capable.
Krishnamurti: Do not give reasons. These are the facts. I am asking: If he gives it to me, can I also give it to A, and keep it at that level all the time?
T. Lilliefelt: I don’t know. I mean, the Roman Catholics have made some horrible thing out of it.
Krishnamurti: Ah, no, no! What are you people mixing up? I am asking you something. You don’t answer me. You are always thinking in... Sorry.
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, unless the second one perceives it as clearly as the first one, can he hold it and pass it on to someone else?
Krishnamurti: I will not answer you. I see you are just full of words. You have to listen to the man. He is telling you something. Find out what he is trying to tell you, not compare this with the Catholics. Find out. Put away all your theories and the facts of the Catholic church. That is what I am saying. Jesus may never have existed; probably didn’t as they picture him. And Paul, Saint Peter, all the rest of them, probably had visions because of sunstroke. That is what they say in the Middle East. At that time, when you had sunstroke you were considered blessed by the sun. [Laughs]
So I am saying forget all that, because I am trying to find out for myself. You are full of ideas and theories and comparisons. I am trying to find out for myself. I am not asking you. Because, as I said, I have to find an answer to an impossible question. It may not be possible. Therefore, I must find some other answer. Right?
Sir, I do not know the answer. Listen to me carefully. I do not know the answer. I really mean I do not know. However, not knowing, I am looking. You understand? I don’t know what is the right, truthful answer to this – an everlasting answer, not just a temporary answer convenient for a couple of years or ten years. It must be the right answer; therefore it will be the truthful answer; therefore it will be endless. As I do not know the answer, I am looking. I am looking without any prejudice, without any wanting, without any symbols, without any conclusions. So I am watching. Will you do that same thing? Will you?
T. Lilliefelt: Of course.
Krishnamurti: That is, you do not know the answer and you have no conclusions. It may be the most unexpected answer, or no answer at all, but it is your job, your responsibility to look, from the field of not knowing. I will find it. It may not happen now; I will find it. Or there is no answer. And if there is no answer, I don’t care either. But I will go on, you know, as I am. But if there is no answer that is maybe the right answer.
9 March 1977
Krishnamurti: I hope you had a nice trip at the weekend, yesterday.
Simmons: Very good.
Krishnamurti: So, what? Where are we now? After what we discussed day before yesterday, has anything struck? Any new ideas?
Bohm: I have been looking at this. It seems to me that you were saying that we have to understand not only the source but also you. In some way, it is working through you. And it occurred to me that at least I don’t really know how your mind works all that well. I have observed it from time to time when I have had the chance.
Krishnamurti: I do not know how my mind works either, so it is all right. We are in the same boat.
Bohm: Sometimes I think I see a difference in various ways. For example, I feel that you are carried sometimes to a very high energy, intensity, which I feel might lead to, as you put it, an explosion of some kind. I feel all of us could in some way do that. But we have been told very early on, it has been hinted to us, that this should not be allowed to happen. In other words, we are conditioned in some way against this sort of thing.
Krishnamurti: I do not quite follow.
Bohm: Well, we are conditioned to keep ourselves...
Krishnamurti: To rather hold back.
Bohm: Hold back, keep within a certain limit.
Krishnamurti: Oh, yes.
Bohm: Measured. But is it possible that this sort of thing is important in what you have to say?
Krishnamurti: Sir, could we put it this way? What is the responsibility of each member of the Foundations? Is it just to keep accounts, to see to the buildings, run a school, have a study centre? Is that the responsibility? Is that the only responsibility or is there a responsibility to the light of this teaching, to the truth of this teaching? Which means to understand the teachings fully, not partially, and be responsible to the tremendous depth of it. Would you say that?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, Krishnaji, I am bothered a little bit about the word responsibility. Surely you don’t speak from a sense of responsibility, you just speak.
Krishnamurti: Yes, I just speak, but I feel responsible to see that this thing is conveyed fully. I feel responsible for the members of the Foundation, that they understand it. When I go to Rishi Valley or Rajghat or Brockwood, or here, I feel responsible. So there is a certain responsibility on my part that this thing is understood, and not partially. It is the responsibility of the members of the Foundations that they understand it fully. It is both ways, not just a one-way street. It bothers me when you say “partially understand.” There is no partial. It is like saying, “I’m partially pregnant.” [Laughs]
Bohm: Then why did you suggest that that is what we should say? You see, at the beginning of our discussions now, you actually suggested that is what we should say. We understand it up to a point.
Krishnamurti: I think that is limiting us.
Burnier: To understand it fully means that there must be no dissipation of energy, and the school, all that, itself becomes a dissipation of the...
Krishnamurti: Look, Radhaji, I am intensely in love with something. I am intensely in love with a woman. What happens there? Everything is operating. I don’t say, “Well, I love her partially, I understand her.” There is no such thing as partial. That is where our difficulty arises. You understand?
Krishnamurti: How do we do this? Do the members of the Foundations feel tremendously responsible for the total understanding of this thing, “responsible” in the sense of giving their lives, as you are responsible for a person, for a baby, for a treasure? If you have some marvellous jewel, you are responsible for it, you don’t just throw it around. So if the members of the Foundations feel the tremendous responsibility of it, something takes place then.
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, one may feel the tremendous devotion to something.
Krishnamurti: Devotion, do not use the word devotion, if you don’t mind.
Zimbalist: Well, you spoke of being in love, and...
Krishnamurti: Remove it.
Zimbalist: Well, it is an intense feeling, let’s say. One may also feel absolute responsibility. But in understanding something, is there a quality, a capacity which is necessary?
Krishnamurti: I think the capacity, the energy comes when you say, “I have to do this.” You have energy when you have to vacuum the carpet, when you say it is absolutely necessary.
Zimbalist: That does not require any understanding, it’s just something you devote a lot of energy to.
Zimbalist: There is no quality of understanding in that, though.
Krishnamurti: No, no.
Zimbalist: But that giving of energy and these other qualities, does it bring capacity?
Krishnamurti: I think it does. Obviously it does.
Zimbalist: Just for a moment to go back to the analogy of loving someone; one may love a child or a grown-up person with all one’s being, but one may not understand them.
Krishnamurti: No, this is different. This is not a person you are understanding.
Zimbalist: I know, but...
Krishnamurti: No, don’t bring this. This is not a person you understand. If I want to understand what the Buddha said, and I must understand it completely, totally, I have the energy. Like any scientist, he gives all his life to it.
Zimbalist: So capacity is a matter of energy?
Krishnamurti: No, capacity is a matter not of energy but the feeling that you have nothing else but this to do.
Zimbalist: But, again an analogy...
Krishnamurti: There is no analogy. Don’t...
Zimbalist: A musician may give his entire life to playing music, and not be Beethoven.
Krishnamurti: No, I feel responsible. I think you are dissipating what I am saying, if you don’t mind my saying so. If you feel tremendously responsible – not in the sense of the word responsible, which is to respond properly and so on – but feeling that this is the only thing and that for that you are totally responsible. Then you have capacity, energy, everything else.
Bohm: It may be that there is also something else. I remember that when I first met you in 1961 somewhere in Wimbledon, we had some discussions. I discussed some of my ideas on physics. At the end, you said that I was crazy about physics but you were crazy about meditation. [Laughs]
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes. [Laughs] Yes.
Bohm: So I think that that seems to be involved, you see.
Krishnamurti: Yes, I think so; crazy all right. [Laughter] It is all right to use that word crazy in the sense fanatical about it. Not fanatical in the absurd sense, you know.
Bohm: People used to use “being crazy” about somebody the same as being in love.
Krishnamurti: Yes. Then I think it happens all right. So how do we proceed from there? After all, a missionary goes to Uganda. He works there among all kinds of people, in dirt, filth, under tyranny, because he believes in something, Christ, Jesus, or whatever it is. There it is based on belief, which helps him to escape from himself into something which gives him extraordinary energy. Here we have no belief, no escape, and the very entering into oneself very deeply brings out something else.
All the cathedrals of Europe had anonymous builders and architects. They believed with a kind of extraordinary devotion; and it was devotion to some fantasy, myth, a belief in a saviour and their own salvation. It is all... But it gave them tremendous energy. Look at all the crusaders! I think capacity comes as we get more deeply involved. It is not a question of first having capacity and then you can go...
So, to get on with it, my “responsibility,” in quotes, is to see if it is possible that each member of the Foundation understands this completely. It is my responsibility. How shall I, how shall we do this? If I feel responsible so profoundly, and you are a member of the Foundations, and you’re not quite so deeply immersed in it, what shall we do together? Do you understand my question?
Is it that one has too many extraneous activities, expending energy on those things and not enough in this? Is that one of the reasons?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, it does take energy.
Krishnamurti: Is that one of the reasons?
E. Lilliefelt: I don’t think it should be really, because if you have the energy, you could do those things anyway.
Krishnamurti: So, is that an excuse?
E. Lilliefelt: I don’t think it’s so much of an excuse as an inability. I reach an impasse.
Krishnamurti: No, not inability. Is it that one is not fundamentally, deeply, interested in this?
E. Lilliefelt: How does one know that?
Krishnamurti: One should, because, after all, one has been here for years. Is it an excuse for us, for you and me, to say, well, the administrative side is too much for me, it occupies all my time, I have no time for this?
Simmons: But can you divide, can you separate the administrative things fundamentally?
Krishnamurti: No, no.
Simmons: I mean, aren’t they all the action of the whole?
Krishnamurti: No. The administrative side may be an excuse to avoid this, thinking that must be done tremendously and therefore wasting...
Blau: Krishnaji, I question that very much because I’ve been very involved in the administrative side.
Krishnamurti: I know.
Blau: And I have no interest in the administrative side. You know, I could do without that immediately.
Simmons: Her understanding of the other thing makes her see that this must be done, and how she does it is very relevant.
Krishnamurti: Is that taking too much of your time?
Simmons: Why should it?
Krishnamurti: Not “why should.” Is it? I am asking.
Simmons: No. It does take a lot of time.
Krishnamurti: Yes, but is that preventing the other?
Blau: But if you were not interested in the other, you would not do the administrative...
Krishnamurti: No, I understand. You are missing my point. You are interested in the other, otherwise you would not be here.
Blau: Only that. I can live without the administration.
Krishnamurti: I understand. You can live without it, but you are interested in this, so that is why you are doing administration.
Krishnamurti: Now, wait a minute. Is the administrative side taking all your time, and therefore you have very little time for this?
Blau: Well, then I have to question, if I had no administrative work...
Krishnamurti: No, I did not say that. I did not say that.
Blau: You see, I can’t see that the administration would take time from the other.
Krishnamurti: No, I am not saying that. Look, you are here because you are basically interested in this. Right?
Blau: That’s right. I think everybody is.
Krishnamurti: Wait, wait. I am taking you for everybody here. And you spend most of your time in the administrative side, ninety per cent.
Blau: That’s right.
Krishnamurti: Now, is that preventing the flowering of the other? Wait, wait, don’t say yes or no, just listen to the end of it. Is that preventing the flowering of the other? Because your whole mind is occupied ninety per cent of the time with that and ten per cent of the time with this. Right? It may be in the background, it may be in the unconscious and so on, but actually ninety per cent of the time goes there. And I’m asking – please, I’m not saying it is – if that is an escape. Examine it. I am not saying it is or it is not. There, there are physical results that you can show. You write a book, and you can show it. The other gets more and more diminished because this becomes more... Do you understand? This may bring much more kudos, more self-fulfilment, give more importance to the self. Just look. I am not saying it is or is not so.
Why this imbalance? Ten per cent to this and ninety per cent to that? Why the imbalance? I don’t say one is right, one is more important; there is imbalance.
Blau: I can’t quite see that imbalance. The outside requirements demand that certain things be done. You start a school, you start a Foundation...
Krishnamurti: Agreed. My darling lady, you don’t have to tell me, I see it.
Blau: Everybody would prefer not to be involved in that.
Krishnamurti: I am saying, to put it differently, why is the other thing not flowering? That is what I am asking all the time. Is it overwork? Is it over-tiredness? Is it over-responsibility?
Blau: Well, my question would be – I am not making this personal – but if one had more time or wasn’t involved in...
Krishnamurti: No, not “more time.”
Blau: But you say the balance is ninety to ten.
Krishnamurti: It depends on each person.
Blau: That’s right. Would I be any different? Would I give extra?
Krishnamurti: I doubt it.
Blau: I do too.
Krishnamurti: You see what we are trying to get at?
Blau: So it isn’t that. It isn’t the distraction of the work.
Krishnamurti: So, then what is it? If it is not the administrative thing that is destroying one, then what is it that is destroying or preventing the flowering of this thing?
Blau: Age, with some of us.
Krishnamurti: I question it. The brain cells get old?
Blau: I question it, too.
Krishnamurti: Then what is it? You would not be here if you were not...
Blau: That’s right.
Krishnamurti: Therefore why isn’t this happening?
T. Lilliefelt: That is the great question.
Krishnamurti: I am asking you.
T. Lilliefelt: Sometimes physical tiredness prevents you because you’re so tired you’re just physically unable.
Krishnamurti: Why? Are you giving too much to this?
T. Lilliefelt: Not me, but to me that’s the question all the time. I am asking myself all the time why I can’t one hundred per cent understand this.
Krishnamurti: Right, sir. Suppose you were with me night and day, all the time discussing, talking, looking, driving, laughing, going to a cinema, discussing like this, doing a hundred things, would that help?
T. Lilliefelt: Yes.
Krishnamurti: Why? Be careful, sir. Would that really help?
T. Lilliefelt: Up to a point.
Krishnamurti: No, no, not up to a... I do not want a point!
T. Lilliefelt: Very often, a little thing, a little gesture, an attitude, a way of saying things, can be tremendously helpful.
Krishnamurti: Sir, just a minute, don’t limit yourself. “Up to a point” is a limitation.
T. Lilliefelt: No, I eliminate that.
Krishnamurti: Now, would it bring about a flowering?
Burnier: But there have been people with you all the time and flowering has not taken place.
Krishnamurti: Yes, for forty years. On the contrary.
T. Lilliefelt: I may have to take back what I said.
Krishnamurti: Wait, sir, no. There may be something in it.
T. Lilliefelt: There is something in it.
Krishnamurti: Find out, don’t let it go!
T. Lilliefelt: After all, when I’m together with Erna, we help each other in a kind of an invisible way. Something is happening, and as time goes on suddenly I realize something. How did I understand it? You can see that it came from that relationship.
Krishnamurti: So, is that what is missing here?
T. Lilliefelt: It shouldn’t depend on...
Krishnamurti: Do you see how you are always limiting yourself? You depend on the sun.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, but the sun is there. It comes up every day and goes down at night. There’s a physical impossibility involved.
Krishnamurti: No, no, it may be possible. Think of it anew. Do not limit yourself physically. Anything is possible. Do not limit yourself. We are trying to find out the depth of it. When you say, “Physically it is impossible,” you block it.
Wilhelm: Maybe living with you, one changes one’s daily life completely. One would have a completely different “routine,” in quotes. One would talk about different things, think about different things.
Krishnamurti: No, no, no. And also I have noticed that if one stays with K too long all the worst side comes out.
Bohm: Why is that then?
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, why is that?
Krishnamurti: I could tell you why that is.
Krishnamurti: Wait! [Laughter]
E. Lilliefelt: Do tell me.
Krishnamurti: Have you seen this, sir? The good and the bad. The bad generally comes more than the good. Have you noticed this?
Blau: Well, I know people go gaga easier.
Krishnamurti: No, no, look at it. Not you, I am not talking about you. Do you know this is happening? Are you aware this happens? Not in yourself. You have seen people, right? Have you been aware of this peculiar phenomenon going on, taking place?
T. Lilliefelt: Yes, it happens all the time.
Krishnamurti: You know it.
E. Lilliefelt: It is hard to know how much good there is.
Krishnamurti: No, no, no.
Lee: Is it because the bad becomes more obvious?
Blau: To the person observing?
Krishnamurti: Not only for himself. He may be unconscious of it. But you observe this?
Lee: Yes, I see it in teachers. I see it in people who are working in these things day after day after day.
Blau: You mean you get worse?
Lee: Contrast is greater; you get a sharper contrast.
Krishnamurti: Your peculiar idiosyncrasy flowers.
Krishnamurti: Not the other thing.
T. Lilliefelt: It’s not only contact with you, but contact with the work.
Krishnamurti: I am saying contact with the work; it is the same thing, sir.
S. Siddoo: That is also a tendency of age, I think. As people get older, their idiosyncrasies...
Krishnamurti: No, I have seen this in young people. You see you are limiting it. I have seen this peculiar phenomenon with the old, with the young. After a while, everything goes wrong.
Krishnamurti: No, I hope not.
T. Lilliefelt: If you are even a little bit aware of it, you can take certain precautions.
Krishnamurti: No. Sir, we are talking about why the members of the Foundations do not explode, flower.
J. Siddoo: Also there’s a lack of persistence. You get to a certain point and something is there maybe for a day, two days, three days; then suddenly everything is gone again.
Krishnamurti: That is so, but then what?
J. Siddoo: Then you begin again and it seems to go on and on and on.
Blau: But Jagdis, what do you do? What do you persist in?
J. Siddoo: Observation, awareness, whatever you want to call it, watching.
Krishnamurti: Do you feel it is an issue which you must solve? Must. Not just say, “Yes, it’s like that, age, lack of contact,” any excuse. But do you feel this thing? Why is it that you are not flowering? Is this a tremendous problem to you, an issue? If it is not that, then what is it all about? The school, the public? If those things do not give an opportunity for flowering, then what’s the point of it all?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, that is like saying it is either all or nothing. There is something.
Krishnamurti: My lady, don’t limit yourself.
Simmons: It also has the feel of a motive in that, too, Krishnaji.
Krishnamurti: Where is that?
Simmons: If you want to flower.
Krishnamurti: No, I did not say that. You have not listened to my question. Not “if you want to flower,” but why haven’t you?
Simmons: You said, “Do you want to?”
Krishnamurti: No, I said, “Why haven’t you flowered.” I never said, “Do you want to?”
Zimbalist: “Is it not a tremendous issue?” you said.
Krishnamurti: Yes, a tremendous issue.
J. Siddoo: Krishnaji, I can see a great danger. When someone first comes into contact with your teachings, usually there is some kind of crisis in one’s life or something really attracts them.
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes, I agree.
J. Siddoo: Then one does everything one can to get into what you might call the inner sanctum. Once one is in that, then I see the great danger of being: “Well, we’re in it now.”
Krishnamurti: No, no, my lady, you’re missing my point. Look, given all the circumstances, there is the Buddha teaching. And I say to myself, “Is it an issue with me, a tremendous issue, that what he says doesn’t click, doesn’t flower, doesn’t explode?”
S. Siddoo: Part of that is that we don’t give enough time for walks and...
Krishnamurti: No, no, no. Don’t find an excuse for it. Is it a tremendous issue? Should I marry that woman or...? It is an issue! I do not say, “Well, I haven’t time.” It is there, going on and on and on. I may be washing dishes or writing a book. Not writing a book; that would take doing something else. But this crisis is a tremendous thing. After all, that is why I started to talk about it in the talks in Bombay. I said, I am talking, K is talking because it’s going to bring a crisis in your life. Do you want that crisis? I mean, “having no time,” “being occupied with the administrative side,” I think are all... So, is it a tremendous crisis? There is no motive. You are asking this question. [Long pause]
I think to ask how to bring about a crisis in oneself is wrong – it is too silly. So it is either a crisis of a tremendous nature or not at all.
T. Lilliefelt: I think this is the important issue. It is a crisis. But maybe what prevents... I don’t know what prevents it, but the question is, why doesn’t anything happen?
Krishnamurti: No, if it is a crisis, it will happen.
T. Lilliefelt: Yes, so it’s not a crisis. Not enough of a crisis.
Krishnamurti: It would be a crisis when the house is on fire. You do something. You don’t say, “Now, tell me exactly what I should do.” You act.
Wilhelm: You see, that may be exactly the point. We may not do anything. We ask and we say we don’t understand enough. When the house is on fire, you don’t ask that question, you do something. You see it. You see that there is a crisis.
Krishnamurti: You have to act!
Wilhelm: Yes. You may act in the wrong way but you act.
Krishnamurti: No, no, you never act the wrong way if the crisis is really a crisis.
S. Siddoo: What is the crisis?
Krishnamurti: I do not have to describe what crisis is. The crisis is the terrible... Have I to put it in words?
S. Siddoo: Well, as you said before, the crisis is the responsibility to understand.
Krishnamurti: Yes, all right, put it that way. It is a tremendous crisis. I say to myself, why? If I were listening to Buddha, I would say, “What the hell is the matter with me?”
S. Siddoo: What is keeping me from it?
Krishnamurti: Am I blind, deaf? I would be at it. Do you follow what I mean? I would be doing...
S. Siddoo: You say you would be at it?
S. Siddoo: How?
Krishnamurti: I would be watching what is going on. I would investigate. I would question; I would say, why? Is the soil wrong? Is my mind conditioned? Am I a little bourgeois wanting to be a great non-bourgeois, or a greater bourgeois? I would work at it. After all, he says, “Investigate.” I am investigating.
S. Siddoo: Then you are starting with the assumption that you can understand.
Krishnamurti: Begin with... See, you insist... No, no.
Bohm: It seems to me, if you see this tremendous crisis, let’s say a fire, then you don’t make assumptions. You do not start with assumptions, you start with the fact.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that’s it.
Cadogan: This is quite a different thing, because I can remember very recently going through a great crisis, not of this nature, and that crisis, as I realized afterwards, took every ounce of my energy. But that was something where action dictated itself, because it wasn’t a crisis of the nature which you are describing, where one is in this world which is the unknown still.
Krishnamurti: Look. Say I have listened to the Buddha for a number of years. I know what he is saying, intellectually. I know more or less what he is driving at. And I don’t understand, or the thing which he wants to flower is not happening. And I feel it is not. I don’t take it as a crisis, something I have to find out. I do not assume anything. I do not start with any conviction that I am lazy, that I have no capacity, that my time is occupied with my children. I won’t make any assumptions.
Chari: Why am I incapable of putting a fundamental question to myself?
Krishnamurti: I am asking you. You do not put it to yourself. I am asking you. Therefore, it is a challenge.
Chari: It is a challenge but it does not come from inside; it is your challenge.
Krishnamurti: No, no, it is your challenge.
Chari: Why doesn’t it come?
Zimbalist: Is it that the challenge is there in front of every living human being, and we block it? It seems to me that something in the mind is continually not coming to grips with fundamental things in life. And everybody wastes our lives by living on superficial day-to-day activities, and never coming to confront the ultimate questions that confront everybody. Which should be as necessary as breathing to us.
Krishnamurti: You see, you are putting it all wrong when you say it is as necessary as breathing. Look, Maria, look. I have listened to K or I have listened to the Buddha for a number of years, and it does not flower. I do not say, “Oh, I’m this, I haven’t got that.” I see it does not flower. I see the reality of it, first. And I have no assumptions about how to resolve it. But one thing I’m asking myself is if it is a tremendous crisis because I’ve heard it.
Bohm: It seems to me that there is an ordinary state of mind which is comfortable with what is familiar, and it more or less pushes all this out.
Krishnamurti: Of course, of course.
Zimbalist: Is it that compelling to be comfortable? Is the impulse to be comfortable that strong?
Krishnamurti: Oh, yes, comfortable physically. Oh, Maria, don’t you know it? People say, “For God’s sake, leave things as they are, don’t disturb my house. I have decorated it, I have put it here. For God’s sake keep your decoration out.”
Bohm: It is the sense of security.
Zimbalist: But if your life depends on something, you don’t ask if it is comfortable or not.
Krishnamurti: No, but Catholics say, “This is very comfortable. The real crisis took place when I accepted that cross.” It may be a myth, it may be nonsense, but I have accepted it and it is very comfortable.
Bohm: They have the word consolation.
Krishnamurti: Consolation, a dozen other things. After all, the communist is very comfortable in his theories, Marx, Lenin. I have been hearing about it, reading about it lately. They are supremely satisfied with that. They made Lenin and Marx into gods and in a hundred years they will be the new gods. And those who live with that say, “My God, don’t you disturb it. You are a dissenter. We’ll torture you.” You know, like the inquisitions in Spain. This is exactly the same thing.
If it is settled between ourselves that the Foundation members – forgive me for putting it this way – have not faced the fact that it is not a tremendous crisis in their lives, then if they do realize it, the crisis will take place. You understand what I mean? But if they say, “I have too much to do, I’m this, I’m that,” monkeying all over the place, it is finished.
You see, my responsibility, as we were saying the other day, is to see that you feel the tremendous crisis of it. That you feel it. That is my responsibility. I’ve been wondering for the last two days what... I see it now. [Pause]
If that is my responsibility, what shall I do if you do not see? Walk out? Or say, “All right, I’ll work at it, we’ll work at it”? Do we give it a time limit? Do we say, well, come with me. So what shall we do? And where is my responsibility? To go to somebody else and start the whole thing, and go through all that again? [Laughs] Collect a whole group of people who say, “How very interesting, how true,” but, but, but, but? And keep on moving till I die? Do you see the picture of it?
So what shall I do? My responsibility, my whole thing is to see that you flower. That is my tremendous responsibility. And, as member of the Foundations, it is your responsibility that this becomes a crisis in your life. Right? That is your responsibility. But if it doesn’t, what shall I do?
You see, if I leave this group and go to another group, it will be the same problem. So I can’t leave this group because I see it is exactly the same thing. So I can’t leave it. Then what shall I do?
I am beginning to see something. Are you?
I know that if I leave this group, these Foundation members, and go to another group, it will be exactly the same thing; worse, beginning right from the bottom. And if, having formed another group, I go through all that again, and find that they don’t see, and say, “Move, move, move,” I see that is utterly futile. It is a colossal waste of energy. Right? So, what shall I do now? I cannot leave you, I cannot divorce. Therefore what shall I do? Put up with it? Say, “Oh my God, I’ve got to put up with this crowd?” I am talking very seriously. I want to divorce. I cannot. Next woman I marry will be exactly the same beastly thing. Therefore, I cannot divorce. Does that mean I put up with it, get used to it? Which I refuse. I do not know if you are following all this.
E. Lilliefelt: You refuse also to give up.
Krishnamurti: Of course, because it is the same thing.
E. Lilliefelt: But you know, many times in...
Krishnamurti: Wait. Look at it. Do not move away from it. Do not move away from it. I know I can divorce my present wife. I can divorce and re-marry. It will be exactly the same thing. Worse because I must start from the very, very ABC of it. And I have only another ten years or fifteen years, and I can’t do that anymore. Therefore, I cannot divorce. So what will happen? See what has taken place? Which is not that I am comfortable with you, you are comfortable with me. We are at war with each other.
E. Lilliefelt: We have a problem.
Krishnamurti: No, we are at war. You are my enemy. I have to convert you. I have to do something to make you change. I am using the word in the sense of – not tension – there is a tug of war. What is it?
T. Lilliefelt: A challenge.
Krishnamurti: No, it is more than a challenge.
E. Lilliefelt: But you are implying there is a resistance.
Krishnamurti: No, no, I am not implying resistance.
Simmons: It is a need, really. You must do something.
Krishnamurti: No, not a need. Do not translate. I do not need it. Look, I want a divorce.
Simmons: So you have to change it.
Krishnamurti: No. I can leave all of you tomorrow and go and form another group. I would have to start with the ABC of it, which would be waste. Right? You see that?
Krishnamurti: So I will not divorce.
Bohm: You say you will not leave us alone until you have...
Krishnamurti: I will not divorce. I cannot walk away from my wife because the other woman I marry will be like this. So my intelligence says, don’t be stupid, you can’t leave. You see what happens then? I am beginning to see. You see what happens?
Go on. I have it; I want you to go into it. Put yourself in that position. You cannot divorce; you can’t leave, because if you do it will be the same. It is worse if anything, because you have to start right from the bottom of it. So there is no divorce, no question of breaking away, separating. So what happens? Oh, come on! What happens?
Bohm: You are going to keep on; you are not going to allow us to remain comfortable.
Krishnamurti: No. What happens? If the man says, “This is right, I’m going to stick to it,” and the wife says, “I agree but I don’t quite see,” and he remains, she walks off. Do you understand what I am talking about?
Blau: Then you face the crisis.
Krishnamurti: Yes. No, more than that. What happens? Put yourself there; what happens to you? To you. I cannot divorce you. Sorry, forgive me. I cannot divorce you. I know what will happen if I get married again. I will not remain a bachelor because that is isolation and all the rest of it. I am not going to. Therefore, I cannot leave you. What happens? What happens?
Cadogan: It seems the only thing that could happen would be if you’re not divorcing, not going away, to put all your energy into it.
Krishnamurti: No, no, Mrs Cadogan, do look at it. I will not leave you because my responsibility is to create a crisis in you, is to see that you feel this crisis tremendously.
Krishnamurti: So what happens? I will not leave. That would be the easy, most stupid way to go, because my job is what I’m doing, to bring a crisis. If I leave this, it will be the same with another group. So my intelligence says, “You do not, you cannot, must not.” I cannot and I will not. So what happens?
Simmons: We are faced with the same crisis.
Krishnamurti: No, my darling, listen. What happens? In a house, you are married to me and I want to divorce you for all the various reasons. And I see that if I started over with another woman, it would be exactly the same thing. Right? Therefore, I will not leave you. I will not divorce. That is out. What happens between us?
E. Lilliefelt: A change has to take place.
Krishnamurti: What happens? You are not facing it. If you were really doing this, what actually takes place?
S. Siddoo: Either I say that I am going to leave and I cannot do it, or I face it.
Krishnamurti: No, no, what happens? Darlings, I am asking. Look, you are all members of the Foundations, aren’t you? I can leave all of you, can’t I? I can, because I am that kind of person. I have done it before ten times, I will do it a hundred-and-one times. That is not the point. I cannot divorce you, I cannot leave you. And I see why, logically, sanely. It is not an irrational resolution not to leave. I see it; it is impossible. It is the same thing outside. If I go to another group, it will be equally bad. So I cannot divorce, I cannot leave, I am stuck with you. What takes place?
Cadogan: I feel that we come to this point, and I just get a sense of almost paralysis. And at that point I cannot feel this new movement which you are trying to bring.
Krishnamurti: No, no, no, not “trying.”
Cadogan: Well, which you are communicating.
Krishnamurti: Look, look, my darling, listen to me, listen to me! I cannot leave you. I will not leave you. You may be stupid, you may be unenlightened. My responsibility is to see that you feel this tremendous crisis. And I will not leave you. What takes place? Something has happened, hasn’t it?
Cadogan: Something is happening.
Krishnamurti: Wait. Something takes place, doesn’t it? What is that? What is it?
Simmons: I can’t express it.
Kishbaugh: It seems to me that that responsibility that is yours, some of that now comes to us at that point.
Krishnamurti: Sorry, I am not satisfied with that.
S. Siddoo: Is there not an immediate bond?
Krishnamurti: No, it is not a question of a bond. I will not leave you, therefore there is... You are stuck in the same bloody house! I cannot express it more. You are stuck there.
E. Lilliefelt: But we have to make the same rational decision or same rationalization.
Krishnamurti: What has happened? I cannot leave you. We are going to live in the same house. What takes place? What takes place ordinarily? You make arrangements.
E. Lilliefelt: We live together, we get on.
Krishnamurti: No, no, you make arrangements, don’t you? I can’t leave you. So you and I, what do we do if we are married actually? Suppose. What do we do?
E. Lilliefelt: We work it out.
Krishnamurti: How do you work it out? Go on, my lady, what do you do? What do you do, actually? You have to adjust to each other, don’t you? You have to adjust. You see, you accept it.
J. Siddoo: Yes, but the way that you put it, there’s a conflict created.
Krishnamurti: No, you accept it.
J. Siddoo: So we live with the conflict?
Krishnamurti: What happens when I say that I will not leave you? What is the difficulty? What is the matter with all of you? What is the difficulty?
Cadogan: There is intensity but there is no answer.
Krishnamurti: No, you are missing the point.
Cadogan: Well, can you help us, Krishnaji, because at this point we seem to have your mind which is an unconditioned mind...?
Krishnamurti: No, no. I won’t leave you. I won’t divorce you. I will not walk away from you. What happens then?
Simmons: You are really concerned. You are concerned so you work with the person. You confront every single action that you do. You see if you can live...
Krishnamurti: No, before that.
S. Siddoo: Well, don’t we have to say, “We won’t divorce you”? And then we are faced with the same intensity?
Krishnamurti: Yes. But I can walk out, you can walk out. But we have refused to walk out. You won’t leave me and I won’t leave you. Good God! Lovely idea! [Laughter] Let me laugh. So what happens? No, you are not getting the central point of it. At least, I think I have the central point of it. You are not getting it. I may be mistaken. What happens, sir?
T. Lilliefelt: I do not want to give a speculative answer.
Krishnamurti: You and I have been married for a number of years. You know all my phrases, you know all my ways, how I walk, how I eat, how I look at people. You have seen all that. And I suddenly realize that I cannot stand you anymore. And I say, “I’ll go out, I’m going to divorce you.” And I realize to divorce you I have to start it all over again with another woman. Right? It is not a physical divorce but if I leave you, I have to go to that person or that woman and say, “Please, listen very carefully, darling, I’m going to tell you something.” And she can’t listen. I say, “Please, listen, you are conditioned.” I go through all that with her, which is a waste of time, because I have done this for five years, ten years. It would be a waste of my time to go out and do it there. So I am going to stay here with you. Right? So what happens between us? I won’t move!
Kishbaugh: Then we have to move. Then we must move.
Krishnamurti: That means what? You are not going to divorce me and walk out, because you see the stupidity of it. Therefore, I will not move out of this house, and you are all inhabitants of this house.
Wilhelm: I have to change then.
Krishnamurti: What happens? You do not even see this!
Kishbaugh: If we are going to live in that house, then we have to meet each other to make that house a lovable place.
Krishnamurti: Look, sir, begin again. I will not leave you because I thought I loved you. I have lived with you for a number of years. I thought I loved you and gradually I find I do not love you, and I go and marry another woman. What happens? I thought again I loved her. Love and all that rubbish begins. And I suddenly find the same thing, that I do not love her. I can’t go to the fourth, fifth, sixth; I am too old. So I am stuck with you, and I won’t leave you. What takes place? Why won’t I leave you?
Kishbaugh: You’re not leaving because you see the folly.
Krishnamurti: No, no. I do not leave you. Why? Think it out; burn with it. I started out loving you. Right? I had love for you, therefore I married you. And I cannot leave you because I suddenly realize that I love you. What the heck are we all talking about? You understand what I am saying? Therefore I will not move. What takes place?
I have been searching for an answer for this for three days. What am I to do? You understand? That is what we said: it is my responsibility. Wait, I’ve got it.
I married you because I loved you. I love you – sex, companionship. I love you, and I see that you do not love me, because otherwise I would stay. And I think I love somebody else and divorce you. But I find there, too, the same problem. So I come back and say, “I love you, I’d rather remain here.” I will not move. What happens to you? What is the matter? What happens to you? I say, “I won’t divorce you. I thought if I married that woman I would be happy, I would have love, but I see it is the same thing. Therefore, I still love you.” You understand? So what happens?
Blau: That’s a tremendous realization.
Krishnamurti: You realize something, don’t you? Which means that you won’t leave.
Blau: That’s right. That you can’t leave, you won’t leave.
Krishnamurti: I will not leave. And you realize why I will not leave. So you say, “By Jove, you can’t leave because you have...” You realize the quality of that. I wonder if you understand what I am talking about. Got it? So what happens?
S. Siddoo: We realize that same love.
Krishnamurti: What happens? Look, look, look, please. I started out loving you, and after ten years, I am bored. I have had my sex; I have had my amusement, and so on. I am bored, and I say, “Oh my God, I see a nicer woman,” and go there. But the love which I had for you, I want that to happen there, and I see it can’t happen there. Therefore I am stuck with you. Stuck because I loved you from the beginning and now I can’t... I come back to that. So I love you. What happens?
T. Lilliefelt: The other person responds, obviously.
Krishnamurti: What do you mean they respond, obviously? Bananas!
T. Lilliefelt: They respond, not “obviously.”
Blau: It’s the realization of this, to use the same word, love.
Krishnamurti: You see?
Blau: You have it too.
Krishnamurti: He has sacrificed his pleasure in the other woman. He has given it up. You understand? It’s a sacrifice. I am using the word sacrifice in the right sense of the word; he has not given up in order to be rewarded. He sees that; it is finished. Therefore he says, “This is my only love. I can’t leave you.”
Blau: He has done it for us.
Krishnamurti: No! He has done it. Then what happens to you?
J. Siddoo: Doesn’t that put us in the same position?
Krishnamurti: What happens to you? I am not interested in “puts you” or “does not put you.” What takes place when a man says, “Look, I wanted to divorce you, I went to the lawyer, I took out the paper, and I suddenly realized it will be the same thing with that woman.”
Zimbalist: But that does not mean you love the first woman.
Krishnamurti: Wait, wait. Please, this is an example. This is a simile. My love says I cannot divorce you. Put it any way you like. I cannot chase another woman. I am talking about it vaguely. So I am stuck with that first love. What takes place between us? Do you feel comfortable; say, “I am so glad you’re back again”? Do you feel comfortable, easy, happy?
Krishnamurti: What takes place? I would make a good actor. [Laughs]
Kishbaugh: There is incredible friction there because suddenly you now feel responsible.
Krishnamurti: Sir, I cannot leave and you cannot. I am stuck in the same house. What takes place? What happens to you inside when the man says, “Look, I love you, and I have looked at that person and come back.” What do you feel? Comfortable?
J. Siddoo: No.
Krishnamurti: At least I have got you?
Simmons: What am I going to do with you?
Krishnamurti: No, what happens to you? Do you say, “Oh darling, I’m so glad, let’s go to bed”? [Laughs]
J. Siddoo: I realize that I am the world.
Krishnamurti: No, no, no, no, no. What happens? Something takes place, doesn’t it? I won’t tell you what takes place. I know what takes place. [Long pause]
My golly, it is so simple. If you would only see; it is so simple.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, the same thing that applies to you, applies to me.
Krishnamurti: Yes, exactly. What takes place? The fire comes back. The fire has come back, and you will be burnt with it. You will be burnt by it, won’t you?
Are you? Are you consumed by it? He says, “Unless you are consumed by this fire, I am not going to leave you.” Then there is no leaving.
Blau: Will you say that again?
Krishnamurti: What did he say?
Blau: Unless you are consumed by the fire, I am not going to leave you?
Zimbalist: That sounds as though we wanted you to leave.
Krishnamurti: No, no, wait. Oh, don’t stick to words!
Zimbalist: We are trying to understand what you are saying.
Krishnamurti: His responsibility is that you should be consumed by the fire. And if he leaves this group and goes to another group, that is no good. Right? So he cannot leave, he cannot walk out. And his responsibility is that you be consumed in that fire. His responsibility. And your responsibility is to understand that fire, be involved completely in it, consumed by it. That is your responsibility. So what happens? Do you stand off and say, “How nice and warm it is on a cold day. I’ll treat that fire as a nice comforting thing”? Or do you come into it? Ten different ways I have put it. And it is your responsibility to be consumed by it. And my responsibility is that you are consumed by it.
That is enough. [Long pause]
And unless you are consumed by it, you won’t be intelligent, et cetera. Right? It is not that because you want to be intelligent you must be consumed. Be consumed and everything will happen. You will have abundance of energy, intelligence, capacity, everything.
11 March 1977
Krishnamurti: I hope you had a nice weekend. Where do we start? Shall we come back to what we were talking about the other day a little later on, and go into other things which we have to discuss? What is there? Do we discuss the centre? As there are going to be centres in India, Brockwood, and here, and Canada, what do you think these centres should be, or rather must be? Everybody is reluctant to talk this morning.
I have been to several centres like this in my youth, one started by Gerald Heard, Aldous Huxley and Felix Greene in the south of Los Angeles, a place called Trabuco. They had all kinds of things there, a meditation place where it was like an amphitheatre, very small, perfectly dark, curtains, and you sat there for an hour, three times a day, meditated. In the morning there were dishes to be washed, and so on. Then somebody spoke for an hour, a professor from Berkeley while I was there. And in the afternoon you would rest, and again meditation, and so on. From the evening, after dinner, nobody spoke at all, not a word, till the next morning after meditation. That was the routine. That is one kind of centre.
There are the other kind of centres, like Esalen. I have never been there; you know about it, don’t you? I don’t have to go into all that. There have been centres in the Theosophical Society. What do you think this centre should be?
Blau: Somehow, I can’t quite imagine any sort of group meditation, anything of that nature in our centre.
Krishnamurti: No, no. I am just saying what kind they were. So what do you think we ought to have?
Wilhelm: I think it must be a centre for learning and investigation basically about the teachings, but related to every aspect of life, too.
Krishnamurti: What do you mean by learning? Do I come there to learn?
Wilhelm: Not to learn in the usual sense that I acquire knowledge, but in living together with other people, in talking to other people, in being together with other people, discussing with other people, to find out what it means to learn, what that is. Or to get an insight into insight, put it that way.
Krishnamurti: Look, Fritz, if you came there, what would you like to take place there?
Wilhelm: I would like to find people with whom I discuss my problems as deeply as possible and deeper, so that I really get the feeling that there is no limitation for investigation, so that my thought becomes clear, my whole being becomes clear in such a centre.
E. Lilliefelt: Is this a therapeutic idea?
Wilhelm: No, no. Well, I do not know what you mean by therapy.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, when you say discuss your problems.
Wilhelm: Well, it is certainly not therapy in the classical sense, but in a way you may call it therapy, because we all have our problems, and if we go to a centre and have an insight into our problems, we get rid of our problems. You can call that a therapy if you want. But it is not analysis and all that stuff.
Blau: I assume you are not talking of your personal problems, or are you?
Wilhelm: Well, they are all related to each other. You cannot separate personal problems from other problems. Everybody has the same problem; the problem I have is the problem you have, there is no separation. So we have to learn about the problem of life.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, how are we going to be different then from these various encounter groups? The endless community groups throw their problems out, and they get discussed, and they get batted back and forth; and then they all end up throwing their arms around each other.
Wilhelm: Well, I don’t think you can define that beforehand. Something has to happen in that centre which we cannot describe so easily.
Zimbalist: Would there be a difference between discussing personal problems and discussing the fundamentals behind those problems in the light of Krishnamurti’s teachings?
Bohm: It seems to me that if there were people who wanted to discuss fundamental questions about the whole of life, this is really what would be appropriate. If they had problems with their children or at home or something, it would be difficult to discuss that here.
Krishnamurti: Sir, if you were inclined to go to any centre, what would you like to have there, to have happen there, or to take place? What would you like? If you were an outsider coming in, what would you like?
Bohm: Well, I think I would like to go into something very deeply and to understand things that are confused. People might raise questions like what is the meaning of life, what is the meaning of all this as a whole.
Krishnamurti: As a whole, yes.
Bohm: Say, if you come from Los Angeles or somewhere, you will see tremendous chaos there, you know, trouble. You will find life is very mixed up and you might want to come here to look at life as a whole.
Krishnamurti: Please, I don’t have to ask each one. What would we each like to happen there?
Blau: I think I would be interested in meeting a group of people with whom I might not come in contact with ordinarily. But I would like there to be a certain space between our meetings so that I would not be with them all the time. I would like to have an opportunity to be away by myself, and have a chance to turn over my thoughts and to have a certain awakening take place during a period like that.
Simmons: You would have to have people who have friendliness and affection between each other, and who are serious, so they could come together and talk, so they haven’t to do all the preliminaries first before they could really expose and talk about these fundamental issues which your teachings bring about. I think you must have a place where there is a certain affection.
Krishnamurti: Radhaji, you have been to many places like this. What would you like to find? Because you are going to be responsible for the ashram in India, and so on. What would you like to take place there?
Burnier: I think an atmosphere, although it’s a little difficult to use that word, which would make it possible for me to go deeply into myself. And I would like to find there others, maybe one, two people who are trying to do the same thing, so that there is a communication which is immediate at a certain level if one wants to communicate. If the whole place has people who are interested in this, then I think discussions will come out of that, not artificially. Discussions may be in informal groups or formal gatherings, but unless we create an atmosphere where the main thing is beginning self-knowing, then it will just peter out into very little.
Krishnamurti: I think that is what Dr Bohm was intending to say.
Bohm: Yes, an atmosphere of order and harmony in which people could be quiet and go very deep.
Blau: I do think that the being quiet would be one of the fundamental aspects of it, because then one’s discussion would have a more vivid quality, a more immediate quality, especially since so many of us have little time to be quiet. I think there is so much verbalization during our everyday life.
Krishnamurti: Do you impose that quietness? You know, in Asia they are used to this, but here they do not. So would you impose it, say that during certain hours or a certain period you are silent?
Blau: Well, perhaps one could have a certain place where one would be quiet. Others that didn’t want to be quiet could converse elsewhere, but there should perhaps be a place where one could be quiet.
Zimbalist: If I were going to a Krishnamurti centre, I would presumably have some degree of knowledge of Krishnamurti’s writing. It might be tiny, but I would think my reason to go would be to deepen that understanding. Otherwise, there are a thousand places to go if I had a problem with my husband or my children or my sister-in-law, or I don’t know what. All those things proliferate, but a Krishnamurti centre is something different.
Krishnamurti: Well, sir?
T. Lilliefelt: I find it very difficult to define freely. The words that come to mind are “no compulsion.”
Krishnamurti: Yes, but what kind of thing would you like if you want to go to a place like that? What would you think is important?
T. Lilliefelt: It’s a wide range. I mean, there has to be a certain physical perfection.
Krishnamurti: Apart from all that, sir, what do you want there, what do you want to find there? Why do you go there?
T. Lilliefelt: Well, if I knew a little bit about the teaching, I would like to discuss it with a few people to clarify, at least first the intellectual part of it.
Krishnamurti: Is that what you want? You, not somebody else, you. What is it you would like to take place while you are there?
T. Lilliefelt: I would say great emphasis on privacy.
Blau: But you can have that at home, if you’re lucky.
E. Lilliefelt: Not always.
Krishnamurti: There are the husband and children. Go on, more privacy.
T. Lilliefelt: A certain atmosphere of privacy and non-compulsion can be created in a place, so when you enter the place there is a certain ambience which helps you to go into yourself more.
S. Siddoo: I would think it would be really essential, if I went to a place like that, that there were people or persons there who actually were alive with the teachings, who could really give me something of that thing that is alive, not something that is dead; that I could get at home.
Cadogan: Surely, that is what we all would want if we went to such a centre. Unless there was that quality, which we find when we sometimes hear you talk or discuss with you, unless that was in some way present, this Centre would not be a place we would want to go to.
Krishnamurti: No. So how do you create that?
Cadogan: It seems as if we could easily fall into the trap of starting by what we call some kind of clarification at the intellectual level and cutting away dead wood, but it might just end there.
Krishnamurti: I know.
Zimbalist: Shouldn’t there be an atmosphere in which the person who comes feels that inquiry is going on that is a continuing thing, whether they come or somebody else comes or nobody comes? I would think, something that is living there.
Krishnamurti: Nobody wants to talk. What shall I...?
Zimbalist: May we ask how you see it, Krishnaji? What do you see going on there?
Krishnamurti: That is what I am just wondering. What would I do if I went there? What is the thing I would ask from the people I meet, from the place, from the ambience and all that? What would I demand? I come there demanding something, or I come there to be enlightened about certain problems I have. I would like, if I came there to meet people who will discuss with me about the question of fear, for example, to see if I can be free of fear, understand it, go into it, discuss it, lay it bare.
We are all so silent. You know, this is really a quite serious problem, because we are going to have a centre there.
Fritz, if I came there to discuss with you and with the people around you, around the place, the question of awareness, attention, the question of not being hurt, for example and, being hurt, how to go into it, could you help? Help in the sense unravel it. Not intellectually, I am fed up with that kind of stuff; I have done that all over the place. I come here to open it all up, just to be aware of it. Could you help me? Or could you help me to end sorrow? And to see what it means to love, what compassion is, and so on? I would like to come here, from Los Angeles, from Seattle, or Vancouver. Could you help me? Help me in the sense discuss very clearly, and mean what you say, not be intellectual, not be merely verbal, having gone into it deeply yourself. If I am attached to my wife, husband, attached to so many things, could you help? Could you discuss with me, not at the verbal level, but at a much deeper level, what the implications of attachment are? – the feeling of attachment and the feeling of completely being free from all attachment. Could you? Because you are going to be here, you or people in India, or in Brockwood. I come there. I want to understand. I have read some things of K, and I have looked into it, and I find it very good. It has a depth to it. So I want to understand, I want to go into it with somebody, learn about it. I want to know what it means to be totally free from attachment.
Wilhelm: I think that is the function of the centre.
Krishnamurti: I know. I am just asking if you could do it. With the help of the Foundation and the centre, could you make me feel that you have understood something, and help me to move in certain directions, not invented directions but actual directions which you have found? Take [the topic of] no attachment – what it means, the beauty of it, the depth of it, the intensity of attachment, and the dependency, you know, the whole of that. Would that be therapeutic?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, it might have a therapeutic effect, but I do not think the intent would be therapeutic.
Krishnamurti: No, I am asking if that would be therapeutic.
Blau: In its deepest sense, yes.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, I don’t quite put that in the same category somehow. That is not really the purpose of the discussion, is it?
Krishnamurti: After all, I go to an analyst in a therapeutic sense.
E. Lilliefelt: That’s right, to get cured.
Krishnamurti: To get cured of my fear, my expression of fear.
Zimbalist: That is usually on the level of having a fear of this, this and this, and what am I going to do? That is a surface situation, whereas I think the things you are talking about are asking what the root of fear is.
Krishnamurti: No, why do I come there at all? Let’s see that. Why do I come there at all? What is the urge in me to go to a centre like this, where people have read K, where they are familiar with his works? I have read a great deal of his works, talked about them, listened to some talks, and so on, why do I want to come here?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, that would be a good place to begin the discussion.
Krishnamurti: I am doing it. Why do I want to come here? Wouldn’t I want to come here to meet people of the same kind of thinking, with the same kind of inquiry, same kind of outlook, who have read, who have thought about it, perhaps with whom I can discuss in a friendly, happy relationship, not be criticized with them saying, “Look, you are wrong, we are right”? Would that be one of the reasons I would come?
E. Lilliefelt: I would think so.
Lee: Sir, you said earlier to go into these things non-verbally, to explore these things non-verbally. What do you mean by that?
Krishnamurti: Oh, that is much more difficult.
Lee: But isn’t that part of it?
Krishnamurti: Part of it. That becomes mysterious, and might lead to some kind of superstition. For instance, in India many people have told me they have been to guru somebody-or-other, and they sat very silent in front of him, and all the problems were dissolved. And when they go back home, they begin all over again [Laughs]. There was silent communication, but they were not... I would rather avoid that for the present. I am just asking myself why I would go there, for what reason. What makes me go there?
Simmons: I think you feel that people are living in a different way, that you are part of this world; but you are not really part of it, you have decided that you are going to live in a different way.
Krishnamurti: No, but why do I go there?
Simmons: Because joining with another person is an act of communication in itself.
Burnier: Because something is wrong with my life as it is lived, and I am searching.
Krishnamurti: No, I would not go for those reasons. Personally, I would not go for those reasons at all. Why would you go there?
Burnier: I think the majority of people read something you have written, or hear about you.
Krishnamurti: Is that the reason why you would go there?
Burnier: Oh, me.
Burnier: I would not go at the moment.
Krishnamurti: No, seriously. I am asking you as a person what makes you go there? You may not want to; that is a different matter.
Tettemer: Well, interest of course, something that keeps returning that brings me there.
Krishnamurti: Why do you want to go there? You don’t seem to answer my question.
Tettemer: No, probably not.
Wilhelm: I have seen something extraordinary in a book, or I have listened to something, and I want to pursue that. I want to get really in touch with it. That is the reason I would go there. And that includes all the aspects we have been discussing.
Krishnamurti: Sir, there are two things, aren’t there? Hearing K is one thing. Or Buddha; I would go and listen to him a great deal, if I had the opportunity, if I had the money, and so on. I would spend a great deal of time with him, listening to what he said, discussing. That is one category. But K is gone, dead, or whatever, or Buddha is dead. So, I want to understand what he said about certain things. And you people have listened to him much more than I have, have gone into it much more than I have, and I would come to find out what he said with regard to what I think. I will not accept you as an authority; I won’t accept you as source of enlightenment or anything of that kind. But because you have listened to the Buddha a great deal, I would like to capture something of that through you.
That is the reason I would come, to capture not only the perfume of it but the quality, the way he thought, the way his mind worked, how it operated, what his insight is, why he said certain things. You follow what I mean? I would be delighted to come, because I want to understand his mind, if I can. I may be stupid but that is the reason I would come, so that I get the feeling of that quality, which, when I have it, will solve my problems as I go along. That becomes quite easy. I would come for that reason.
Would you be able to give me that?
Burnier: Is it a question of one giving another?
Krishnamurti: “Giving,” in quotes. No, wait, wait; sharing.
Krishnamurti: Quickly, I’m using “sharing.” And he may give me something.
Burnier: That is not important.
Krishnamurti: Not important. That is the reason I would go. Not to solve my problems. I have read all he has said; I see all that, but I want to capture, or bathe in, or live, or be in that atmosphere, to see the quality of the Buddha. You have listened to him, you have spent time with him, you have gone into it with him, and I come there for that reason. And being there, then I open up. You follow what I mean? I might say, “Well please, let’s talk about something like compassion, how he tackled it. You listened to him; you must have captured something of that quality. Tell me,” I want to discuss it with you there. You are not representing him. You are not taking his place. You are not assuming his authority. But you have listened, breathed the same air, seen the affection, the love, the feeling that you had for him, for the Buddha. I feel, “My goodness, I want some of it.” I want to find out, because I have not been able to listen to him, unfortunately. Or I’ve just listened to one talk. That was not good enough, but I captured something there and I come to Ojai for that thing. That is the reason I would come. I come for that, and if you can share that with me, then I will discuss with you all the problems of fear, this, that and the other things. But if that is lacking, then I say, “My God, what is the point of meeting these people?” I do not know if I am conveying anything at all. Am I?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, I think then we come back to what we were talking about the other day, about what we have that is conveyed.
Krishnamurti: If you cannot do it, what is the point of it?
E. Lilliefelt: I know. You, coming, may expect a great deal, have in your mind a great deal more. You could think that because I have been close to him and have heard him so many times, surely I must much have more than you have.
Krishnamurti: Of course.
E. Lilliefelt: Therefore...
Krishnamurti: ...Share it, give me some of that.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, but you come there, and you may be let down.
Krishnamurti: That is what I’m wondering. I come there and I meet Dr Bohm. He is a scientist, a well known world figure. I am from Los Angeles, nobody, but I have read a great deal, I have a fairly good mind. Do I discuss science, physics with him? I know nothing about all that. But I want to discuss with him because he has discussed with the Buddha. Will he help me to understand the quality, the brain, the mind, the width and the depth of the Buddha? Will he give that? Will he help me with that? Or will he trot out some theory of his own, and at the end I say, “My Lord, where am I?”
I do not want therapy. I am fairly intelligent, I can “therapize” myself – if there is such a word – [Laughs] heal myself. But that is such a petty little affair. I come for that other reason. I think most people would, wouldn’t they? Would you go for that reason, sir?
T. Lilliefelt: Yes, sharing.
Krishnamurti: No, no. Would you go for that reason? Not “sharing,” leave that part. Would you go for that reason?
T. Lilliefelt: Yes, I would go for that reason.
Krishnamurti: And when I come for that reason, will you “satisfy,” in quotes, “what I want,” in quotes?
If I want to find out what the Buddha was like, I can pick up his books, “the saying of the Buddha” and get something, but it is not the same thing. I can twist it, I can pervert it, I can say, “Yes, I have understood, I have got that.” It may not be like that. But with you who have been with him for a long time, who have listened to him, there is much more direct communication of that. It is for that reason I come, because you can open the door. Then I can begin to discuss, have a dialogue with you about many things which interest me, like meditation, sorrow, a dozen things. But I want “that” first.
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, you used the expression “understand his mind.” Do you think we can really convey that?
Krishnamurti: No, no, I do not want to understand. Remove the word understand. I come for that one reason.
Simmons: I wouldn’t come for that.
Krishnamurti: You wouldn’t, I would.
Simmons: I would go to the books for that.
Krishnamurti: Ah! No. For understanding I can go to books. I want to capture his way of thinking, how he put it, how he looked at it.
Simmons: But I hear him on a video tape. I see the expression on his face.
Krishnamurti: Ah, you see. No, no, I am gone. Ah, you have the beastly video; I forgot that. No, no, no, forget that, forget all the videos.
Simmons: But why should we forget it, Krishnaji?
Krishnamurti: No, wait a minute. I am putting it anew. Look, I am in love with the Buddha. [Laughs] Right?
Simmons: Because of that, I would go there.
Krishnamurti: I have seen the video tapes but I want to listen to people who have been with him for a number of years.
Zimbalist: What do we want to find out from those people?
Krishnamurti: Ah, no, I do not want to find out from them.
Zimbalist: Then why do I go?
Krishnamurti: I go there because they have been with him for a number of years.
Zimbalist: Am I interested in what they are like?
Krishnamurti: No, I am not interested in them at all!
Zimbalist: Then why?
Krishnamurti: You have misunderstood. I go there because they have been with him.
Zimbalist: What does that mean?
Krishnamurti: Physically, they have looked at him, they have listened to him, they have gone as far as they can with him. Don’t you want this kind of thing? No?
Chari: That is so. In India, people come to a place like Rajghat with precisely this thing that you are saying.
Krishnamurti: But there it becomes devotion and prostration and namaskar and all the rest of that.
Chari: No, sir, not necessarily. You are saying they go back disappointed; we let them down.
Zimbalist: It is like I want to shake the hand that shook the hand of...
Krishnamurti: Ah! You know, Pupul Jayakar shook hands with the Queen. And an American lady came and said, “I want to shake hands with you because you shook hands with the Queen.” [Laughter]
E. Lilliefelt: Is that the same, sir?
Krishnamurti: No, that is not the reason.
Lee: How is it different?
Burnier: It is different. It is a contact with the quality of that mind, I think, which cannot come in print or in...
Simmons: But why couldn’t it communicate? Why can’t it come in video tape? What is the point of the videotaping?
Krishnamurti: Then what is the point of the centre? What is the “plus”?
Simmons: The “plus” is the people.
Zimbalist: Is it the personal contact?
Krishnamurti: No, I’m not talking of that. I do not know these fellows; I do not know any of you. I come from a long distance; I want to see people who have been with him. That is all.
Zimbalist: I don’t understand what you mean.
Cadogan: Krishnaji, to convey the quality of your mind is what we seem to keep coming to. Yes?
Krishnamurti: Partly that, partly that.
Cadogan: Which we cannot do through the video tapes or the books.
Chari: Not only the quality of the mind, perhaps the quality of the life, the whole thing.
Krishnamurti: No, you are missing something. I don’t know; I may be talking nonsense. You have misunderstood. I want to go to a place where there are people who have talked to him, discussed with him; I want to discuss with them. That is all.
E. Lilliefelt: Because I assume that they must have something more than I have.
Krishnamurti: They may not. I’ll find that out, after two days, and say, “Sorry, my wife is very ill, I have a telegram, I must leave.” And I leave.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, but then where are we and where is he?
Krishnamurti: That is just it.
Lee: Where is the centre?
Zimbalist: But what is it they come for? To be with people who are...
Krishnamurti: No, no.
Zimbalist: Something is transmitted or...
Krishnamurti: I may be putting it all wrongly.
Lee: Sir, there are a few people who come who want to know about you, but there are a lot of people who want to just come, as pilgrims would come; come to a place so they can meet people who are living differently.
Krishnamurti: That’s right. That is one reason. I am not interested whether you live it or not.
Krishnamurti: That is up to you. I will soon find out.
Lee: But you would come with that expectation.
Krishnamurti: I come there hoping that you are doing this.
Krishnamurti: If you are not, I am not disappointed.
Lee: Well, most people are.
Krishnamurti: Let’s begin again. Why do I want to come? I have listened to the tapes; I have seen the pictures of him talking on the video tapes. Right. Then why do I want to come here? If you say, “Well, you have all that,” then it is finished.
Zimbalist: People, mostly, feel that their understanding is only partial, and they want to extend that understanding.
Krishnamurti: All right, all right, so I come there.
Krishnamurti: I come there to extend my understanding in discussion with people. That is one reason. Right? Are you saying that is the main reason people come?
Cadogan: Well, it is more than extending the understanding.
Krishnamurti: If you use the word extending, I understand. Enlarge that word.
T. Lilliefelt: Can we capture the perfume of something which is so difficult to explain, but it is still there, which is created when people are together? I remember Erna and I visited Brockwood several years ago, and then we visited again. And the second visit there was something there which wasn’t there for the first visit. It was very difficult to explain, but it helped you in some intangible way, because it was an atmosphere which had been established. It is very difficult to say how, but there it was.
E. Lilliefelt: Doesn’t that depend on the person going? It is very difficult to know what your own illusions are when you go to a place, or your own expectations and disappointments.
Zimbalist: There has been so much talk about the books being dead. I personally can’t understand that, because uncountable people have come because they stopped in a bookstore and picked up a book and didn’t know who this man was, and bought it and went home and something happened. The same story of someone reading the book in a bookstore has been told to me personally I don’t know how many times. If that happens to you, then you want to come to the talks if you can, you want to meet Krishnamurti if you can. If you cannot, you would want to go to people who have something of that.
Krishnamurti: All right. Take that, start from there. I have read the books and I want to come to the Ojai centre to meet other people who are concerned, committed, involved in it. I have heard the tapes, I have seen the videos, and so on, and I come there. Is that the only reason?
Simmons: Well, actually living it, perhaps from a school, the actual putting into action daily, putting this to the test, will help bring this atmosphere about. You will see it in their lives, or you won’t see it in their lives.
Krishnamurti: Yes, all right. Granted all that, is that the only reason I come there?
Zimbalist: There are many reasons. People come for many, many motives.
Krishnamurti: I want to know, is that the only reason you would go there?
Zimbalist: Yes, I think it would be my chief reason.
Krishnamurti: You would go there?
Zimbalist: Yes, I would want to understand more, know more, talk about things.
Krishnamurti: I see.
Zimbalist: The book would have lit a fire.
Krishnamurti: I understand; you have said it. You have read it in the libraries, standing on the ladder you have read it. And then you say, “By Jove, how...” Et cetera.
Cadogan: We seem to be treading a razor’s edge, because the great problem from where I’m sitting is quite different from where you’re sitting, because you have this authority, in the true sense of the word. I can understand that somebody would go to the ends of the earth, because they would want to find out, as you put it, how your mind worked. I mean, I would want to do this. And if someone came to me and said, “You know him, you work with him, tell me,” at this point in time I would feel that I would say what I could, I would communicate what I could. But, Krishnaji, I would feel that I did not have that authority that you have to bring this through. Because I would want to ask you now, while you are with us, more about your mind and what it is, why there is this gap between us always at the essential point where we cannot catch fire, we cannot communicate.
Krishnamurti: We can do that. We can do that, but I am asking if that is the reason. Is that the principal reason you would go there?
Cadogan: Yes, that is the only thing that makes it different from all the others one has been to.
Krishnamurti: I see, I see. You are saying you would go there because you have read, heard.
Cadogan: Listened to the tapes.
Krishnamurti: Listened to tapes, et cetera, et cetera, and you hear there is a group of people at Ojai who have done the same thing, and you want to go to discuss with them.
Cadogan: They have been to the fountainhead...
Cadogan: ...Lived with it.
Krishnamurti: Further along; move it further.
Zimbalist: They are living this kind of life, presumably. I would think, they are living it, they are understanding it, they are exploring it. I want to be part of it.
Cadogan: One would feel there was something more. One would go to find out if there wasn’t something more.
Krishnamurti: I understand all that, I understand all that. But I want to add something more to that. To me that is not good enough. It is all right, excellent, that is probably the reason, but I want to have something more.
Cadogan: You mean if someone is going there? Someone going there wants something more?
Krishnamurti: I have heard the tapes, I have stood on the ladder in the library and read it, and it has done something to me. I have listened to the talks, seen the video tapes, discussed. And I hear at Ojai there is a certain group of people who are involved a great deal with the school, and I would like to go there. I come there. But I want some other quality there too.
Tettemer: Yes. I would want to find out the truth that he was talking about.
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes, that is different. I go there to find out, together.
Cadogan: But you said there is something more.
Krishnamurti: Oh, I want something much more.
Cadogan: But surely, that is implied. I mean, the only reason we come to hear you is because there is this dissatisfaction and this feeling that there must be this new dimension. One doesn’t like to use the words that you have used, because they seem to be almost artificial goals if you say “transformation,” but that’s implied throughout the whole area of search.
Krishnamurti: You see, I have listened, and I can work by myself. I can do it by myself; I do not have to go anywhere else. As a human being I know I would do it by myself. But if I am not that kind of person, and I have listened to the tapes, read the books, tapes, and all that. I want to go to Ojai because I want to live with people, be with people who are doing it more intensely, have gone into it deeper. I want to discuss with them. I have understood all that, but I want something more. I want something much more than merely to discuss with people.
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, people could very well stay at home and read all your books or listen to all your tapes, but there is obviously an incalculable other dimension of going and sitting in the audience. Many people who do not even understand English very well go, and something is transmitted from you.
Krishnamurti: Yes, I understand all that.
Zimbalist: Is it something in this region, some non-verbal something?
Krishnamurti: That is what Mark Lee was trying to get at.
Zimbalist: Yes, well is what you are talking about in that direction?
Krishnamurti: Are you satisfied with reading books, listening to tapes?
Simmons: No, but you can read the books, you can feel you have some understanding, you can deepen your understanding, you can be really serious, but you need the life energy of other people to relate to.
Krishnamurti: All right, you go for that reason. Would you be satisfied with that? If the centre can “offer,” in quotes, you that, will you be satisfied with that?
Cadogan: It depends what happens when you get to the centre.
Krishnamurti: Yes, things happen, but will you be satisfied?
E. Lilliefelt: When I go to that centre, I expect that there are people there who have totally understood what Krishnamurti was saying.
Krishnamurti: Ah, no, I don’t, I don’t. Then you are lost.
E. Lilliefelt: That is right.
Krishnamurti: But they do not say they have it.
E. Lilliefelt: But do I have a right to even expect that?
Krishnamurti: You have no right.
E. Lilliefelt: That’s right. Well, then what is this “something more”?
Krishnamurti: Are you satisfied with that, first?
Zimbalist: You may not say, “I’m satisfied.”
Krishnamurti: You have done all that. You have listened to people who have been with him, discussed with him, and all the rest of it. You come there and you want to deepen it, widen it, comprehend as much as you can in discussing with people who are committed, who are involved in it much more than a group of people in Los Angeles. Right, we all agree to that. Right? Are you satisfied with that? That the centre should be like this?
S. Siddoo: No, I would want to be consumed by that, whatever it is, when I left. I would like to have something more.
Krishnamurti: That may happen in discussing, because you have seen the tapes, you have been through all the drill of tape, standing on the ladder. And you come there and you wander round. Let’s stick to that point. You are satisfied with that?
E. Lilliefelt: You mean the satisfaction of people who are there, or the people who come there?
Krishnamurti: Who come there, who are there, and say, “Yes, now, the centre should be that way.” We are talking of what the centre should be, must be. Not should be, must be.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, I certainly think that is something the centre can be.
Krishnamurti: No, not can, must.
Wilhelm: But you see, when I come to that centre, what I want basically is that that revolution takes place in me, that Krishnamurti talks about. That is what I come for.
Krishnamurti: So, I am asking you – for God’s sake! – if the centre at Ojai offers that, do you come there and say, “Yes, that’s good enough, that’s all right”?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, but as Fritz says, you come there to get this revelation of what Krishnamurti is talking about, and yet he’s been speaking for fifty-two years all over the world and there isn’t anyone there that has it! Then what? He is expecting a lot.
Wilhelm: Well, he expects the same thing when he is coming to listen to Krishnaji.
Krishnamurti: Ah, ah. No. I would make it very clear: “My friends, revolution can only take place in yourself, by yourself, no authority. You are coming here; this place won’t give...” And so on. Given all that, I am asking you if you say, “Yes, this centre must be like that.”
E. Lilliefelt: That sounds like a healthy centre.
Krishnamurti: I come there for all these reasons. I’ve understood all this and it’s quite right this should happen, this must happen; but I want a “plus” thing too.
Cadogan: Is there something more than this total revolution?
Krishnamurti: I want a “plus.”
Simmons: What is the “plus”?
Krishnamurti: You are not asking for the “plus;” I am asking for it!
E. Lilliefelt: But the “plus” is up to you.
Krishnamurti: No. If you ask for it you will get it, but you are not asking for it!
Bohm: Aren’t you thinking about somebody who would be rather unusual? [Laughter]
Krishnamurti: Well, darn it.
E. Lilliefelt: I’m not sure, David. I think that’s what everybody is going to be asking for; they want that “plus.”
Zimbalist: But what “plus”?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, they want that.
Krishnamurti: Ah, they want “plus” without all this.
Zimbalist: They want instant enlightenment handed out at the gate.
Krishnamurti: No, you are missing my point. Don’t you want something more, “plus”?
E. Lilliefelt: Yes.
Krishnamurti: Why don’t you ask for it?!
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, how can you ask for it?
Krishnamurti: You say, “Yes, this is the thing we need at the centre,” and you sit back and say, “Yes, we will create that.”
E. Lilliefelt: So, we want the “plus” to...
Krishnamurti: Ah, you have not asked for it!
E. Lilliefelt: Can you get the “plus” by asking?
Cadogan: By asking you?
Krishnamurti: Ah, ah, I am dead.
Cadogan: No, but we are asking you now. We are here, in the same position as the people coming to the centre.
Krishnamurti: Now wait. It all depends what you mean by asking.
Krishnamurti: What do you mean by asking?
E. Lilliefelt: We all know we need that “plus,” we want that “plus.”
Krishnamurti: I am not talking of “plus.” Apparently, you are all satisfied to create this thing that way. Right?
E. Lilliefelt: Without the “plus.”
Krishnamurti: You have never asked for the “plus.”
E. Lilliefelt: But we are here! Krishnaji, we’ve been struggling with that “plus.”
Zimbalist: Nobody has said they are satisfied yet. [Laughs] Anybody feeling satisfied?
Lee: Not really.
E. Lilliefelt: Everybody is dissatisfied!
Krishnamurti: Then ask it! Then ask it.
Zimbalist: I am asking!
Cadogan: You mean ask ourselves, not ask you.
Krishnamurti: Now, you ask it. [Laughs]
Zimbalist: What is missing from this?
E. Lilliefelt: How do we get it, how do we ask?
Krishnamurti: No, no, no. You are asking intellectually. After all, what you are saying is right. Tapes, all that, must exist. People come to discuss, then go away, talk to others, come back, or help others. I understand that movement. That you must have. So let us be clear on that point. Now I am asking myself if that is all I want. Perhaps we can create that fairly easily. Is that all you want?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, I don’t want you to die and leave us with just that.
Krishnamurti: No, no, no, it is all right, I am not going to die for another ten years. Let’s move, my lady.
E. Lilliefelt: But that isn’t all we want.
Krishnamurti: What is it you want?
Blau: I think we all want to go that step further, but we don’t know what that step is somehow.
Krishnamurti: Ah, ah. Sorry. I want something tremendous to happen there. Apart from all this.
E. Lilliefelt: I see you do.
Krishnamurti: I do not know what that tremendous thing is.
E. Lilliefelt: You know what it is.
Krishnamurti: Suppose I do not know what it is, but I want something tremendous when I come there, apart from all the things which we said, discussions, tapes and so on. I want something to happen to blast my mediocrity. I demand it. I must have it. I have come all that way just to discuss with a group of people who are committed to this? I have left my wife; she said, “Go to hell if you go there.” I’ve left everything and I come here and you discuss with me and give me... All the rest of it. You understand what I am saying?
E. Lilliefelt: I think you are expecting a great deal.
Krishnamurti: No, no. I want it!
Zimbalist: But people want this when they go to hear you, Krishnaji.
Krishnamurti: Oh, you people don’t...
Do you want it? As members of the Foundation, do you want that thing, that tremendous thing there? Because if you do not ask for the tremendous thing, the tremendous thing won’t happen. Full stop.
Wilhelm: Krishnaji, in the understanding of the teachings, is there not implied that my mediocrity is blasted away?
Krishnamurti: I understand, sir, but I want my mediocrity. I want something tremendous, the greatest thing, to happen at Ojai, at the centre. I do not know what it is. I have read the books. I have been through all that, but when I come here, I want a tremendous burst of something in my guts!
Cadogan: But, Krishnaji, surely from the way you are putting it, we are all asking this question wrongly.
Cadogan: Yes. We think we want this thing tremendously but you see that we do not.
Krishnamurti: No, you are not asking it. No, wait, no, please, not you. Just a minute. You are not creating a centre that will offer the tremendous thing.
Cadogan: Because before we can do that, we have to want this tremendous thing, and ask for it in the right way, which we are not doing.
Krishnamurti: Yes, you are not doing.
Cadogan: So can’t you help us now to ask this?
Krishnamurti: No, this is much deeper than that.
Cadogan: But isn’t that the beginning, the starting point?
Krishnamurti: We are doing it now, lady, we are doing it now.
Bohm: What is deeper? What is this “deeper”?
Krishnamurti: If I may go back to something; I don’t think the books, the video tapes, though they are excellent, are the way to get to the depth. They are necessary, they are all right; you must have all that. Having gone through all that will not give you, or help to have that tremendous depth.
Some other quality is necessary. What do you say? Do you understand? The books, video tape, television, everything has its place. It has its place. But the other thing cannot come through this, though you must have it.
Krishnamurti: You must be without fear. You have understood pleasure and sorrow, all the rest of it. You need something else.
Lee: Sir, you say it does not come through the books and the tapes?
Krishnamurti: No, no, no, no, I said you must have all that, sir.
Lee: Right, but you are suggesting it is a different channel, something else.
Krishnamurti: No, no, no. Look, sir. Having absolutely no fear, no attachment, ending sorrow, all that is necessary. But that is not the end.
Lee: And it is not the way, either.
Krishnamurti: Of course not. There is no way. I am trying to convey something and you are not getting it.
E. Lilliefelt: Do you mean compassion, Krishnaji?
Krishnamurti: No, I will not use these words.
T. Lilliefelt: You were saying we are not asking.
Krishnamurti: You are not. I am asking.
T. Lilliefelt: But we are all here, aren’t we?
Krishnamurti: I have asked. You have not asked. You have not asked. The fact is you have not asked.
T. Lilliefelt: The question comes – what else? You know.
Krishnamurti: I want the most beautiful, happy, good wife. You understand, sir? When you want it, you get it.
E. Lilliefelt: You do not get it by asking.
Krishnamurti: No, no, no, no. [Laughs] Probably by asking you would get an awful wife. [Laughter] Or an awful husband, whatever it is.
No, you are missing my point. I am not trying to convey it. [Long pause] Do you understand what I am talking about?
E. Lilliefelt: No, Krishnaji.
E. Lilliefelt: No.
E. Lilliefelt: Because I do not know what to ask. I do not know how to ask.
Krishnamurti: No, I didn’t say that. Do you understand what I am talking about? Not what to ask.
E. Lilliefelt: I feel you are trying to...
Krishnamurti: No. Do you understand?
E. Lilliefelt: No, I do not, Krishnaji.
Krishnamurti: I am not sure that you do not understand. You are trying to put it into words. Put away everything, the words “we do not ask,” and so on. But what is it he is talking about, feeling?
Zimbalist: Are you saying, Krishnaji, that one must go through all this without fear, but that is not the end in the sense that one is without all these evils. Then there is something entirely different of which you have spoken at various times, used the phrase “the other side of the river.” Is that what you are talking about? And you feel that we are not asking for that?
Krishnamurti: Partly. Would it be right to say that one is on this bank of the river? Because you have come to that bank, are you trying to get to the other bank? Are we trying that? Am I putting it all wrongly?
Simmons: Are you saying something like, that being free of fear and being free of attachment, all that, is like an exercise of the intellect; you understand it, but...
Krishnamurti: No, no. You are free. Not understand it.
Simmons: But as you do it, something happens within you so that you live it.
Krishnamurti: No, you end fear. Not as it happens. You have no fear. You have understood the whole business of pleasure. You have understood what it means to suffer, to end suffering. You end it, not play with it, and go on. Because that’s what he is talking about, if you have read the books, heard the tapes.
Bohm: You are pointing out that that is only the ground, the foundation. Something else is now ready to happen or able to happen.
Krishnamurti: You have laid the foundation. What then?
Blau: It is something so large that we cannot really conceive of it. The scope is too vast.
Krishnamurti: No, it is not to be conceived. It cannot be conceived.
Blau: We are intellectualizing about it now because we are trying to imagine what that could be. Obviously we can’t do that.
Krishnamurti: Ah, ah, you cannot imagine it, you can’t visualize it, you can’t play with it.
Blau: Exactly. That is why we are holding back now, I feel, because we are just on the brink of that.
Zimbalist: Are you saying that we do not want that?
Krishnamurti: No. Let’s stop this. I will go back; I will come back to it a little later. Don’t you want something tremendous to happen at the centre? Do you, actually?
E. Lilliefelt: Actually, otherwise...
Krishnamurti: No, no, please listen carefully. Do you want something great to happen there? Is that what you are boiling with? Is that what you will die for? For something tremendous, extraordinarily great to happen there? And at Rajghat? Is this what you want?
If you really, with your blood, with your guts, with all your being, want it, it will take place. Right? That is all. [Long pause]
You see, we have been talking all the time about books, tapes, hearing him talk, but we have never said, look, we must get the other. Do you follow what I am saying? Do you? I must have the other. I have been through all this. I have finished. I do not want even to discuss it with anyone. I have laid the foundation. I do not want to spend the rest of my life laying the foundation. To spend my whole life laying the foundation is mediocrity. But I have finished with it, I have done it. Then I say there is something much more that must take place.
I think we are answering our own easy questions. We are not asking the most difficult questions. [Long pause]
I come there. I have laid the foundation as far as I can, and I will not spend the rest of my life laying the foundation. I come there to finish the foundation by discussing with all of you, with the centre. I want to finish that. That is the reason I come there. I have worked at it. I do not want to spend the next fifty years, brick by brick by brick. I have finished with it. I come there to lay the foundation completely so that nothing can shake it. That is the reason I would come there. Then I would want also something more than that. That is obvious.
Will I “get it,” in quotes? Will “I”? – “I,” in quotes. When I lay the foundation, there is no I. I am just saying that I have laid the foundation. I have finished with it. I “want,” quotes, more than that. [Long pause]
So I say to myself, what is it I want? “Want” in the sense, please – understood? What is it I want? I have laid the foundation, and I come here, and with your help I finish with the foundation. And I want the door to burst open to something enormous, something which is not imaginable, which is not put into words, which cannot be painted, verbalized; something immeasurable. That I must have. So, that is the only thing I want, not all this. Because I can do all that; with your help. I have done it. And that is what the centre is meant for. You are asking the greatest thing.
E. Lilliefelt: Am I asking the impossible?
Krishnamurti: Impossible; you will have the impossible. But you do not ask it. Because we are all circumscribed by... You follow?
I think we had better stop, don’t you? After all, if you ask the architect to produce the impossible house...
E. Lilliefelt: You will probably get it. [Laughter]
Krishnamurti: You would. [Laughter]
14 March 1977
Krishnamurti: We were talking about the responsibility of the four Foundations: India, England, Canada and here. What is their responsibility now and when K dies? Is it merely to carry on the publications, see that the schools function properly, as much as possible around the teachings? One of these days we will discuss education. Will they maintain the purity of the teachings, if I may use that word purity, because there is a tendency always to corrupt, belittle, step down the teachings. That has always been the historical process. Other groups will want to, or desire, even now, to absorb not only the teachings but the Foundation. They want to enter into it; they want to utilize it for their own purposes.
I think we ought to be very clear from the beginning. I am going over briefly what we have discussed for Miss Wood to understand. [Cynthia Wood has joined the meeting.] We should be very careful from now on to find the right responsibility of the Foundations. As I said, there is a tendency to identify K and his teachings with a particular group, with particular ideas, beliefs, and so on. I think it should be very clearly understood that we do not belong to any group, under any circumstances, nor are these teachings to be absorbed by any group, society, sect. As far as I am concerned, that is so. Then what is the responsibility of the Foundations? As I said, is it merely to see to the schools and publications, or is it something much more?
That is what we have been discussing. I hope you [CW] will hear the tapes sometime, and then you will catch up on what we are talking about. We have been saying that it is something far more than merely to keep the teachings clear, uncorrupted, run the schools, publications and so on. It is much more than that. At least, I feel that. The “more” is that the members of the Foundations – if I may put it very briefly and quickly – should be centres of light, which means they are not personal but objective, not committed to various other groups, but are totally responsible to see that they themselves are, in themselves, lights. They are light unto themselves, not dependent on any person. We have been through all that.
Mrs Cadogan pointed out to me and Maria yesterday: “You have put on us a tremendous responsibility. You have put on us something totally new, which we did not expect till we came here.” Which is, when K is “gathered to his fathers,” will the Foundation members not only be together as one Foundation, all the four Foundations, but also undertake from now on, seriously, the fact that they have a responsibility which is much deeper, much wider? It is a responsibility, not to represent K, but to lay the foundations for themselves of the teachings, and therefore proceed much further and deeper. I feel that is imperative if the Foundations are to continue as they should. Right?
So, what is that responsibility? As human beings, members of these Foundations, will they be able, not only collectively but individually, to be utterly responsible and committed to these teachings? As human beings we are really collective. “Committed” in the sense that they are not committed to anything else but to this. Will they, during the next few years, lay the foundation, in the sense of all that we have discussed – the ending of fear, the ending of sorrow, the whole problem of love and compassion? The very laying of that foundation demands the other. How shall I put this? Will you help me in this? The very laying of that foundation involves the opening of the door for something far greater than merely being without fear and so on.
Is that possible? I think it is possible, because we are asking the most impossible thing. When it is impossible, it is possible.
Putting it briefly, that is where we left off the last time we met here, and previously. We are asking this of ourselves as human beings who have a responsibility for the Foundations, and for laying the foundation, not of any building, but for laying in oneself as a human being the foundation that eventually brings about deep compassion. Will they do it, and will they also, in the very doing of it, naturally allow themselves to open the door for something infinite? This is what we have been talking about. Is that possible? Not “possible;” it must take place.
Zimbalist: Sir, in the talks in the last few days, you have implied that it must be, if one has the passion and intensity, one-pointedness, that...
Krishnamurti: I would not call it one-pointedness.
Zimbalist: Well, you used the word want.
Krishnamurti: I used the word want in quotes. I have made it very clear; I put “want” in quotes, “desire” in quotes, “demand” in quotes, “ask for it” in quotes. The implication in those quotes is the urgency; the vitality of the movement.
What were you trying to say? Am I putting you off?
Zimbalist: Could we go into that in quotes part, the “wanting,” the “passion,” the whole thing? Because I think it is evident to everybody that in the past you have said one cannot arrive through will, through desire, through...
Krishnamurti: I still say that.
Zimbalist: And yet you are implying now a necessity, an urgency that will bring about the capacity. Am I right in understanding that?
Krishnamurti: Yes. I think application to the teachings brings its own capacity.
Zimbalist: What do you mean by application?
Krishnamurti: Don’t you know what it means? To apply, to give yourself over, to be completely involved in it.
Zimbalist: But many people could do that with a great deal of effort and will.
Krishnamurti: Oh, no, then you have lost it. From the very beginning, if there is effort, if there is an action of will, which is desire to achieve an end, purpose, a goal, to reach the infinite, whatever it is, then at the very beginning you have lost. If that exists, the first step is no step at all. But if it is understood from the very beginning that the first step is the last step, then everything is possible. It is possible!
Zimbalist: But, sir, perhaps many of us, many people, have understood that to some degree, but it seems to me that you are now demanding, urging something different. Not different in its essence but different in the way we have gone about moving toward that end.
Krishnamurti: I took the other day the example of the Buddha. Let’s now also make that point clear. I said, if I remember rightly, suppose some of you had heard him, or listened to him, or talked with him. Suppose. And I have heard him once or twice, and I come to you. I want you to tell me much more deeply than I have understood, in discussion, in dialogue, in talking over together, what he said.
There might have been misunderstanding that I assumed I was the Buddha. I would never do that. If that is in your mind, please wipe it out. All that I said was, if a man from Seattle listened to these teachings, and had been listening for a number of years, and came here to the centre wanting to know more about it, wanting to be more involved in it, he would want to have a dialogue with you, stay with you, have a quiet, peaceful time, without all the bustle of town, so that there is a deeper communication, both verbally and non-verbally.
So, now, let’s get to your point. You are saying, when one is not asking, in the sense demanding, wanting to possess, if the implications of all that are not there, and you have laid the foundation accurately and truly, then what? Then what must take place? Because, after all, if I have been a pupil of a great violinist – let’s move to that direction, it’s better than the Buddha [Laughs] – if I were a pupil of a great violinist or pianist, or anybody great, after having learned a great deal, spent many years with him, I would want to teach. I would want to convey the marvellous capacity of playing violin most beautifully. That would be my urge, not just to go and make money; that’s all too stupid. A man who wants to make money is not a musician, he’s just a money-maker, using his instrument to make money. But if I were imbued in music and the beauty of the violin, the beauty of the sound, having heard great violinists, I would want to become a teacher myself. I wonder if I am making myself clear.
T. Lilliefelt: Isn’t it really that there is no choice at all? There is no choice.
Krishnamurti: Choice in what sense?
T. Lilliefelt: We don’t choose, we don’t...
Krishnamurti: Sir, naturally. If I learnt to play the piano, or paint, I naturally become the teacher. I naturally say, “Look, play this way, for God’s sake. Don’t be amateurs, don’t be mediocre, don’t be amateurish, be involved in it.”
E. Lilliefelt: But those are great rare talents.
Krishnamurti: This is also...
E. Lilliefelt: It isn’t a routine thing.
Krishnamurti: Please, don’t carry the simile to death. Then you lose it.
Zimbalist: To this degree the simile, I think, is pertinent. The world is full of mediocre…
Zimbalist: ...Who have a use, but when you are in the domain which you are...
Krishnamurti: All right. The Foundation members cannot be mediocre, cannot be amateurish, cannot be playing with this thing. If you are a musician, you want to be the best, excellent. And you say, “By Jove, I’ve got it and I want to teach others.”
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, is there a difficulty in this in that we perhaps imagine a domain that we are not in and that we must make a giant leap into; and in some way that imagination is a detriment to us? What you are describing seems so natural and so easy.
Krishnamurti: I think it is.
Zimbalist: But you, at least in one’s imagination, are in that domain, therefore something flows out of it of itself.
Krishnamurti: No, I think we are missing the point. We do not have that capacity to play the violin. It is a special quality; you need a special genius for that kind of thing. I am using the word genius in the ordinary sense of the word. Are you asking, “How am, I who have not got it, to get it?” Put “get it,” “got it” in quotes. Is that it?
Zimbalist: Yes, in a sense. You have spoken of our having perhaps a certain understanding, not a...
Krishnamurti: I do not know. That is for you to say. I cannot say you have a certain understanding. It would be impudent on my part.
Zimbalist: No, but you say that if those of us who have been close to you have a certain degree of understanding, we should be responsible to convey that understanding to others. Now, what does that imply? How much understanding does one dare to convey, if it is only partial, or dare to try to convey?
Krishnamurti: I think if you have understood a part, you have understood the whole. If you have understood, say for example, the meaning of fear, all the implications, the whole of the structure, the nature of fear, which is thought, the ego, all that, if you have understood one thing completely, you have understood the rest. Sorry I am so emphatic.
S. Siddoo: Excuse me, musical genius is musical passion and desire, usually, in one degree or another.
Krishnamurti: I know.
S. Siddoo: Are you talking about a passion?
Krishnamurti: Without desire.
S. Siddoo: Yes, for this thing.
Krishnamurti: Yes. Passion without desire, without wanting to achieve an end. What is the difficulty? Would you have a dialogue; please don’t just sit...
Zimbalist: You have also said in the past that what one can do is see all these things in oneself. With the foundation – you’re now using the word – one can open the window to something.
Zimbalist: The breeze, the light, the whatever it is may or may not come in that window, and one must...
Krishnamurti: No, no, I would say if you have laid the foundation rightly and truly, the window will naturally open and something will take place. But without laying that, we are asking for something.
Zimbalist: You are now saying that will happen.
Krishnamurti: No, don’t even say those things! You see, you want a result.
Zimbalist: I see very clearly that wanting a goal is disastrous, is impossible.
Krishnamurti: Yes, all right.
Zimbalist: So, personally I am not asking to have a result.
Krishnamurti: What are you asking, if I may ask?
Zimbalist: Well, if I have understood correctly, in the past you seem to have said one tends to do all the things that are wrong. One clears that to lay the foundation. That is all one can do. Then perhaps something else will happen.
Krishnamurti: Do not take a lifetime to lay the foundation. That is awful.
Cadogan: I think also, Krishnaji, that you’re putting a sort of finer shade of meaning on this question of asking this impossible question than you have ever done before with us. I do not know whether you can go more into that, but I think what Mary feels is that we have always had this feeling in the past that there is the great danger of projecting an image from the conditioned.
Krishnamurti: If you do that you have lost it. You have lost everything.
Cadogan: Quite. But you do seem to be opening in these meetings something rather different from the way you have always gone into this before; a new possibility of – I do not want to use the word approach, but something a little different.
Krishnamurti: May I put it differently? I will try again. I’ve laid the foundation, and I’m very clear on that point, and I really mean it; I’m not deceiving myself, I’m not projecting hope into it, I’m not wanting anything. I have really gone into this thing very, very carefully. I have taken a couple of years, and that’s good enough. I am not going to spend my life laying the foundation, brick after brick and then nothing. So I have laid the foundation very carefully. It is a movement, it is not a dead thing that you lay a foundation and stop; there is a movement in it. That movement is demanding. I wonder if I can put it? That movement is forcing. That movement is forcing, like a volume of water, like a river. The more water there is behind it, the greater the flow.
See, we think in terms of laying the foundation and then waiting, asking. I am saying the very laying of that foundation brings about a movement, which is not personal, which is not egocentric, which is not sectarian, which is not belief. There is a tremendous movement in it.
Bohm: Does laying the foundation liberate this energy which...?
Krishnamurti: That is right, sir.
Kishbaugh: And this movement cannot be named.
Krishnamurti: Obviously not. You cannot learn it from me or from anybody.
Kishbaugh: No, but I sometimes think that our problem is that we seek to find out where we are going. We want to name this, which is not nameable.
Krishnamurti: Then you are going up the wrong tree. I think it has become clear. That is, in laying the foundation don’t take too long, because you are wasting energy then. If I say, “Well, it will take a long time for me to lay the foundation, I’ll go step by step,” you are wasting energy. You follow what I mean? If you compress it then you have that momentum, that energy, that movement.
Blau: “Laying the foundation” has some similarity with the growth of an infant? At a certain time it has to be born; there is no denying that moment of birth; you can’t stop it. There is nothing one can do to stop that. And the moment of birth is a continuation of the inner growth, and the moment of birth might be...
Krishnamurti: But the difficulty with that simile and with human beings is that growth implies taking a long time to grow.
Blau: Well, then it’s probably not a very good simile. I was just trying to express the inevitability of that moment of birth.
Krishnamurti: No, there is a danger of saying that inevitably it will happen; “I will it take it slowly and inevitably everything...” You know.
J. Siddoo: Sometime you have said, Krishnaji, that understanding comes in a flash.
J. Siddoo: Now, is that total understanding of everything?
Krishnamurti: No, no, I just now said, in understanding fear, I watch my fears, the root of fear, and by going into it I have understood its whole movement. I see the whole movement. I see how it works, I see the nature of it, the consistency of it, the smell. So, because I have given a great deal of attention to that one thing, to fear, I see the whole thing open: fear, pleasure, the understanding of pleasure, the ending of sorrow, love, compassion. I see it all through one thing. But we think understanding is little by little.
I have said it.
Blau: Well, sir, aren’t you saying then that we actually have not laid the foundation? Because if we had truly established that, we would...
Krishnamurti: Then a discussion would take place at a different level, either verbally or non-verbally. There would be no deception, illusion, when there is non-verbal communication. There is deception and illusion verbally, you see: I do not quite understand what you are talking about, you do not understand what I am talking about, so there is a slight twist to all that. But if we, both understand the same thing at the same time at the same level then there is no distortion.
Krishnamurti: So where are we now? K is no longer here, from tomorrow. Actually what would happen? In India, Brockwood, here, Canada, what would happen? I think we ought to act as though that is so from now. You understand? Not wait till the poor chap dies. So can we act, think together, feel, understand together as though he is dead and buried; not buried, burned, incinerated, put away? What will you do? Let’s proceed from there.
You have the problems of the centre. Right? Education, publications, all the minor things we can easily settle, but what will you do about the quality of the centre, the fire of the centre, the peace of the centre, the strength of the centre, the vitality, the flame? Without depending on any director, because in this process there is no director; we are all together in this. What will you do? Please go on. Avanti.
Cadogan: I think one thing that seems to be emerging in these discussions is that many of us are rather afraid of changing our understanding of the connection between your life and your teaching in relationship to the centres and how we will continue this.
Krishnamurti: Oh, I see. I see. Are you saying your problem is whether there is a difference between your daily life and the teaching?
Cadogan: Well, this is a key question.
Krishnamurti: Between the person and the teaching, between his looks, his behaviour, all that, and the teaching.
Cadogan: The whole thing.
Krishnamurti: The whole thing. There has been a tendency to divide the two.
Cadogan: Because we did not want to worship or make...
Krishnamurti: No, not only that. It began when K said something about which the people around him said, “No, what you are saying is wrong,” because they were committed to authority. I have been through all this. So I said, no authority in the spiritual sense of that word, no priests, and so on. With a doctor, there is authority; and I learn violin from an authority. We are not talking of that kind of authority. So when I began in 1923, ’24, ’25, I said no authority. The people around me who were top of the authority [Laughs] then said, “That is K speaking, when he said no authority, and when the Teacher speaks he will say something entirely different.”
Cadogan: I see what you are saying, that they divided the power that comes through as separate from you.
Krishnamurti: Yes. That is apostolic succession in a different way, the guru and all that, in a different way. Rajagopal and others have said, “K is a normal man, but when he teaches he is a different man.” This game has been played endlessly for the last fifty years.
So what are you asking? In the Centre, what is your relationship to a man who says, “Now, tell me about K, apart from the teaching;” or one who comes and says, “I’m not interested in K; for God’s sake put him out. I am interested in the teaching”?
Cadogan: Yes, it’s the whole question of the relationship between the life and the teaching, how much they are integral.
Krishnamurti: Now please answer it. I am putting it to you. I am dead.
Cadogan: Yes, well, you are dead but you have brought this into a new focus for us at these meetings. Always there has been this feeling of the danger of making a church.
Krishnamurti: Apart from that, I am asking a question now. How will you answer this question? I come from Seattle and I say, “Look, tell me all about him. I’m really interested a little bit in the teachings, but tell me, I want to know the personal thing.” How will you answer that? Wait a minute. And how will you answer the man who says, “Look, I am not interested in the person. Nice or pleasant, I am not interested, but I’m deeply interested in the teaching.” How will you answer these two people?
Wilhelm: Sir, they are both the same question.
Krishnamurti: Are they? I come to you from Seattle, and I say, “Please tell me, I am very interested in this person.” I am slightly interested in the teaching. I have followed it, I have read it, but I also want to know very deeply what he was like as a person. How would you answer him?
Zimbalist: I would want to know why he wants to know that.
Krishnamurti: You are putting me off.
Zimbalist: It may be a step towards: “Oh, well then he was a good man, so I’ll listen.”
Krishnamurti: I want to know how you will answer it!
Zimbalist: I would inquire why he wanted to know about the person.
Krishnamurti: I want to know. It is your business.
Zimbalist: But why? No, because if a person is looking up your credentials, as it were, as a human being, in order to see if he should pay attention to the teachings, this is making an authority out of you.
Krishnamurti: No. I want to know K’s feeling. I want to find out what he looked like. This is a normal demand.
E. Lilliefelt: How can you possibly separate it, any more than you could separate it in any of us? You cannot separate our understanding of the teaching from ourselves.
Krishnamurti: Wait a minute, be very careful. Van Gogh was an abnormal man mentally, but a marvellous painter.
Bohm: All right. You are saying we have to say whether there was a consistency in your life and in what you are saying.
Krishnamurti: Yes, and all the rest of it. Was his teaching separate from his life? Was he crooked, was he mentally deranged, although when he spoke, everything was marvellous?
Simmons: I think it is a redundant question.
Krishnamurti: It is not redundant.
Bohm: There are people who are very good at certain points, like Cezanne or Van Gogh. At other points they may be very confused.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, that is different, when you are putting out a painting or playing a...
Krishnamurti: No, no, no, no, that is a simile. Please don’t ruin the simile. Do I lead a crooked life, say one thing and do another? Am I confused inwardly; but when I talk, something happens?
Bohm: You might be inspired, you see.
Krishnamurti: Yes, inspired. Go into it. If you want to, go into the Lord Maitreya, the whole idea of the Hindus that there is a manifestation of the greatest; when that takes place and he speaks, that comes out. But when that is gone, he is just a poor little blighter round the corner. Sorry. I do not think you are facing the problem.
Simmons: But you have faced the problem.
Krishnamurti: I said I am gone, dead.
Cadogan: But you are not gone and dead. The words that you have said have already been spoken, and people can see for themselves.
Krishnamurti: Now, how will you answer this man? Oh my Lordy! You are missing my point.
Zimbalist: He might have spoken but not been really such a nice person behind it.
Bohm: It was the spirit that spoke through him.
Blau: Yes, but obviously the man and the teacher and the teaching are one thing. There is no separation there.
Krishnamurti: Wait a minute. The teacher may be... You do not live with him. You do not watch him every minute. He may go to his room and smoke, drink, and carry on with girls or boys. You are not facing the issue. This is a very important question. You are going to be faced with it.
Cadogan: It also brings in this extraordinary question, which you just raised, that with many people who have a sort of religious quest there seems to be the feeling that there is a kind of takeover from on high, of the mental process of the human organism. You are making the distinction between that and the starting point which, maybe, can be a starting point for all of us.
Krishnamurti: I would want to know if he was authentic. So I would come to Mary Zimbalist, and say, “You have known him, you watched over him, you have cooked for him, washed dishes, he helped you, ironed this, made beds, this and that. He talked a great deal about compassion. Was he like that?”
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, are you saying to us that, say in the field of music or painting or whatever, a person’s character can be at great variance with their ability?
Krishnamurti: That is just what I am saying.
Zimbalist: But in this field, which is the essential thing of life, the religious, the truth of life, there cannot be a division between...
Krishnamurti: I agree, but this man wants to know, an ordinary man!
E. Lilliefelt: We can say yes or no; what does it mean to that man?
Kishbaugh: Now the problem is that there are gurus everywhere, and there are movements going on all over the world. And if you look at them, they are chasing women or doing all of these other things behind the scenes, many of them. The man who comes to see us wants to know how this differs from that.
Kishbaugh: Did he live as he spoke? That is a genuine question. He doesn’t know; he is trying to separate all of these things. We do not have to name them but you can see them if you push far enough.
Tettemer: He has named them all the way down the line in his life, in everything he does, in everything he said.
Tettemer: He has.
Kishbaugh: Yes, but this man doesn’t know that.
Bohm: Nobody knows.
E. Lilliefelt: We have to answer.
Krishnamurti: Sir, I am asking you how you will answer him.
Kishbaugh: That is the question.
Simmons: We would tell him.
Krishnamurti: That is all. He would say to Mary Zimbalist or Mrs D, “You have seen him practically every day for the last ten years, did he live actually according to what he said?” And if you say, “Yes, I think so...” [Laughter]
Wilhelm: I think it is not as easy as that. If we tell him, “Yes, it is all right, he was one thing,” why will that man believe what we are saying?
Simmons: I think it is impossible to ask that question.
Krishnamurti: You are missing the point, Mrs D. Look, I have seen guru so-and-so. He talks about the most marvellous blah, and I say, “For God’s sake! This is nonsense,” and I walk away.
Simmons: Of course one would have walked away. When we first started Brockwood, that was the one thing that frightened me. I thought, if you draw him close, will this be somebody just like everybody else?
Krishnamurti: You find out.
Simmons: Yes. He has to find out by coming in with it.
Krishnamurti: So you have to show him. For God’s sake, you have to show the man that he was not leading a double life. Full stop. Or he was. So you have to tell him that. That is my whole point.
Wilhelm: Well, I think we ourselves have not to lead a double life so that the man can see that what you are saying is accurate and true.
Krishnamurti: Look, sir, this is a question I am asking you. How will you answer these questions? That is all.
Next point is, K is gone, what will you do? The centre.
Bohm: What about this other man who is only interested in the teachings?
Krishnamurti: Yes. I, personally, would say, “Sorry, I’m not interested in the person. I am absolutely interested in the teaching. I want only that, not all the things round it.”
Wood: Excuse me, is it possible then to say to the man from Seattle who wants to know about you, personally, “You can find the man through the teachings”?
Krishnamurti: Yes. You have an answer. Or you say, “Sorry, I have known him talking publicly, I have seen him eating, but I really don’t know.”
Wood: So here is this book.
Krishnamurti: Book. You can answer anything you want but you must be clear. That is my point.
So, what will you do with the man who says, “I am not interested in the person; I am not a devotee, I am not a follower, I am not a worshiper, and I am only concerned with the teachings.” How will you meet him? Because you may have personal affection for him, and you project that into the teachings.
Cadogan: I think the point you made yesterday was very necessary. Because I have always been, in a way, a person who felt the teachings stood alone. When we talked yesterday, you made the point very strongly that this was not really quite true. Because, I said, people read Krishnaji’s books and they have never met him, but even so there are hundreds and thousands of people all over the world whose lives have changed fundamentally without any personal meeting or contact. Therefore, I thought, in a sense, the life and the teachings did not have to be put over together. But you made the point very clearly that all through history there have been the teachers, the saints, the mystics saying, “Judge me not by how I live, but only by what I say,” and then of course this leaves a great margin for speculation and error. You have now stressed that, as well as studying the teachings, we need to draw attention to the man, Krishnamurti, as their living embodiment.
Krishnamurti: You know, the Catholics have said that from the beginning they represent Christ, or whatever it is, so don’t judge by the way we live.
Cadogan: Well, my point always was that the teaching stood by its own strengths because we tested it ourselves and tried it.
Krishnamurti: Of course, of course.
Cadogan: Therefore the life, in a sense, wasn’t necessary to be passed on. But from what you have been saying recently I get a different sense that, as you said, we do have to bring through to people the perfume of the life as well as the teaching.
Krishnamurti: That is all, that is all.
Kishbaugh: They are not separable; that is the point.
E. Lilliefelt: But that’s why you can’t separate the teaching in ourselves either, from ourselves. It applies to us.
Krishnamurti: That is all. You have answered the question. By my pushing you, you have answered it now. Have you understood what you have answered? What have you answered?
E. Lilliefelt: It seems to me that we are the ones who are the teachings, so it doesn’t make any difference whether you are here or whether you are not here, and that is the only thing that we can pass on.
Krishnamurti: So what happens then? If you are the teaching, you are imbued with it, what happens? You are the teacher.
T. Lilliefelt: Then you are not a fake.
Krishnamurti: You are not a fake.
T. Lilliefelt: That is right.
E. Lilliefelt: It could be very easily faked.
Krishnamurti: Of course.
E. Lilliefelt: That is the essence of it.
Krishnamurti: That is why we must lay the foundation.
So, now come back, let’s come back. What will you do with the centre if K is not here anymore from tomorrow? We have agreed, all of us, that there must be a place for discussion, a place to meet, and a place where people can come, be quiet, discuss, rest, not be involved in all the noise of the world. Right? Will you provide all that? In India, Brockwood, here and Canada. Because you are responsible for this. Right? You have undertaken it; you are responsible. You are all responsible.
Wood: What happens after us?
Krishnamurti: You have to find young people. It is important to have young people in the Foundation, in India, England, here. Keep the ball rolling, otherwise it dies. So can you provide this thing that we started out with? A place for discussion, having a dialogue. Please proceed.
I come from Seattle. There you are, a group of you at the centre. I am fairly intelligent. Don’t treat me like an immature businessman or immature traveller, seeking and shopping. I have come from Seattle; I want you to discuss with me. I want to discuss with you, go into a dialogue deeply about fear. Not therapeutically – I want to end fear. I see the importance of that. By coming here, by talking with you, I hope to end it. And also at the same time I want to have a place where I can rest, be quiet. Because out of that quietness something may happen to me, being there, discussing, in the Quiet Room by myself, suddenly I may have an insight into the whole thing.
Go on, sirs, please, what will you do? What will you do? You two are responsible for the Foundation in England, what will you do?
E. Lilliefelt: We have been very dependent on you.
Krishnamurti: That is just it. And Krishnamurti is dead.
Wood: Would it be possible to give this person something to read about fear?
Krishnamurti: Yes, I read it, I have read it. I have listened to the tapes.
Wood: And then discuss together?
Krishnamurti: Yes, that is what I want. I want to meet you all at Ojai. I want to spend some time, three weeks, whatever you all agree, and during those three weeks I want to end fear. I do not want at the end of it to carry fear home. I want to end it. I come there after having read, and heard the tapes, video, television, all the rest of that. I come here from Seattle and say, “Look, please, have a dialogue with me because I want to end fear.”
Wood: Suppose we misrepresent you on this subject of fear.
Krishnamurti: No, Krishnamurti is not there. You are responsible. You are responsible to help me to end fear. I come very determined. I am very ardent, businesslike about it. I do not want to play around. I have been to several other cranky places, and they play with me. I do not want to play with it anymore. I have come here with a very deep intention of ending my fear, ending fear in myself. And when I come here, first I want quiet. I want to feel that around me everything is quiet, people are not quarrelling amongst themselves and jealous and so on. I want that. And also I want a place where I can go out into the garden, sit quietly under a tree. But when I meet you all at the centre I want tension created so that you drive me to understand it. You drive me, help me, put me in a corner, bring a crisis in my life.
My intention is to be free of fear. How will you deal with it? Will you say, “Sorry, I can’t help you to end fear, but we can have a dialogue about it; I have not ended my fear, therefore let us go into it, both of us, feel the urgency of ending fear, so we’ll help each other to end fear.” Would you say that? So there is no authority. I have not ended my fear; you have not ended fear. By coming together, sitting quietly, discussing, having a dialogue very, very deeply every day or every other day, we may help each other to dissolve it. If you did that, I would come from Seattle or from Jamaica.
Then you have something. Then I know I am dealing with honest people, not a phony crowd. And I come here. At the end of three weeks I must be out of it. So my urgency will make you urgent also. It will create an urgency in you. If I am dependent, I come there and say, “Yes, I know I am dependent. I have done everything I can.” I am dependent on my wife or whatever it is, belief, or something, and I want to end it.
There are also much more complex problems. I want to understand death, meditation. I am a fairly serious man, therefore I don’t try TM [Transcendental Meditation] and all that. I have studied a little bit of Zen, Buddhism, meditation, the various Hindu meditations. And I have read K about meditation; he is saying something totally different, so I come here. Will you help me to understand that meditation?
I can go on like this, please. Otherwise the centre becomes rather silly. It is not worth it.
E. Lilliefelt: Krishnaji, you have spent your whole long lifetime at this.
Krishnamurti: At what?
E. Lilliefelt: At talking to people, talking to groups, talking to individuals, talking as you are today with us; and suddenly you are gone and we are faced with this and have to do it in three weeks.
Krishnamurti: So, do it. Do it! You have had ten years, twelve years, fifteen years.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, but I have had fifteen years working with myself and listening to you.
Krishnamurti: Yes, but you have had fifteen years.
Blau: But I would say you have said it so much better. You have done it so much. We have all these marvellous tapes, we have all these films.
Krishnamurti: I come here. Otherwise what is the point of a centre? I come here from Seattle. My intention is very serious. I come to you as a group, and I want to go into this. And you say, “Please, let’s listen to a tape.” Yes, all right, I will listen to a tape. But I say, “Now let’s discuss it, you and I. I want a dialogue, I want to find out.”
Lee: You are asking us to do it now, while you are alive.
Krishnamurti: That is what it is. I say I have ten years, for God’s sake use me! It may be two years or it may be five years, ten years, or next week.
E. Lilliefelt: We are the men from Seattle.
E. Lilliefelt: Ask the questions. [Long pause]
Krishnamurti: The father is dead, or the mother is dead. Now you have to grow up and say, “Look, let’s face this.” This problem is going to arise.
Wood: Are we by any chance already, to a certain degree, doing some of this in the discussions and meetings that we have with people on the outside who are now inquiring from us about your work?
Krishnamurti: Probably. Yes, surely. But this becomes much more intense, much more demanding. This demands your highest intelligence. I, from Seattle, may be very strong. I have understood K. I may push you out. There is a danger of that. I say, “I have understood better. Why the hell are you here? I am going to be here.” At first I may be marvellous, but inside the worm is there, for power, position and all the rest of the nonsense.
Cadogan: You just said, use you. You just said a few minutes ago, use you.
Krishnamurti: You use me. Yes, I purposely used that word.
Cadogan: We do not ever seem able to tap – if I could put it crudely – this power, this energy. You are trying to find a way of making us...
Krishnamurti: May I tell you something? Will you listen? You have a deep well, full of water. Do not go to it with a little bucket, or a terracotta bucket that breaks very quickly. Please, we have come to the point where K says, “For God’s sake use him, learn, get everything you can out of him. You have a very short time.”
E. Lilliefelt: Well, in order to do that, the student has to be able to...
Krishnamurti: Do it! Do it! In doing it you get the capacity. But sitting back and saying, “We must have capacity first, then we’ll do it...”
Blau: But also, sir, we do not want to impose upon your time. I feel that very strongly.
Krishnamurti: I am saying use me. It is the responsibility of the Foundations to suck that fellow dry. Sorry.
I think there is a famous story of Ananda and the Buddha. Isn’t there? Ananda comes and says to the Buddha, “Lord, you are dying, please stay with us longer.” And Buddha says, “I wish you had asked me ten years ago.” Isn’t there a story something like that? Yes. Please, I am not comparing myself, I am just saying. [Laughter]
Blau: Krishnaji, I do not know how.
Krishnamurti: Ah, you know how. You have already blocked yourself. You say, “I don’t know.”
Blau: I cannot go to David and ask him a question about physics because I don’t know anything about physics.
Krishnamurti: But you do know about fear.
Wood: Let’s find out about physics.
Krishnamurti: Exactly. You do know, because you have listened to this chap for ten years. This is not the first day you have listened to him.
Burnier: That very thing might make us have an image of him as an Einstein and ourselves as in an elementary class, and therefore we don’t know what to ask him.
Krishnamurti: You know, these similes are so deadly. Einstein could not give you what he had. He could tell you the theories, and so on, but we are dealing with something entirely different here. I would rather avoid all these similes. I am doing it now. You have listened to this man for ten years or more; you know what it is about. You cannot say, “I don’t know, I’d like to begin again.” You know what he is talking about. He is saying, “For God’s sake, don’t waste your life; there he is, draw everything that you want out of him; he’s got lots more.”
So let’s come back. There is the centre. What will you do? K is not there. You have been dependent on him. He says good morning, goodbye and is off. So what will you do? A man from Seattle comes. You have to meet him, his challenges, his demands, his questions. You cannot say, “Well, I don’t know. Read the books.” He can do that in Seattle. He does not have to come all the way down here. So, sirs, please...
If you realize that you have been dependent on K, and K says he is dead, what will you do? It is your responsibility. He left the baby with you. Do not run that simile to death either.
Tettemer: But after all, your whole teaching is in the books, isn’t it?
Tettemer: Well, what does he really need?
Krishnamurti: He wants to meet people who have also read a great deal about K, and he wants to have a dialogue to see if he can end something. He realizes he can’t do it by himself there in Seattle. His wife, children, company, or whatever the blasted thing is, are a nuisance.
Wood: But what right have we to think that we can end it for this person?
Krishnamurti: No. In discussing, he and you may end it, because you have listened, studied, for years and years, and he has heard him once or twice on tapes. He wants to have a living dialogue with somebody. Here there is a group of people. He wants to come here. He wants to have a discussion with them. And you help each other in ending that thing.
E. Lilliefelt: Can we go into these discussions with you, now, as if you were the man from Seattle?
Krishnamurti: Yes, do it if you want to.
Zimbalist: We are from Seattle.
Krishnamurti: Ah, you are not from Seattle. You are already here. For God’s sake!
Tettemer: The very fact that two people share is very important and significant.
Krishnamurti: Yes. The people here have said this is a centre for dialogue with people who are interested in the teaching, who want to understand it, live it. So I have heard that, you have sent me a letter about it, and I come there and I want this. And I want to end it, not go back and carry on till I die. My urgency to end it, not go on with it makes you intense too. And you have to create. If I come from Seattle and I’m not so intense, but you are, you create that intensity in me. Right?
Bohm: That is true.
Krishnamurti: Then it is a living thing. You follow?
Tettemer: Then it does not matter whether you are an Einstein or not.
Krishnamurti: Einstein does not enter into this. Poor chap, leave him alone. [Laughs]
Zimbalist: There is an enormous responsibility. Krishnamurti is gone. Those who have known him will ask if his teaching was something that people could really change through. And they will look at those who have been close to you, who have been interested in the teaching to see what effect it has had. This is human nature. It is very dangerous but it is going to happen.
Krishnamurti: Oh, it is going to happen, of course, so you meet it. How will you meet it?
Zimbalist: Well, you meet it without assertion. You meet it just by what you have been describing.
Krishnamurti: How will you meet it when I come expecting that you people are holy people, saints and all the rest of it? I come, and I say, “Look, help me.” I have an image of you. I have not only an image of K, but also an image of all of you. So you destroy the image first; you say, “Look, come off it!”
E. Lilliefelt: So you destroy the image and then this fellow says, “Well, if you people, after all these years, do not know any more than that...”
Krishnamurti: Oh, no. No, it is up to you. It is up to you. You are trying to dodge it.
Cadogan: Krishnaji, you say there is much more to come that no one has tapped, and it seems that even perhaps more urgent than discussing the adult centre and what will happen when you are gone, we should give attention to this. Because Ruth said just now that everything was in the books, but you’ve just said everything is not in the books.
Cadogan: And this demands, obviously, some dialogue. You cannot just put it on tape or anything. I mean, something has got to be tapped.
Krishnamurti: Yes, it is for you to do it.
Cadogan: While we are with you?
Krishnamurti: He says don’t come with a little bucket. He says do not come with a terracotta bucket; it looks nice and pleasant but with one bang it’s finished. So are you coming with a real, wide, deep bucket?
Cadogan: Bottomless bucket.
Krishnamurti: You know, the capacity to investigate deeply. Have you?
Cadogan: I haven’t done.
Krishnamurti: So do you have the capacity now? Capacity in the sense, the urgency. Do you say, “Look, I want to find out. I want to go into it much more deeply.”
Blau: It is like going into unknown territory.
Krishnamurti: You are blocking yourself. I have said, look, do not go to the well with a small bucket. So what do you do? You hear a statement from K. What do you do with that statement? Go on, what do you do? First you look to see if you have a small bucket. Right?
Simmons: I have a big bucket.
Krishnamurti: Have you got a small bucket? Have you? Please.
E. Lilliefelt: Yes, very likely, otherwise...
Krishnamurti: No, don’t... Stick to something. Have you? Answer it; you will see the next thing. Well, have you?
Blau: Yes, I can say that I have.
S. Siddoo: Yes, I think so, a small bucket, then perhaps the possibility of a bigger bucket.
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, we each try to measure our bucket. We immediately try to examine what we know.
Krishnamurti: You see what you are doing? You see what you have done? No, wait! See what you have done? You are still caught in measurement.
Wood: But your question about the small bucket is a measurement also, no?
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes. The moment you say, “I am aware...”
Look, I come to you. You are the well. I come to you and you tell me, “Don’t put your little bucket in this deep water.” And I first see if I have a little bucket. In looking at it, I suddenly see, “My God, I’m caught in the measurement of large and small.” Right? Therefore, I drop that measurement. I drop the measurement. What takes place? If I have no measurement, what has happened? Measurement means comparison, imitation, conformity. I have none of that. Have you? Please, have you?
E. Lilliefelt: No bucket.
Krishnamurti: Ah, no. He has said much further. No bucket means no measurement.
T. Lilliefelt: We don’t measure anymore; it’s a sea.
Krishnamurti: No! You are missing the whole...
T. Lilliefelt: That is a comparison.
Krishnamurti: If you have no small bucket, it means you are not comparing anymore. Comparing: large, small: “I must be that;” comparing yourself with somebody, the whole process of comparison. In that is also implied no imitation.
E. Lilliefelt: I can’t be you.
Krishnamurti: No imitation. That means no conformity. No conformity. Right? Are you doing it?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, then I am back on myself.
Krishnamurti: No. He says to you, come to the well; don’t come with a small vessel. He has already put you a negative question. Do not come with a small bucket. And you say, “My God, how am I to get a large bucket?” So you are already caught.
Go on. What?
E. Lilliefelt: Kick the bucket!
Krishnamurti: Kick the bucket. Yes, kick the bucket.
E. Lilliefelt: But you make this very enticing statement: don’t come with a small bucket because the water is deep, and so important.
Krishnamurti: You only catch the very surface of the water.
E. Lilliefelt: That is right, so you want a big bucket to get more of the water.
Krishnamurti: You compare it, I do not. The moment he says, “Don’t come to the well with a small bucket,” I see what he is saying, the truth of that. “No buckets at all,” that is what he’s saying. And I say, “My God! Why do I go with a bucket at all?” What is implied in that?
Zimbalist: It has implied that I want something partial.
Krishnamurti: No, no. No, please just listen to it. You are not listening to the question. He says, do not come to the well with a bucket, small bucket, small vessel, whatever.
S. Siddoo: Therefore it is not something that can be measured.
Blau: Come to the well with an open heart.
Krishnamurti: It is for you to answer. You have to think about it, you have to go inside it. There may be no well, there may be no bucket. After all, I must go to it completely empty. I am the bucket, I am the little mediocre, stupid little bucket, and when he says that to me, I have understood it, I have seen, I have an insight, instantly. I must come completely empty, empty of everything, emptying my consciousness of everything. Isn’t it so? I am doing it all.
[Laughs] I am dead. You are not doing anything.
E. Lilliefelt: Not yet.
Krishnamurti: So the problem is emptying my consciousness: my education, my activity, my desires, everything. The vessel is already full, however small, however big; and I won’t ask how to empty it because that’s too silly. I have that problem which I have discovered for myself. I have an insight into it, emptying my consciousness of everything; emptying consciousness, which is knowledge. [Long pause]
I want to do it within three weeks. I am not going to take the rest of my life to empty it. That is why I have come from Seattle, to meet you all, knowing that you are not emptying; I am not a fool. So I hope when I come here that we can have a dialogue about it. When he says, “Don’t come with a small bucket,” he is saying an enormous truth, which means empty your consciousness of everything. It is too tremendous. I do not understand it, so I come here. I come to Ojai, to the Centre. I have a rest, am quiet, all that, and when I meet you, I am afire with it. You are here to meet me, have a dialogue. Have a dialogue, sir, now. I am the Seattle man.
Wilhelm: Is there a well?
Krishnamurti: Ah, no, no. I have seen that truth, I have heard him say, “Don’t come to the well with a small bucket.” I have thought about it. I have gone into it. I have an insight into it which is: Empty your consciousness of knowledge, because that is the small vessel. So I have come with that. I have given myself three weeks only; I will not allow this thing to go on for more than that because I have other things to do. Have a dialogue with me now. I am the man from Seattle. He says, “Let’s discuss, dialogue about emptying consciousness, consciousness being knowledge.” Go on, sir, there you are. How do you start? Oh, come on, I am doing it all. I am dead! [Laughs] For God’s sake!
Bohm: We have to begin with the questioning of the observer. I am here. Who is going to empty? I am the observer. I begin with the fact that there is an observer. As I look, I feel there is an observer present in consciousness.
Krishnamurti: I do not quite follow.
Bohm: Well, I say that I want to empty my consciousness.
Krishnamurti: No, no, I have understood what that statement means.
Bohm: Yes, that consciousness has to be emptied.
Bohm: Right. So it has to empty itself.
Krishnamurti: It has to be emptied. I come to you to discuss with you. What am I to do?
Burnier: It is easy to realize the need to empty oneself of knowledge, as Christians...
Krishnamurti: Knowledge: Christian, Hindu, Theosophist, a dozen things, belief, everything.
Burnier: But knowledge in the small things, which is naming of...
Krishnamurti: Knowledge. Knowledge is implied in naming.
Burnier: That is much more difficult.
Krishnamurti: No, no, no. No, Radhaji, look at it round the other way. Begin with the most important thing, not the small things. If you see the big, then the thing is gone. If you start with the little things, you will never get the big thing. I am putting this quickly.
So, I have come here from Seattle. I have understood the truth, truth being emptying, and so on. I come to you to discuss with you. Help me. You have heard that statement. If you have a different insight into it, you have to tell me, “You’re wrong, old boy, it means this.” Insight cannot be varied, different, but suppose you see something which I don’t.
Zimbalist: You have to ask what he has seen.
Krishnamurti: Do it, do it! I am here!
Zimbalist: What does this mean to you? What does this mean, this statement?
Krishnamurti: It means to me, don’t come with all the burdens of your life.
Zimbalist: And what burdens are you bringing?
Krishnamurti: I, the man from Seattle, am bringing my worries, my income tax; I am bringing my name, my family, I am bringing my beliefs. Coming here I am bringing everything I am.
Zimbalist: But you say you see a truth in this.
Krishnamurti: I see the truth. Krishnamurti means empty the thing, come naked, come empty, come with hands that are never full.
Zimbalist: Seeing this, it apparently has not undone...
Krishnamurti: Please, you haven’t... You don’t put that onto me.
Zimbalist: But you just told me that.
Krishnamurti: I told you I have understood what he means. I have not been able to get out of it.
Zimbalist: Well, that is the point I want to discuss.
Krishnamurti: Yes, I have not been able to get out of it. I do not quite understand the depth of that thing he is talking about, so I come here in the hope that in the dialogue I will capture something. Go on. If you say, “Have you forgotten? Empty your name.” I say, “All right, I don’t care about my name.”
Bohm: It has to be empty of all pleasure.
Krishnamurti: Yes, tell me. What does it mean? Not pleasure. Does that mean I must get rid of looking at that light on the leaves, the shadows, the beauty of that colour? That is a delight, that is a marvellous thing. You are asking me to get rid of my pleasure? I must close my eyes to it?
Bohm: No. To get rid of it they have to be empty of the pleasure which comes from consciousness.
Krishnamurti: Go into it.
Zimbalist: The dependence on pleasure.
Krishnamurti: You are throwing things at me. I am the man from Seattle. I am not going to be caught by your tricks.
Wilhelm: This is a very unreal situation.
Krishnamurti: I am doing it.
16 March 1977
Krishnamurti: Where do we start today?
Bohm: Do you think we could perhaps discuss something a little different from before? When we made the tapes with David Shainberg, we ended up discussing the sacred, and I have been considering that for a while.
Bohm: The sacred. It occurred to me that if we could start from something like that, we might not get into some of the tangles that we get into when we start from the other side.
Krishnamurti: From the other side, yes. [Laughs] From the right of the brain.
Bohm: I do not know which side is best, but probably no side.
Krishnamurti: How do we approach this?
Bohm: I was observing that I think the deepest hurt comes when there is a feeling that some sort of sacred trust has been betrayed. I think every child feels that with his parents. And also guilt comes, in the sense that you have done it yourself. So in one sense we get confused about this question very early, in the sense that we identify the sacred with some particular thing, obligation or relationship, like friendship. And as a result people get very badly hurt, because they are giving a supreme importance to that thing.
Krishnamurti: Aha. Are you saying, sir, that as mankind grew into modern civilization where everything is material, man has really betrayed the original sacredness, if there was such thing?
Bohm: It may feel that way.
Krishnamurti: And that is one of the deep causes of guilt.
Bohm: Yes, guilt. And also, when you feel that somebody has betrayed some relation that you regard as sacred, it may cause hurt.
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes. So, how do we approach this question in relation to the Foundations? I want to relate it to that. Are we saying, sir, that if we feel something is sacred, holy, and the Foundations are responsible for that, then the betrayal of that would bring about a great feeling of guilt, and in relationship to each other there would be a hurt?
Krishnamurti: That is it, that is it. I am getting it.
Cadogan: And also, Krishnaji, if we are considering it with regard to the Foundations, there is the question that was raised the other day about the sacredness of the teaching, and it seemed as if a separation was being made between that and the way in which we do the day-to-day work, which I find rather confusing. I would certainly like to explore that.
Krishnamurti: The work being what?
Cadogan: The work also being the administration, the way we do this work, the way we meet people. It seemed to me there is almost an artificial division between the sacred and the non-sacred in that respect.
Simmons: Is there a difference between sacredness and holy?
Krishnamurti: Modern civilization says there is nothing holy.
Bohm: Yes, that is correct.
Krishnamurti: There is no respect for anything. Here we are, a group of people, and we are saying that there is something sacred. Is that it? Sacred. The very teachings are sacred, holy. The investigation of that teaching leads or brings about the truth, which is holy. Right? And if we are committed to that, to the investigation of the teachings and the discovery of, or coming upon, that truth which is holy, then we are responsible to that. And any action in administration or in our daily life which is contrary to that perception is a betrayal. Would we go as far as that?
Bohm: Isn’t that a bit too strong.
Krishnamurti: What, sir? Go ahead.
Bohm: Well, I mean to say “betrayal” will invite guilt and make an impossible...
Krishnamurti: Of course, yes. Yes, quite, quite. Not “betrayal.” All right. In the investigation to come upon that truth, in the investigation of the teachings to come upon that truth, and not deviate from it, not move away from it, is our responsibility. And if we move away from it, to do it consciously, deliberately, with full intention. Then there is no guilt in that. I move away from something I see that I do not like or that doesn’t appeal to me for whatever reasons. But would it bring about guilt if we, having perceived that which is holy, deviate from that?
Bohm: Probably it would.
Krishnamurti: It would.
Blau: Should we go into the matter of guilt?
Krishnamurti: He raises the question: how is it that there is such feeling of deep guilt in human beings. That is one of the things he is raising. Is it that originally primitive man lived with that immensity – “primitive” in the sense not totally sophisticated, civilized, conscious – and therefore there was no sense of guilt? If we may have perceived something which is holy and destroy it or deviate from it or totally neglect it, it might bring about a very deep sense of guilt.
Bohm: I think you have evidence of that today with people thinking about what man has done to the environment.
Bohm: They are destroying it and there is a sense of guilt which perhaps is not the best way to solve the problem.
Zimbalist: Is the sense of guilt possibly related to the separation from something sacred or something whole, which may be the same, which sets up the separate self, the ego? Because it seems to me that guilt as we know it in everyday life in our society is one of the most tenacious areas of the ego. You can deal with a lot of peripheral things, but guilt, it seems to me, is fundamentally a matter of ego. Guilt as we experience it.
Krishnamurti: May we discuss it a little bit more? Do you feel guilty about anything? Each one of us? Do I feel guilty? Guilty in the sense of regret, feeling I have done something terrible, or betrayed something which was my trust, been irresponsible to something for which I have taken upon myself to be utterly responsible. Do any of us feel guilt in that sense?
Blau: Well, sometimes we actually are guilty. It is not only the perception or sense of it; sometimes we actually have done these things for which we are truly guilty. So it is not just an impression or a feeling.
Krishnamurti: You know, on television the other night they were killing baby seals. Something appalling. Those little creatures with large eyes. I didn’t feel guilty. I said, “How can human beings do such a thing?” They are brought up as Christian, and all they are thinking of: “It is our trade, we make money out of it. If you stop that we shall be unemployed.” They think in those terms.
Blau: But suppose one had actually participated in this. Then you would really be guilty.
Krishnamurti: One may participate in it, and say, “Sorry, I won’t do it anymore.” That is not guilt. I am sorry I did it. I regret it enormously, and then I won’t kill anything.
Blau: But to expunge that completely from your consciousness, after you actually have done that, is a tremendous thing.
Krishnamurti: I want to get at something, which is: do any of us feel guilty?
S. Siddoo: Is it guilt per se or is it really a part of sorrow?
Krishnamurti: I think sorrow is different from guilt, isn’t it?
Zimbalist: There is something intensely personal about guilt. One feels a dreadful weight; one has done wrong.
Krishnamurti: I have done something terribly wrong, and it haunts me.
Krishnamurti: That is guilt. And I feel, “My God, I shouldn’t have done that,” and keep on. It encourages the self.
Zimbalist: Exactly. Often those who feel guilty are suffering for themselves for being guilty, not so much for the baby seal or whatever it was that was hurt. They are obsessed by their own selves being guilty, more than a sense of the wrong.
Simmons: It is not having dealt with the problem.
Krishnamurti: No. If you feel guilty, it sustains the self all the time.
Zimbalist: It sustains the self more than almost anything.
E. Lilliefelt: But it makes you feel better to feel guilty for what you have done.
Zimbalist: Yes, you punish yourself in order to feel better, because you have done an awful thing. But the whole focus is on the “me” that did it, and must feel better or worse, or suffer or not.
Krishnamurti: It is a kind of flagellation.
Zimbalist: Which doesn’t mean that the absence of it is insensitive, irresponsible or not facing facts. I think this is something we should understand ourselves, and I wish really many people understood this.
Krishnamurti: Right. Now, wait a minute. Do you feel guilty? I am asking in general. Do I feel guilty about anything? Or is there a feeling of something I’ve deviated from as a total human being?
Zimbalist: But what deviates? Again the separation.
Krishnamurti: No, deviate; I move away from it. Which is not guilty; I do not feel that.
Bohm: I read somewhere that the original word for sin in Greek, as used in the Old Testament, was another word which meant “missing the mark;” you see, deviating. That took on overtones of guilt in Latin with another word I forget, penitence or something like that.
Krishnamurti: I forgot. I must look it up, yes.
Bohm: The original word meant “missing the mark.” I was told that.
Bohm: In Greek, yes. It was an archery term meaning missing the mark.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right.
Bohm: Then in Latin it was turned into penitence, which has a very different meaning: suffering or punishment.
Cadogan: I think one has the sense of inadequacy rather than guilt.
Krishnamurti: That is a different thing, that is not guilt. I am inadequate. I cannot climb Mount Everest; I am inadequate.
Cadogan: It is not quite as simple as that. It is an inadequacy which is also bound up with the psychological function in relation to something sacred or to something true. That one is not living it out in a total way, although there seems to have been the perception of the quality that is sacred, perhaps in some aspect of the work or relationship. I would feel that, rather than guilt, when I feel I have been inadequate in my actions in relation to other people.
Krishnamurti: That is different. That is not guilt, is it? Would you call it that?
Cadogan: Isn’t it though, that one is doing the same thing but not actually feeling guilt, but feeling very much aware of the inadequacy of one’s response?
Krishnamurti: But if you kept on worrying about the inadequacy, thinking about it, being concerned about inadequacy, that sustains the self. That is part of the self.
Cadogan: It could do, yes, but I do not think it is quite so self-indulgent as guilt. I think, with inadequacy, you look at that and you look at the thing that you have been inadequate about as well.
Krishnamurti: So what are you trying to say?
Cadogan: Well, just that I find the whole word guilt to me is a very loaded word. I do not really feel it is something that one feels, in that sense, so much.
Bohm: Well, it is hard to believe that, you see, because our race has been so conditioned with guilt that I can’t believe that it could be free of it that easily.
Zimbalist: A large part of Christianity is that you do penitence to free yourself. It is not making restitution to the one that was hurt, or whatever it is. It is getting out from the load of guilt by whatever the penitence is. It is making yourself feel comfortable again. It would be useful to explore what is guilt and what is responsibility. If I had an accident and hit someone, I would feel responsible for having injured them. I might not feel guilty if I had not done it, I mean, it just happened, but I would feel responsible for it.
Krishnamurti: But that is a different thing from guilt, isn’t it?
Zimbalist: If a whole group of people are insensitive to evil that was done, they have a certain responsibility.
Krishnamurti: Responsibility, yes.
Bohm: But they don’t take it.
Wilhelm: They don’t take it, and that brings about guilt.
Bohm: Oppenheimer said the same thing. He said that physicists have non-sin after the atom bomb. They did not meet the responsibility of having produced the bomb, and therefore it turns to guilt.
Zimbalist: But then are we back a little bit to if you turn away from the sacred or the right, the good, whatever, if there is such a thing, you are separating yourself and therefore it is almost like an ego separating and growing.
Wilhelm: If that feeling of being guilty means being responsible for the whole, and not taking that responsibility, I think that is quite a different matter. I think that goes much, much deeper. And I think that was what David wanted to get at.
Cadogan: You mean not a sort of personal, rather confessional kind of guilt, indulgence, penitence and all that.
Bohm: I also wanted to suggest that if you have this sort of guilt we were just talking about, which in a way comes from the betrayal of the sacred or the holy, then it acts as a barrier to prevent people from ever coming in contact with that, and therefore it keeps people in the secular society.
Krishnamurti: Sir, may I put the same thing differently? Perhaps it may turn out to be entirely different, and if it is, I’m sorry. When you feel you are the world, the world is not different from you. Terrible things are taking place all over the world: killing whales, destroying the environment, and all that, and you feel responsible. Do you feel responsible, first of all?
Wilhelm: Yes, you do.
Krishnamurti: Wait, I want to question it. Do you mean to say I feel responsible for that man who is going to kill that baby seal? For that man who is going to throw bombs? For those killing people?
Wilhelm: In a certain sense, yes.
Krishnamurti: What do you feel? Responsible, or what?
Wilhelm: I feel that that man has the same mind as I have.
Krishnamurti: No, he has not my mind.
Wilhelm: But it is basically. It is built on the same structure.
Krishnamurti: Yes, but he is not...
Wilhelm: He is not me.
Krishnamurti: No. He is not compassionate. There is not a spark of compassion in him.
Krishnamurti: But when one says, “I am the world,” in the deepest sense, in the very deepest sense, not an intellectual sense, there is the sense of profound compassion. And when there is that profound compassion, there is no responsibility or guilt. You are compassionate; you act out of compassion. That is not guilt. That is not even responsibility. The very thing is acting.
Zimbalist: Isn’t responsibility like a small something within that much larger thing?
Krishnamurti: No. Mary, do consider what I am saying for the moment. If you feel that you are the world, in the most profound sense of that word, intellectually, emotionally, with all your being, it means in that there is great depth of compassion. In that compassion, that compassion acts. Where is guilt or responsibility? It is much greater than guilt, or much greater than responsibility.
Blau: But if your action is inadequate to the problem... You say compassion acts. If your action is inadequate...
Krishnamurti: No. Compassion can never be inadequate.
Bohm: I think you have said something, again in that same dialogue, about the stream of human consciousness. Is that right?
Bohm: And compassion acts within that stream of consciousness. Is that right? Not in the individual.
Krishnamurti: Yes. Sir, this is very interesting.
Bohm: And therefore it has to be right, you see.
Krishnamurti: That is right.
Cadogan: Krishnaji, would you say that compassion can never be inadequate? It is very difficult to take that expression because when you look at the suffering that goes on...
Krishnamurti: Mrs Cadogan, you can only say that if you don’t feel profoundly compassionate. Sorry, forgive me.
Cadogan: But the things that are still going on. It is inadequate, that compassion. At one level, it is inadequate.
Krishnamurti: Which? Compassion is inadequate?
Cadogan: You feel compassionate, I am sure, for what you have just talked about, the baby seals, but they are still being killed. The compassion is inadequate.
Krishnamurti: I will act! Out of compassion there is action. Not out of responsibility, duty, humanity, economics, et cetera, et cetera. It is out of that profound feeling you act.
Zimbalist: But I think Mary’s point is that it doesn’t relate to many problems.
Cadogan: It still seems inadequate. It is inadequate in fact, not in theory.
Bohm: The cause of these seals being killed is in the mind of man.
Cadogan: It is, yes.
Bohm: It is in his mind of compassion. So in so far as you have compassion and understanding for that, you are already acting in that stream of consciousness.
Cadogan: Yes, but only if those other people have the compassion too.
Cadogan: Well, they are still being killed. People are still being politically imprisoned and tortured.
Bohm: That is right, but it’s like, say, a body which has cancer. If there is a movement of healing in any part, it starts to act in the whole, you see. I think that’s the only way it can possibly happen because if you try by responsibility to stop them, you never will.
Cadogan: I am not saying you should. But I just said that that statement that compassion is...
Krishnamurti: It is never inadequate. Never.
Cadogan: ...An adequate response. No, sorry, you say compassion is adequate.
Zimbalist: Compassion can never be wrong.
Cadogan: No, you didn’t quite say that. You said adequate, or something, and I just find it so disturbing.
Krishnamurti: Compassion can never be inadequate, under any circumstances. I will stick to that.
Blau: Can’t your actions be inadequate? Now, I am thinking, for instance, of the trauma of the Vietnamese war, in which I feel that my action was inadequate. I recognized the wrongness, the horror of it, and yet I was not one of those who was out actively trying to change that situation. And there were many who were, young people, students, who really did put a stop to that war. I was not one of them, although my instinct, my feeling for it was that I was supporting them, but I did not actually do it.
Krishnamurti: But, Mrs Blau, when you feel profoundly compassionate, what is your action then, with regard to war, with regard to killing these poor little things, or any other killing? What do you do?
Blau: I stop killing.
Krishnamurti: No. Let’s go into it a little bit. What is your action? There is killing going on all over the world. What is your – I don’t want to use responsibility, I don’t want to use the word duty or anything – what comes out of that?
Blau: Well, action of some sort, I should think.
Krishnamurti: Miss Wood, you feel compassionate or love for your animals, right?
Cynthia Wood: Sometimes.
Krishnamurti: And if you felt that tremendous feeling or love or compassion for mankind, what comes out of that?
Wood: Well, all I can think of is to go out and do something about it.
Krishnamurti: You see, you always want to act. I am trying to say, wait a minute, don’t begin to think in terms of action, but have you that feeling of that tremendous compassion? That is all, first.
Wood: After compassion.
Krishnamurti: No, not after. I say, have you got that compassion? If that compassion exists there is no guilt, no responsibility. It is a tremendous sense of...
Wilhelm: That compassion is an action in itself.
Krishnamurti: Yes, but I want to find out. Would you kindly restrain from action for the moment? Because that is what is going to lead you to guilt. When you place action first, that is going to lead us into chaos.
Wood: I am sorry, I wasn’t placing action first. I was saying action after compassion.
Krishnamurti: No, not after.
Wood: I do not see the point of feeling sorry about something and not doing anything about it.
Krishnamurti: No. Why don’t you let compassion act, not you do something about it.
Wood: But isn’t that compassion which does act?
Krishnamurti: That is all I am saying. Let compassion act, not you do something about it.
Chari: It brings about its own inner movement, I think.
Krishnamurti: Not inner. Ahalyaji, just consider what Bohm and we are saying. We are always thinking in terms of action and responsibility and duty. And somebody says, “When you are considering duty, responsibility, it will inevitably bring guilt.”
Simmons: Doing something about it is really guilt.
Krishnamurti: Guilt. Wait. I am saying that. Move away from that and look at it differently. Which is, if you are the world – which, personally, I feel most profoundly – out of that feeling that I am the world, in the greater sense, comes compassion. Compassion will act. I don’t have to say, “I am going to act. I must to do something about the killing.” Sitting here, talking about compassion, what can I do for that man?
Wood: But that is why you need action, isn’t it?
Zimbalist: Are you saying that when you are filled with compassion, that in itself affects, just as David was saying earlier...
Krishnamurti: Cancer. Cancer in the whole human system.
Zimbalist: Yes. Or is it necessary that action, using you as an instrument, brings about the action that Cynthia is suggesting? I mean, must that compassion in some way act, but not you acting?
Bohm: Talking about this stream of consciousness, we are saying we have the surface waves, which are all the things we have been talking about, and then something much deeper, which has become poisoned or cancerous. The compassion perhaps reaches to heal this deeper thing that has gone wrong, which is basically the cause of all the trouble of mankind. If that is not healed nothing will change.
Cadogan: It still sounds a little bit to me like a theory, something one would like to feel would work.
Krishnamurti: Now, wait a minute. Responsible. Wait a minute. You feel responsible for the killing of those baby seals, responsible. What are you going to do about it?
Blau: I don’t know.
Krishnamurti: Join the people who say you mustn’t kill, wave placards, parade, have demonstrations, and all that?
Blau: I do not think so. I don’t know what to do.
Krishnamurti: I am asking you what you will do actually.
Blau: But those people actually do stop the killing of seals. The people who carry placards really did stop the killing of whales.
Krishnamurti: I know they do. I know they do. Yes, all right. Will placarding all the time stop wars, killing?
Blau: Perhaps. It has. I mean, we are out of the Vietnam war because of that.
Krishnamurti: Because of that. I know. So, what are you trying to tell me? That action, when you feel responsible for killing, demonstrating, doing all those things will stop it?
Zimbalist: It will stop the instance of it. It will stop one war or one species being decimated, but it will not stop violence, killing. Krishnaji, you once said someone who has realized truth, whatever it is, goes and becomes a hermit in the mountains and never speaks. Is there not some “responsibility,” a word I do not want to use, that he should speak?
Krishnamurti: He may by his very silence affect the consciousness of mankind. I do not know.
Zimbalist: He may, but in that instance, I don’t want to hold you to a statement, but you said...
Krishnamurti: ...He must speak.
Zimbalist: He must speak.
Krishnamurti: I would say he must speak.
Zimbalist: Yes. So is this a parallel?
Krishnamurti: We are going off the main point. The point is, as Dr Bohm raised, that mankind has this tremendous sense of guilt. Has that guilt arisen because man has deviated from that which is sacred, and knew it was sacred; that knowing it he has moved away from it? That may be one of the most profound reasons for guilt.
E. Lilliefelt: But hasn’t the mind created that separation of sacred and profane? I mean, is there a separation or have we contrived it? Why should we separate?
Cadogan: Perhaps we should decide what we mean by sacred. Perhaps we mean different things by sacred.
Krishnamurti: We said what is sacred is the sense of wholeness, complete wholeness.
J. Siddoo: So...
Krishnamurti: Wait, wait! You may feel it: completely whole and therefore profoundly sacred.
J. Siddoo: But then why do I...?
Krishnamurti: Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. You tell me that; you talk about it. But I am already broken up. In my mind, I have already separated the two. I go to the church, which is separation from daily life.
Blau: But you created that separation.
Krishnamurti: It does not matter. I have created it; my father, genes, and so on created this separation. You feel whole.
Blau: Yes, but I question why the mind creates that separation.
Krishnamurti: That is fairly clear, isn’t it? Why? To live in that sense of wholeness is a tremendous thing. Man might have felt it, but to sustain it, to keep it...
E. Lilliefelt: So, to feel more comfortable, I separate and go to...
Krishnamurti: It is comfortable, convenient; society wants that. Churches have seen to this, literature has seen to this: God and man.
E. Lilliefelt: So it is a mind creation.
Krishnamurti: Man has done this. Priests have done it. Jesus has done it – if he existed: “I am sent by the Father,” and all the rest of it. They separated it.
E. Lilliefelt: But it is unreal. It is a creation.
Krishnamurti: To you who feel whole, it is unreal. To me, who is caught up in divisions, you would say, “What are you talking about?” And your action won’t bring about guilt; my action will.
Simmons: Krishnaji, isn’t there a division in the words sacred and holy? Sacred is to separate. You can be sacred about many, many different things, but wholeness suggests the thing that you are talking about, the binding together, the unity of everything. And sacredness can be about Jesus and his church.
Krishnamurti: Ah, no, no.
Wilhelm: You see, Dorothy, in German, for example, sacred and holy are one word.
Simmons: Can they be used the same, Krishnaji?
Krishnamurti: Why not? Whole means sacred. Holy is implied in the word whole.
Bohm: We have a great many operations we carry out in daily life which obviously are limited. If they were taken as the whole, as all there is, then would we have this secular society which we have now? So when we use the words holy or sacred we emphasize that the whole is the essence and all the other is in that.
Cadogan: Yes, but isn’t it just as dangerous to separate this? It seems to me we make sometimes this artificial distinction between the inner and the outer. There is the implication that the outer must in some way be not sacred, whereas I think Krishnaji has said that it is a tide. The inner and the outer are the whole thing.
Krishnamurti: I do. I have been saying that.
Cadogan: We tend to lose sight of that, just as the churches and religions have done. That is why this emphasis on the word sacred would make one sometimes feel rather uneasy.
Simmons: That is what I am saying.
Krishnamurti: No. You dislike the word sacred because it is associated with your image of Jesus, and so on.
Cadogan: It is used in a very specific way.
Krishnamurti: We are using the word in the sense, health, sanity, compassion – whole.
Cadogan: Yes. That is fine.
Krishnamurti: That is holy. That is sacred.
Cadogan: Meaning the outer too.
Simmons: Many things that are sacred are not holy.
Krishnamurti: No, no.
Tettemer: You are using it, I think, in another sense, Dorothy.
Bohm: We are worrying too much about words. Many things that are called holy are not holy. You have the Holy Trinity, for example.
Zimbalist: Holy Ghost.
Krishnamurti: Holy Ghost. [Laughs] I mean, it is all bunk.
Bohm: They are not holy at all.
Cadogan: But we are talking about whole, aren’t we? W-H-O-L-E.
Bohm: Well, that is the same story.
Bohm: They have the same root.
Cadogan: But meaning the outer as well as the inner.
Zimbalist: Is it worthwhile to discuss how the perception of good and evil comes in the human mind? Is it entirely a matter of training? The mother says, “Be good. Do this, it’s good, and this is bad.”
Krishnamurti: Now wait a minute. I do not know.
Zimbalist: Or is it something else?
Krishnamurti: I want to say, do you as a body of members of the Foundation feel responsible for the teachings? Do you feel responsible to see it out? Therefore, if you are really responsible, you will feel guilty. Do you feel responsible or do you feel that it covers the whole of life? Whole of life, life of man. Man as a whole, man, woman as a whole.
E. Lilliefelt: Responsible is not the right word.
Krishnamurti: No. So scrap that word. Then what do you feel?
E. Lilliefelt: Again we come to the fact that the teaching is not separate.
Krishnamurti: No, what do you? Mrs Lilliefelt, I am going to pin you down. What do you feel?
E. Lilliefelt: I do not feel responsible for it.
Krishnamurti: Therefore what do you feel?
E. Lilliefelt: I feel that the teaching is part of my life.
Krishnamurti: Yes, go on. Part of your life and therefore part of what? And do you feel the teaching is part of your life and therefore part of the whole of life?
E. Lilliefelt: Yes.
Krishnamurti: Therefore, whole in the sense holy, sacred?
E. Lilliefelt: Yes.
Krishnamurti: Now, when you feel this thing is sacred, what happens then? Move from there.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, that word sacred bothers me.
Krishnamurti: Oh, for God’s sake! You see, you are Christians, that is why.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, yes, but I don’t need that word sacred. It is like saying God.
Krishnamurti: You all objected to holy; you don’t like that word?
E. Lilliefelt: It’s life.
Krishnamurti: No, I want... Why do you object to that word sacred?
E. Lilliefelt: Because I feel that is a separation.
Krishnamurti: No! No, please, lady, I said from the beginning, remove the word responsibility. You said, “The teachings are my life.” The teachings then are the whole of your life, not your life only but the life of mankind. Right?
E. Lilliefelt: Life itself.
Krishnamurti: Life of mankind, whole of mankind.
E. Lilliefelt: All right.
Krishnamurti: Now, what does whole mean? What do you mean by whole?
E. Lilliefelt: Just that.
Krishnamurti: No, tell me. I do not understand it. Explain to me what you mean by whole.
If you look into a good dictionary it says whole means healthy, sane, and holy. You don’t object to the words health, sanity, but to the word holy. An Indian would say, “Quite right, sir, holy, holy, holy.” [Laughs]
Cadogan: I suppose if we are using holy, it suggests there is also the other word which is the opposite, which is unholy.
Krishnamurti: Ah, no. No one suggested unholy.
Cadogan: But whole is fine.
Krishnamurti: Yes, but you...
Cadogan: I know, but it is not the same. Whole doesn’t have the psychological overtones. It is only a definition but it is something. It is whole. [Laughter] But the whole is what you were saying when you spoke about the teachings, the whole of mankind.
Krishnamurti: Now, from that, what do you feel? Forget that word sacred, bury it. What do you crunch out of that feeling of wholeness? What do you feel? When you feel this extraordinary sense of wholeness, what is the movement out of it?
Blau: It really encompasses everyone which you come in contact with, that wholeness.
Krishnamurti: No, no, no, not contact. Action, you are going off to action.
Krishnamurti: Wait. Feeling the teachings are whole, it is your life, and therefore you are part of that wholeness. And from that wholeness, which is the whole of mankind, you know – not me and the world – and it is the world inner and outer, it is the whole thing. What comes out of that?
Zimbalist: It has to be compassion.
Krishnamurti: You say there has to be. What do you mean there has to be?
Zimbalist: Well, I mean the answer to the question.
Krishnamurti: Either you do not feel the whole, it is just an intellectual thing, or you feel deeply the wholeness of man, and out of that, this thing which you call compassion comes. And then how will you act? You say, “I’ll act, demonstrating, doing this, joining that.” I say, you have gone away from compassion, wholeness, because you are then dividing it.
Blau: But, sir, doesn’t that presuppose that someone else will do that work?
Krishnamurti: I want the whole of mankind to be like this! Not break it up. I feel the whole of mankind must understand this sense of wholeness, compassion. And from that there will be no killing. You see, you start from the other end.
Now, K is dead. Come back to that. K is dead, gone. What will you do? What is your feeling about all this then? If you remove the words responsibility, duty, immediate action, administration, if you put away for the time being all that, what will you do? What is going to happen? You see, this is really important because, as Dr Bohm was pointing out, is it that mankind has moved away, deviated, and therefore brought about division? Man being the priests, the bishops, the world bishops, not just bishops in Europe or in America, the bishops, priests in India, the whole thing. They have deviated and therefore they are everlastingly feeling guilty. They do.
Bohm: Perhaps also man has deviated from nature, he has separated himself from nature. You see, it’s not only the priest but the ordinary man too who has exploited nature.
Krishnamurti: Of course. He is destroying the world.
Cadogan: You just asked what we would do if you were dead.
Krishnamurti: I am dead. Will you feel guilty if you do not do that, if you do not carry out the teachings, tend the schools, do the administration, the centre? You see, I think that is why it is very important.
Burnier: That raises the question: what is the teaching?
Krishnamurti: The teaching concerns the whole of life. He says that. In which there is no separation, and so on. And out of that there is compassion. Now I am saying, guilt has arisen because it may be that man originally had no division. He lived, loved nature. He said, “I am God, I am Jupiter, I am Hercules, I am clouds themselves.” That would mean he never felt guilty. But now we have separated the clouds, Zeus, and all the rest, from us. And we feel, being separated, that something has gone wrong, and we want to regain the original Eden or whatever it is. That may be – I say may be – one of the deep profound feelings of guilt, which man has. And here somebody comes along and says, “Look, let’s understand the wholeness of life,” which is the whole teachings; and he says, “You are responsible for it” – not “responsible” – you are partakers of it.” And he dies. What is your position then?
Cadogan: Yes. This is our position now.
Krishnamurti: I am going to live another ten years or fifteen years.
Cadogan: My response, when you put that question, is to say that if you die it makes it seem more urgent. And then I say to myself, there seems to be the dedication to this, why can’t I do this total application? And at that point it is difficult sometimes to know how to proceed because this area of wholeness seems to imply a relationship with what you are saying that isn’t always there. It seems to be there in certain moments of quietness, certain moments of action, but it seems to get lost.
Krishnamurti: Forgive me, I think you are putting it wrongly. Forgive me.
Cadogan: Well, that was just so you can bring...
Krishnamurti: No, no, no. K feels you should enter into this – putting it very crudely – quickly.
Krishnamurti: All of you enter into the sense of compassion. So he is working at it. And you say, “Wait, wait, wait, what about action, what about this, what about that, what about the other? Administration, killing the poor seals, war, what’s our action?” I said, “No, wait, that’s not your job. Come into this.” Otherwise you wouldn’t be sitting here, for God’s sake! But you say, “No, sorry, there’s administration, there’s a school. The baby seals are being killed, whales; nature is being destroyed by man.” I say, “For God’s sake, stop all that, come in here first and you will answer the whole of that, rightly.” Right?
So, what am I to do?
E. Lilliefelt: Give up.
Krishnamurti: What am I to do? I don’t feel guilty if you won’t come in. I want you to come and drink at this fountain, but you say, “Sorry, I have my administration, my husband, my wife, my this, that, ten different things.” I don’t feel guilty. It would be horrible if I felt guilty or disappointed. So it is my job to see that you come in. Right? Isn’t it also your job to see that people come in?
Cadogan: Is it the administration, or are you too concerned with the administration, the husband?
Krishnamurti: Of course.
Cadogan: Is it that, though, Krishnaji?
Krishnamurti: You are concerned about husband, school, everything. But first come here!
Cadogan: And then one has to ask this question we can’t ask, which is: “How?” again.
Krishnamurti: There is no...
You see, now we’ll look at it. Put yourself here. What is K to do? You sit there and say, “Please help me to cross over to this side. It is very difficult, I can’t do it. I’m inadequate, I’m stupid, I’m this...”
Cadogan: But it doesn’t happen.
Krishnamurti: Granted. Then what takes place? What is K to do? Cry? I have. [Laughs]
Cadogan: It’s what are we to do.
Krishnamurti: Do it!
So Dr. Bohm was asking if you feel guilty because you can’t do it. Which will bring us back to the original.
Blau: Isn’t there a tremendous sense of tension because we want to be there? There is an unresolved tension that just stays, doesn’t resolve itself. It just stays at this peak of intensity and hasn’t resolved itself.
Krishnamurti: You see, churches and religions have said, “You must renounce,” and there began the guilt. The Hindus have said, “You must renounce family, house, money, world.” But my desire is for the world; and so I’ve separated it – and guilt. Right?
We have come to an impasse. What shall we do?
May I go into this a little bit? I see something. I may be wrong. I want to explore it. Are you listening to what K is saying consciously or are you listening unconsciously?
Bohm: I am not entirely clear what you mean, because there are different meanings...
Krishnamurti: Yes. I know what I mean. I’ll tell you. “Consciously” in the sense listening to the words, translating the words for yourself, and putting up barriers, consciously saying, “I can’t understand what the devil he’s talking about,” fighting, arguing, adjusting. All that is activity of the consciousness, intellect. The unconscious, the deeper layer, just listens. Which is it you are doing? I am exploring this, please. I am not saying I am right or wrong. I want to go into this. That may be the clue. I feel it is. I’m beginning to see it is.
Zimbalist: The conscious is reacting all the time.
Krishnamurti: Conscious activity is reaction.
Bohm: Are you saying that there is something beyond consciousness then?
Krishnamurti: No, not beyond consciousness. For the moment I am separating the two. I am not really separating, but for the purpose of explanation I am separating consciousness and that which is deeper, not conscious. Now am I listening to you at a superficial level, that is, the argumentative level, knowledge level, the level of killing the poor whales, and so on? Am I listening at that level or at a deeper level, a subliminal level? I don’t want to use that word.
Bohm: An analogy is the stream of consciousness with the surface wave and something deeper.
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes.
Bohm: What you call consciousness is a wave.
Krishnamurti: Waves, that’s right.
Bohm: And then the deep current beneath.
Krishnamurti: Yes. You see, when I talk to Mrs Lilliefelt, she immediately stops it by saying something; the argumentative level is going on all the time. Not that she shouldn’t argue, not that we shouldn’t discuss, not that we shouldn’t explore, but you are always at that.
E. Lilliefelt: Resistance.
Krishnamurti: Resistance, seeing holes in it, saying, “I don’t quite agree with it, it is not quite...” You follow? There is struggle going on.
E. Lilliefelt: Sir, could that be part of fear?
Krishnamurti: No, no.
E. Lilliefelt: In the sense of fear of something that is so huge that one can’t really...
Krishnamurti: No. I wouldn’t bring in fear or something huge. I am just saying this is what actually is going on. Not why you do it; we will come to that a little later. Actually this is going on between us. This person, K says something and you immediately break it up, argue with it. Consciously say, “Yes, this seems right, but, but, but, but, but...”
Zimbalist: We measure it immediately with all our preconceptions.
Krishnamurti: No, it doesn’t matter. We’ll come to that. Now, is there a listening which is not that?
Cadogan: There does seem to be a deep response which is not part of that, but it seems...
Krishnamurti: Ah: “But!”
Cadogan: All right. It seems foggy.
Krishnamurti: That is a different matter.
Cadogan: But that seems a deep response.
Krishnamurti: I said, are you listening to the wave or are you listening without the wave? Leave the waves on top – jokingly [laughs] – and go down into deeper waters where there are no waves at all. Do you understand what I am trying to get at? That may be the answer. At that level, there is no “you” and “me.” At this level there is. I wonder if you catch it?
Bohm: You are saying that “you” and “me” are made by the superficial waves. Also all the separation.
T. Lilliefelt: You can’t listen if you are not empty.
Krishnamurti: No, no, sir, you are going off. Will you listen without the waves? Enter into deeper water and listen at that depth.
Lee: That is the only way.
Krishnamurti: Don’t tell me that is the only way! Are you doing it?
There is something extraordinary in this. So we are both talking on the surface of the sea. You are listening to K at the surface level – let’s call it that – on the surface, and you are making an effort to go down there and listen. It doesn’t work that way. Can you listen without the wave? Do you listen to music that way? Argue with Beethoven?
Lee: I’m not listening to music; I’m listening.
Krishnamurti: No, no, Mark Lee, I am asking you. Please. You listen to Beethoven, the Fifth, Second, Ninth, or whatever symphony. Do you argue with Beethoven?
Lee: Argue what?
Krishnamurti: Argue, say, “Sorry old boy, you are not... You are this, you are that, the conductor is not doing it rightly, so and so is better?” How do you listen?
T. Lilliefelt: Going with it.
Krishnamurti: What do you do? How do you listen to Beethoven?
T. Lilliefelt: It is difficult to describe.
Krishnamurti: Sir, I am asking you, please, how do you listen? Arguing, comparing?
T. Lilliefelt: No.
Krishnamurti: “Beethoven is better than Mozart?”
T. Lilliefelt: Certainly.
Krishnamurti: Then what is the state of your mind which is listening?
T. Lilliefelt: It is quiet, empty. I’m not even thinking of the word Beethoven.
Krishnamurti: Sir, please. You are listening to his Fifth Symphony, let’s say, and you say, “Oh, that’s been played a dozen times, hundred times. I want to listen to something else.” How do you listen, sir?
T. Lilliefelt: It is not a repetition.
Krishnamurti: How do you listen? Tell me. Miss Wood, how do you listen?
Wood: Critically. On the wave.
Krishnamurti: But if you stop that, how do you listen then?
Wood: You can listen the other way until somebody hits the wrong note or something.
Krishnamurti: You see, I want to get – not I, we are investigating.
Wood: Music is such a sensuous, physical thing, and I just don’t think it’s a very good analogy somehow.
Krishnamurti: Now, lady, please, just listen, just listen. This is also a kind of music. How do you listen to it? Do you ever listen to it? Do you ever listen to it? Or do you say, “I must live that. What does he mean by that? This is so complex, this is so subtle, for God’s sake, I wish he’d put it clearly. This is so impractical or practical”? Or do you say, “I’m listening”?
T. Lilliefelt: There is no separation.
Krishnamurti: I want you to find out, convey to me, how you listen, sir! When I talk, there is separation. You say, “By Jove, I don’t understand that. I must think about it. I’ll have to sit down, go walk by myself.” Don’t you? “I wish I could get that. I wish I could understand this extraordinary thing he is talking about,” blah, blah blah blah. Or do you listen?
I am dying; I want to tell you something. Will you then listen? Dying, sir; he can’t repeat it. Since listening with the background of knowledge is with the waves, arguments, comparisons, saying, “Yes, wrong note, right note, it’s beautifully sentenced, it’s beautifully played.”
Can you listen without knowledge?
T. Lilliefelt: That is the only way to do it.
Krishnamurti: Ah, do not tell me that is the only way to do it! Are you doing it?
T. Lilliefelt: Yes, I am doing it. When I listen to Beethoven, I don’t think of the name.
Krishnamurti: Sir, forget poor Beethoven. I am asking you, will you listen to K without knowledge?
T. Lilliefelt: I’m not even listening to K. I’m listening.
Krishnamurti: I am asking you, will you? That means you have no knowledge. Knowledge is not in operation. Knowledge is comparison, saying, “By Jove, I must get at that, I must go after that. I’m not sure I understand it. I’ve read a great deal,” and so on, the whole movement of knowledge. What do you say?
Blau: Well, sir, that’s not true in my case. I’m listening and trying to understand.
Krishnamurti: Therefore, you are listening with movement. With movement.
Krishnamurti: Most people are. So can you listen without movement?
Blau: Sometimes it happens.
Krishnamurti: Not sometimes. I am asking now. Can you listen without movement? Because that may convey what K wants to say much more profoundly than listening with the waves of knowledge, with the movement of knowledge.
Sirs, I believe they tried in America at one time advertising subliminally, quickly passing messages. “Eat. Drink this,” so that it was taken in unconsciously. The eyes couldn’t follow, but it entered, and therefore you went and bought that beastly little thing which they were trying to sell. [Laughs]
Bohm: When you say it’s like music, would you say that that is order? You said what you are saying is like music. Is that a kind of order?
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Yes, sir, there is order in this, too, tremendous order.
Cadogan: Krishnaji, I hate to seem to be bringing this back into the world of what you call arguing, but to me this is such a fundamental point I must ask you this.
Krishnamurti: Which is what?
Cadogan: I get the sense of what you are saying about listening without the waves, but there’s still part of the process that seems intelligent, that seems to have to respond. For instance, you’re Krishnaji, but you might be Hitler. Now, if I’m listening to you without some...
Krishnamurti: Ah, yes.
Cadogan: You know, how do I know I’m not being brainwashed or mesmerized, infatuated by your beauty? This is what disturbs.
Krishnamurti: Quite right, quite right.
But no. He has argued with you at that level. He has said, “Look at the world, look how corrupt it is, how divided it is, what the priests have done, leaders have done, what the gurus have done, the religions.” He has gone into it, argued at that level.
Cadogan: You mean we’ve exhausted that.
Krishnamurti: I’ll go on arguing that. But a few of us would say, “For God’s sake, we have understood that. Come...”
Cadogan: It’s a kind of suspension of that.
Cadogan: Not a suspension?
Krishnamurti: I will talk publicly, say the same thing but differently. But here we are discussing because we are the Foundations, and so on. I say, “Come and drink here.” Whether you are administering, whatever it is, you will do it out of something whole, without any guilt, which would be a marvellous thing. But apparently it is not happening. And I say, why? We have argued, we have discussed. We have used our intellect, we are aware of our prejudices and so on. You see, K says stop doing all those kinds of beastly little movements. Stop and listen. Don’t go on arguing, always round and round on the periphery. Get to the centre of it.
Hitler: I would listen to him for five seconds – I used to – and I’d say, “For God’s sake, he is a stupid man. It’s insane what he is talking about. It doesn’t stand argument.” He was crazy. You could see it in his face. “The Germans are the Aryans.” It’s so filthy.
Cadogan: With you, Krishnaji, it’s easy to go along with a certain stream, but then still find that you’ve left us behind.
Krishnamurti: Because you are still doing this.
Cadogan: Is it that?
Krishnamurti: I am asking, I am asking.
Zimbalist: Are you suggesting that it would be dangerous to listen to everybody this way? He might be Hitler and not Krishnamurti.
Cadogan: Well, maybe that’s not quite the question.
Krishnamurti: Ah, I would listen that way to everybody. I’d spot it quickly.
Cadogan: At that deeper level?
Krishnamurti: Yes, naturally. Because there is no division there.
T. Lilliefelt: You asked us to challenge you, to challenge your mind, to find out how K thinks.
Krishnamurti: Yes, here it is taking place.
Wood: Sir, I think the difficulty is that we know what we’re supposed to do but we’re not doing it. We know that we’re supposed to listen quietly.
Krishnamurti: Oh, no, no. Not “supposed to.”
Wood: But, I mean, intellectually.
Krishnamurti: Quite, quite, quite.
Wood: But of course, we’re not doing it.
Krishnamurti: That’s why guilt.
Krishnamurti: His question was: what is this thing that human beings have such enormous guilt about. From that we have gone into what guilt is and what responsibility is. Now K says, this person is saying, we are finished with all that – not finished, we’ll go back to it – but listen at a deeper level.
Then, if you listen at a deeper level – sorry to use these absurd words; sounds ridiculous [Laughs] – as a group of Foundation members, something entirely different takes place, doesn’t it? About schools, about the centre, about money. Doesn’t it? Then you are the teachers. No? You see what has been done? This has been done a thousand times. Somebody comes along and sees the truth; and he talks, talks, talks, shows it ten different ways; and he dies. And you say, “Yes, that was a great man.” It is separation. “I’ll worship him, or kick him.” It’s the same thing. And here we are trying to prevent all that from taking place. Which means you are the teachers. Because you are that. You have moved away from the periphery into the very centre of it.
Bohm: You are saying in this deeper movement of the mind we’re all one. Is that it?
Bohm: There is no separation.
Krishnamurti: This idea of being one, in India they will love this. “We’re all one,” [Laughs] and therefore kill each other. The way they treat animals in India, or other human beings, except their little family, is something appalling. And they say, “We are all one life.” [Laughs] Right? All their Sanskrit shlokas and chants, and they repeat it every day and... [Pause]
So, when he dies are you going to be his disciples?
Two participants: No. No.
Krishnamurti: No. Therefore what are you then? His “bearers of light”? [Laughs]
Cadogan: Well, you did use this expression: a light onto ourselves, before.
Krishnamurti: Are you? Are you a light to yourself? Therefore you are here, not over there. Therefore, will you listen to something in complete silence? Not “how.” Listen to it. If you really listen with complete silence you are there, finished. Because then there is no “you,” “me,” the word.
20 March 1977
Krishnamurti: We have just one more week, haven’t we? Just next week. Have you settled most of the other things like publications?
Cadogan: Well, we’re having a meeting, one or two of us, tomorrow, to sort out one or two things about that.
Krishnamurti: You know what India wants? You have to discuss all that. We discussed the centre too last time, didn’t we?
Wilhelm: We discussed the question of guilt.
Krishnamurti: Guilt, I know, but we must settle certain things, mustn’t we, about the centre? If I may ask, who will be responsible for the whole thing here? The Foundation? Who will be responsible, not for the school or the centre but to see that the whole thing is flowering properly?
Blau: Would it be a group of people or an individual?
Krishnamurti: I think we could move away from names like principals, directors and heads of schools, we could work together in this, rather than have one man or two people or one woman running the whole circus.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, Krishnaji, as I see it, and I have to give you the way I see it because of what has been going on, I do not think there is any one person who can take charge of all this now; there is so much administrative work, and now the schools come into it and these other things. I do not think there is one person to be in charge of it.
Krishnamurti: So what will you do? Of course the administrative side, the financial side, the accounting and all that has to be resolved. I am not talking about that. I am talking about the school, the Foundation, the centre. Who is going to be responsible for the whole, see that the thing is flowering rightly?
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, isn’t that everybody together?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, there’s the legal responsibility of the trustees.
Krishnamurti: Apart from the Foundation, the administrative side, is there a group of people to see that the thing is flowering along the right lines as we have been discussing? Do you understand my question? You see, I have a feeling – I may be totally wrong – that in the centres in India, Brockwood, Ojai, Canada we should know what is happening amongst ourselves. If they are doing something special in Canada, we should know about it here, so that there is constant rapport.
J. Siddoo: When you say something special in Canada, what do you mean, something special?
Krishnamurti: Someone might try a different way of approaching the centre, the problem of the centre. And in India they will do something quite different. So I feel it is necessary that you all correspond, report, keep in touch with one another, the schools, the centre. We have a week now; we have to settle several things. First of all, do we meet every year, all the Foundations, as many people as possible? Say for instance, next year in India, or Brockwood, and so on; do we all, or representatives, get together once again?
Wood: I think that’s important.
Burnier: Very important. It’s very important that we meet once a year.
Krishnamurti: I know, that’s what I’m asking.
Cadogan: I think we all felt that, didn’t we? We more or less agreed this, didn’t we?
Krishnamurti: Agreed, but will it be done?
Cadogan: We almost fixed the dates, didn’t we? Tentatively, it was all planned that it would be the winter of 1978.
Krishnamurti: For a month. So that is settled. All right. And publications are settled. You will discuss it and settle it.
Cadogan: It will be settled, yes.
Krishnamurti: What else is there? Because this must be finished. If we go off into something else, we will miss all this and say, “You came here all the way and why haven’t you settled it?”
E. Lilliefelt: All right. Mary, are you making notes now about this?
Cadogan: I am. I was just thinking, the question of keeping in touch we have still left a bit open. The question of keeping in touch when Erna and Theo and Dorothy go to India.
Krishnamurti: They are not going to decide publications.
Cadogan: No, no, I meant what you said, the question of keeping all the centres in touch.
Krishnamurti: I understand, but publications I am talking about.
Cadogan: Oh, you’re still talking about publications.
Krishnamurti: I will tell you why. They have asked me to settle this. If there is a misunderstanding, that can be very simply cleared up by a letter or by talking it over, and finishing with it.
Cadogan: Well, I should think so, yes.
Krishnamurti: Not carry on year after year. Agreed?
Zimbalist: Let’s try it tomorrow, and if not, if we have to discuss it in the whole group, we can do it Tuesday.
Chari: I don’t think discussing it in the whole group will clarify the position we were discussing.
Krishnamurti: Let the three of them discuss it and they can tell us on Tuesday. Right?
Cadogan: It’s really very simple. I don’t think there’s any real problem.
Krishnamurti: Then what else is there?
Zimbalist: Well, the communication Mrs Cadogan raised, that we hadn’t quite settled how the centres will exchange information.
Krishnamurti: I am coming to that; I want to know. You see, the distance is so far and there are so many kinks in all of us that I think unless we get in touch with each other and have a report or a letter every month to say look, this is exactly what is happening in each place... Please, you know, keep in touch all the time. Wouldn’t that clear up a lot?
Zimbalist: Every month is...
Krishnamurti: All right, every six months, every four months. I am not saying. Settle that.
Blau: Krishnaji, the difficulty with writing letters that you feel you have to write, is that you make a report that looks great and fine and lovely, and it’s somehow a contrived thing.
Krishnamurti: So what will you do? I want to know when I am in India what is happening in Ojai.
Blau: Krishnaji, what do you want to know?
Krishnamurti: I want to know how the school is going, what the parents are thinking about; and I want to know what the centre is doing, how it is being run, who is coming, and a little about the psychological effects of it. Just a minute. And when I am here I would like to know what is happening in India with the centre.
Chari: Won’t these visits and meetings we are planning really take care of that?
Chari: Because now these four people will come to India; they will know how things...
Krishnamurti: No, you are missing my point. I, K, want to know what is happening in Canada about the centre. Not just how many people attend, but the inwardness of it. Don’t you want to know?
Blau: Well, the thing is, Krishnaji, I can talk about Ojai; I’ve seen things in the school going on here in Ojai.
Krishnamurti: And going on in the centre.
Blau: Well, the centre is sort of going to find its way.
Krishnamurti: So I want to know how you find its way.
Blau: All right. But something can happen one day; by the time you get the letter the whole thing is changed.
Krishnamurti: It doesn’t matter, but I really want to know.
S. Siddoo: Krishnaji, Mark Lee wrote a report that we found invaluable because it gave us some idea of the problems that they have been facing here. By seeing something like that, we might see that this is the thing that we are all coming up against, and we might be able to do something about it. Otherwise we might be just having a peculiar problem.
Krishnamurti: That is what I want to know.
Blau: But I think, as Mark knows, he will have a problem one week and the next week...
Krishnamurti: No, four months, a four-month period; not what is happening every day; that would be silly.
Lee: Not the little elementary things that happen day to day but the general trends, the larger issues that have been dealt with. There are significant ones that linger for months quite often.
Cadogan: Or even if they don’t linger it still may be valuable to the other people to know how they were resolved.
Krishnamurti: Yes. That is what I mean.
Zimbalist: Would it help or make it all too stiff to sort of have categories to report on?
Krishnamurti: No, look, Mark Lee is finding it very difficult to get teachers here. I want to know what he is doing about it when I am in Brockwood or in India; I really want to know. Because how he does it might help in India, and Canada, and so on.
E. Lilliefelt: That is a serious problem. Can he be helped?
Krishnamurti: I am asking who will be responsible for that? We want to know what is happening about the centre, how you tackle it, how Fritz and all of you approach it, what you are doing about it. Because that might help the centres that are being formed in Rishi Valley and Rajghat, in India, and Madras. If I am here I want to know what they are doing in India about it, how they are tackling it. I think this would help tremendously.
Blau: Would you want a report from several people?
Krishnamurti: No, no, not several people.
Lee: Then wouldn’t it be better for the people responsible in these areas to write letters to you every four months, let’s say, to report on these issues, and then as you see fit or as Mary sees fit, to circulate those letters to others?
Krishnamurti: No, because then I have to show it to them all.
Cadogan: Then you have to do the duplicating. Isn’t that rather complicated when you are travelling?
Krishnamurti: Not only the Foundation should know what is happening, India should know what is happening about the centre here, the schools here and in Canada, so that they help each other, because if you are doing something totally different with regard to the school here, that might help Rishi Valley, or Rajghat.
T. Lilliefelt: Isn’t it better that a group gets together and makes this report, and then everybody coordinates it?
Krishnamurti: I don’t know how you will do it. I really would like to know what is going to happen about the centre when I leave here, and the School, how you are approaching the centre, what you are going to do, how it is operating.
It is now a quarter past twelve. Shall we start on this thing, guilt? [Pause]
Isn’t it more or less clear that when K dies all of you will be responsible, all the Foundations? – responsible to see that not only the members of the Foundations are flowering.
E. Lilliefelt: Responsible for that?
Krishnamurti: Yes. Responsible with any sense of guilt removed from it. Remember we talked about it?
E. Lilliefelt: Yes.
Krishnamurti: Will the Foundations actively help each other to blossom, flower in the teachings, and help to bring about in the centre a sense of “otherness”? I am putting that in quotes. Will you undertake to do all that?
E. Lilliefelt: Krishnaji, it would be very easy to say yes or no to that.
Krishnamurti: But I am asking generally.
E. Lilliefelt: But how can even one member of the Foundation be responsible for the flowering of...
Krishnamurti: Not one, not one.
E. Lilliefelt: ...Another member of the same Foundation? And responsible for the flowering? We have come back to the responsibilities for the teachings, haven’t we?
Krishnamurti: You see, yesterday we went to San Francisco to see a person who is very ill, almost without sight. I have known her for twenty five years, since 1925. She has been constantly in touch. I am gone. What would be her response to the Foundations? Look at it that way. The Foundation which has a school, a centre, publications, and so on. Would she say, “Oh, Lord, finished”? Or would she say, “Is there somebody there who is sustaining this, flowering in it, growing in it, who can discuss it”?
The other day when we met we talked about guilt. It is an enormous subject, with a great deal involved in it. We haven’t touched it fully yet. When a question is raised like that, as it was raised, would you be able to deal with it as K would deal with it? As the teachings would? Would you explain? How shall we do this thing? Would the centre be able to deal with it? So that that lady in San Francisco says, “Yes, they are still moving in the right direction, still pushing this thing”? Not say, “Well, that’s finished.”
If I may suggest, I think we are not demanding the highest of ourselves. You understand? You are still saying, “Oh, we can’t do it,” still saying, “It’s yours.” You are saying, “We will explain your teachings; we will see that it is not polluted,” but it isn’t yours. I was thinking about it on the plane, casually. I don’t think about it, I just looked at it, and I wondered how we go through with this thing.
K’s intention is very simple. He says, come over and drink from him as much as you can. Investigate, tear his brain to pieces, go into it very deeply, involve yourself totally. And I fear that you are saying, “Well, it is too much, we can’t know how.” So, when you meet somebody at the centre who says, “Please, I want to go into it very deeply,” you say, “Sorry, there are the teachings.” Will you be able to deal with it? Not as this person or that. Because, after all, the Foundations have met here, all the four, to see what we are going to do when K is gone. That is why I said let’s all meet. Have we solved that problem? Or is it an insoluble problem? Because at the end of next week I say, “Good Lord, I started out for that, and it has been dissipated, gone.” Strangely, it has become – not a problem to me – it has become something I have to do something about. Please, let’s talk about it a little bit. What do we do?
One can see, historically, that everything declines, ends up in some shoddy little sect or temple. It becomes so ugly. Historically, this has happened on every occasion. And here we people are saying that shouldn’t happen at any cost, under any circumstances. Then what shall we do? It may be all right while we are all living together because we know each other, but after you are dead, what happens? Will you invite younger people to join the Foundation? Not “join;” will you bring them in and “cook” them?
E. Lilliefelt: Krishnaji, Radha raised a very good point the other day when she said, “We keep referring to K’s teaching; are we clear about that?”
Krishnamurti: About what?
E. Lilliefelt: The teaching. And what it is that you are passing on, and we are to pass on; that living thing. I’m not clear about that. It isn’t a problem of bringing in younger people, but the thing itself which is what always gets lost.
Krishnamurti: Don’t you, after these years, if I may ask – I won’t use the word understand – live, delve, find? It is like entering a mine, a gold mine, and discovering more and more and more and more gold, jewels, it doesn’t matter, lead. Or are you saying, “Sorry, it’s too difficult for me, it is beyond me, it is impossible”? Do you block yourself as you go, take a step and then block?
What am I to do? K has – these teachings have come. And the person who brought these teachings is unimportant. The teachings are important, and the teachings cover the whole field of life. Otherwise it is not worth it. And in the past, the teachings got perverted, sullied and made a mess of. Now it is printed; there are originals of speeches, cassette, video tape. They can’t do anything with it. People will [try to] do something with it, but they can’t. There it is. Is that all? Is that all, in the sense that haven’t those people who have known the person who has brought these teachings had a relationship to the person and to the teachings? And what is their relationship? Just listeners, explorers, just going a little bit into it, into the mine? He has dug very deeply into the mine, gold mine or rubies or whatever it is, and he says, come and look at this extraordinary vein, it will go on indefinitely. And you say, “Sorry, it’s very difficult,” you stop at the beginning, at the entrance of the cave. Or are you, as members of the Foundation, penetrating deeply into the cave?
We have now more or less settled the publications; all the superficial administrative things are more or less settled, are happening, I hope. Not “I hope” – it is settled as far as I am concerned. If India complains, or if you complain, I am going to pass it; go and discuss, I am out of it. I am not going to join in this game any more. Sorry, I am making it very simple so that we are all clear. As all that is settled now, we have a week to finish this thing. At the end of the week, I want to know what you are going to do about it all, about the mine in which there is plenty of gold. Because the Foundations got together for that reason. Not only for that reason, but the main reason was that. All the secondary reasons have been happily settled, as far as I am concerned.
So, the main thing is still vaguely left. There is the centre – let’s call it the centre, not adult centre; “adult” sounds silly. And it is a centre, centre of man. I like that word centre. Don’t you, now? Right, let’s accept it. There is centre of light, centre of something enormously great. At least I feel that. And K is gone, and he has left it with you. What is going to happen? It is all right for the next ten years because K hopes to live for another ten years or more – not “hopes;” probably he will. And then afterwards...
In the old days, teachers said, “You are my disciple, I will teach you. Don’t misuse it, don’t interpret it, and don’t spoil it.” And the disciple said, “Master, I will accept it.” But he has his own idiosyncrasies, adoration, devotion; and he said, “He did miracles,” and distorted the whole thing. Now, what is going to happen with us? It may not be settled by the end of the week, but I am going to pursue this for the rest of my life with the Foundations. Not because you are special people or I am a special person; we happen to be together. It happened. Fortuitously or by chance – it doesn’t much matter – it happened. So my job is very clear for the next ten years. Whenever we meet I am going to push this thing. But what is your – I am using the word differently now – responsibility, without any sense of guilt if you don’t carry out that responsibility. Guilt is washed out of it. What is your dharma? Good word, but it is also spoiled.
What is the root meaning of that word?
Burnier: It really means to hold, to keep, to guard, to sustain.
Krishnamurti: Sustain the origin, the original. The original; not your original, my original, his original, the original. Which means quite a different thing. Quite. So if I may use that word with tremendous hesitation, because that is a word which is very little understood even in India, and it is certainly not understood in the West. That word dharma means, as she pointed out, to hold the original, without contamination. No, it doesn’t matter, I won’t even use that word because that leads to...
So what am I to do if I am a member of the Foundation? K is gone. He has poured his life, and will discuss with you for the next ten years. At the end of ten years, twelve, fifteen, he is gone. Then what is going to happen?
And the word sacred. He says to you this is a sacred treasure; this is a mine where there is immense gold. It is sacred. I leave it with you. What will you do with it? Turn it into Cartier or Tiffany, de la Boucheron? So, now, if I may suggest, put yourself in that position from today, and see.
The trustees have helped to bring back what was originally meant – the land, this house. It has been tremendous work. You have put a lot of energy, a great deal of time and money into it. All right, that is finished. As that is finished, you hand the book-keeping and so on over to some professional, and that ends it. Then what are you going to do? I think the other trustees should hear all these tapes because as members they must be involved with this completely.
So, I see my dharma, what I have to do. It hasn’t been clear, but in this meeting it has become very clear for myself, for K. Now, is that as clear to you, too? K’s job now is, apart from public talks and all the rest of that, to go with the Foundation members in India, here, Canada for the next fifteen years. It is my job to push you and pull you, push, drive into the cave. Not into the wine cellar, but into something else. That is very clear, and I am going to do it. And I feel this tremendously. Please accept that, from my seriousness, I feel this. Now, what happens? What will you do, at the end of fifteen years?
E. Lilliefelt: Sir, one of the difficulties, I feel, is that whenever we members of the Foundation see each other, we are always occupied with matters.
Krishnamurti: That is finished; you have finished with it now.
E. Lilliefelt: The opportunity we have had here to be together to talk about deeper things is of the utmost value. We don’t seem to find that time when we’re...
Krishnamurti: Ah, that is what happened in Brockwood. We discussed it with Mrs D. She is occupied from morning till night with school matters, parents, teachers, students.
Simmons: I disagree with that, Krishnaji. I disagree with that really.
Simmons: I’m occupied some of the time with that.
Simmons: And I think we’ve discovered here that that is one of the things that must be looked into.
Krishnamurti: I am going to press this. But are you, as Mrs D, entering into the cave, digging, finding new gold, new ingots, new things? It is understood that you are involved in the school, you are helping the school, but are you helping your teachers to go into this cave more?
Simmons: If one is not, one ought to stop doing the work.
Krishnamurti: Do not answer. I am asking you, but not to respond to the question. Is this what is being done in Canada, in India, Brockwood, here? That is my job. I will do that. I will do it there, I will do it more and more seriously. Are we doing the same thing everywhere? Please do not answer me because I am just putting the question for you to look at. Is this what is happening, or has just begun, in Rajghat, Rishi Valley and Vasanta Vihar? I can answer that. For forty years, nothing has been done. Right? Now it is beginning. Right? Would you say that?
Burnier: I do not know, sir.
Krishnamurti: Now you have to work at it; you want to do it. Before, it was all tradition; all the mess went on. So I am challenging you, asking you, begging you: are you doing this? If you say, “Yes, we are doing it,” then it is finished.
Simmons: Why, Krishnaji?
Krishnamurti: Then you are doing it. Then my challenge has no value.
Simmons: You could deepen it.
Krishnamurti: I am asking you to deepen it, not I deepen it.
Simmons: Well, by discussion...
Krishnamurti: We are discussing it now. So, this is a kind of asking if we are doing it.
20 March 1977
Burnier: Sir, can we discuss the relationship between K’s teaching, K’s word and truth?
Krishnamurti: K’s teaching, K’s word and truth: what is the relationship in all of that.
Burnier: Is there such a thing as K’s teaching at all, or is there only truth?
Krishnamurti: Would you say what is said, printed, talked about, discussed, the dialogues, and all the rest is the expression of truth? Is he talking out of truth, out of the silence of truth, or is he talking out of an illusion which he considers truth? There are two problems, there are two things involved in it. He is either talking out of the silence of truth, or he is talking out of the noise of illusion, and thinking that is the truth.
Burnier: Which is what most people do.
Krishnamurti: So, which is it that he is doing? More basically that is what you are asking, isn’t it?
Burnier: I am not asking that question.
Krishnamurti: I am putting it definitely; that’s better.
Burnier: Yes, maybe. There could be a confusion between the word and truth.
Krishnamurti: No, but the word is not the truth. That is why he is saying either he is talking out of the silence of truth...
Burnier: Because one feels that K is speaking out of the silence of truth, there is more possibility that the word is taken for truth.
Krishnamurti: No, let’s go slowly at this, because it is rather interesting. Either he is talking out of the silence of truth, or out of the noise of illusion. Now, who is going to judge, who is going to say the truth of the matter? Who? The reader? You, Radhaji, who know Indian scripture, Buddhism, the Upanishads, and so on? You are familiar with all that, and know most of the contents of all that. Are you judging? Are you capable of judging? How shall we find out?
K is there. He is talking about these things. I am a listener, and I wonder if he is really speaking out of the extraordinary silence of truth, or out of reactions from childhood. Which is it? Either he is talking out of his conditioning or out of the other. How will you approach this problem? You put that question. How will you approach it? How will you find out?
Burnier: Is it possible for me to find out if what is meeting that teaching is the noise within myself?
Krishnamurti: I am asking you how you will find out. What is the criterion or the measure that you have to say, yes, that is that, and that is that? Or would you say, “I do not know”? Or you might say that you do not know but you are watching, examining, investigating, not whether he is speaking out of that or out of this, but the truth of what he is saying, which removes the two.
Burnier: Examining the truth of what he is saying.
Krishnamurti: No, no. If K were speaking, I would want to know whether it is out of this or out of that.
Krishnamurti: I do not know, but I’m going to listen to what he is saying and see if it is true. Because I am fairly alive to things, and I listen to this man, and I want to find out whether it is mere words, words, words, words, words, or out of nothingness.
Burnier: But I might have come to the conclusion that it is true. Then I am already not listening.
Krishnamurti: No, I do not know yet. This is my life. My life is concerned with this problem; it is not just for a few years or a few days. I want to know the truth of this matter.
See how the Indian mind works? You see, what Radhaji is saying is: is K speaking out of experience, knowledge and all that, or out of no knowledge. Most people speak out of knowledge. So you are asking that question. How will you find out?
Burnier: How does anyone find out?
Krishnamurti: I am asking you. How will you find out? I know how I would approach it. I do not know how you would find out. I will tell you what I would do. I would put aside all his personality, his “influence,” in quotes; I put all that completely aside because I don’t want to be influenced; I am sceptical, doubtful, so I am very careful with that. So I listen to him. I don’t say I know or I don’t know, but I am sceptical. But I want to find out.
Burnier: Does sceptical mean not knowing or knowing?
Krishnamurti: No, I don’t know. But I don’t accept.
Bohm: Sceptical means you doubt it; sceptical means you are inclined to doubt it.
Zimbalist: Which is already a bias, isn’t it?
Krishnamurti: Ah, no, no. I am sceptical in the sense that I do not accept everything that...
Zimbalist: Doubt is a negation in a sense.
Krishnamurti: All right, I had better use the word doubt in the sense that I am questioning. Let’s put it that way. Much better. I am questioning. Therefore I say to myself, am I questioning out of my prejudice? We Indians are pretty good at this.
Bohm: In what way is this particularly Indian?
Krishnamurti: I will tell you. This question has never been put to me before. I am putting it, I am expanding it, and I see that this way I would put aside all the personal reputation, personal charm, personal this and that and the other thing, looks, and everything. I would say, look, I am not going to accept or reject. I am going to listen, to find out; and to see if I am prejudiced, if I am listening to him with all my knowledge.
Burnier: About him.
Krishnamurti: No, knowledge which I have gathered about religion, about what the books have said, what other people have said, my own experience. Otherwise I would not listen to him.
Burnier: No, I may be listening to him precisely because I have rejected...
Krishnamurti: Ah, have I? Have I rejected all that? Or am I listening to him with all that? If I have rejected all that, then I am listening very carefully to what he has to say.
Burnier: Or listening with all that I already know of him.
Krishnamurti: I said that. I have put away reputation. That is why I am asking if I am listening to him with the knowledge that I have acquired through books, through experience, and therefore I am comparing, judging, evaluating; then I can’t find out whether what he is saying is truth. But is it possible for me to put aside all that? Otherwise I can’t find out; and I am passionately interested to find out. So I say, all right, for the time being, while I am listening at least, I will put aside everything I have known. Then I proceed. I want to know; but I am not going to accept, not going to be easily pulled into something by argument, cleverness, logic. I have played with all that. So I say, now, am I capable of listening to what he is saying with complete abandonment of the past? It comes to that. Am I? Are you?
Then my relationship to him is entirely different. Then I am listening out of silence. That is all. This is really a very interesting question. How would you answer it? I have answered it. How would you answer it? Or, Dr Bohm, how would you answer it, sir?
Bohm: In what way should it be different?
Krishnamurti: I do not know, I do not know. I would not have answered myself right off. How would you answer it? There you are, a dozen of you; how would you answer this question? How do you know what he is talking about is truth?
E. Lilliefelt: Well, I would not be concerned with that word truth. When you use the word truth, you indicate you have the ability to judge what is true, or you already have a definition of truth, or you know what truth is, which means you will not be listening to what somebody is saying.
Krishnamurti: Don’t you want to know whether he is speaking falsehood out of a conditioned mind, out of a reaction; out of a rejection and therefore reaction? Don’t you want to know?
E. Lilliefelt: I realize that in order to listen to this man, or to anybody, I cannot listen with a conditioned mind.
Krishnamurti: But he might have concealed it beautifully.
E. Lilliefelt: Could be. Could be.
Burnier: There are other questions which arise. Is truth in silence? If I reject all this knowledge and listen in silence, is truth in that silence?
Krishnamurti: I do not know, I am going to find out. That is one of the things I have to find out.
Burnier: Then, as this well is an endless source, is the teaching the same as truth?
Krishnamurti: Go on, sir. How would you answer this question?
Bohm: I think first of all, if you are silent you can be sensitive to what is false; in other words, to see if there is something false, something incoherent there.
Krishnamurti: Logic can be very false.
Bohm: Yes, I do not mean just logic, but you can be sensitive to the whole communication to see if there is something false, some deception. You see, I think one of the questions implied there is: are you deceiving yourself?
Krishnamurti: Yes, or, as the man put it in Brockwood after one of the talks, “Sir, you are getting old, you are stuck.”
Bohm: Yes, well, that is the same thing; right?
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes, “You are in a rut.”
Bohm: Well, you said that you had looked at that for several days.
Krishnamurti: Yes, I said, by Jove, I must examine this.
Zimbalist: But doesn’t that sensitivity demand the absence of one’s own projections?
Bohm: Yes, I think you have to be free of deceiving yourself to see that.
Krishnamurti: Sir, forgive me for asking, how do you know K is speaking the truth, or if K is deceiving himself and is caught in an illusion which gives him a feeling of “that”? How do you answer?
Zimbalist: Because one goes into it oneself. One cannot accept it without going deeply into it.
Krishnamurti: But one can deceive oneself so appallingly.
Zimbalist: Well, you have to go through the layers of all those deceptions, and beyond them.
Krishnamurti: What if I were a stranger and came to Dr Bohm and said, “Look, you have listened to this man for a long time, how do you know he is telling the truth? How do you know anything about it?”
Bohm: Well, I could say various things, that I have looked at what you have said, and each time I was able to test if it was right. I have not found anything that...
Krishnamurti: That was contradictory.
Bohm: ...Contradictory, and so on.
Krishnamurti: No, no, her question was: how do you find out the truth? Not whether it is contradictory, logical, all this and that.
Zimbalist: If one goes all the way; if one goes through all the possible self-deceptions.
Krishnamurti: That is just it. If you say, one’s own sensitivity, one’s own investigation, one’s own delving, is that enough?
Burnier: One can go so far as to say that in the moments when one is listening – I do not know how deeply, but listening at all – one feels there is a change in oneself. It may not be a total revolution but there is a change.
Krishnamurti: That can happen if you go for a walk and look at the mountains and be quiet; when you come back to your home, certain things have taken place.
Chari: We listen to people who speak from knowledge, and we listen to you, and there is something totally different. It’s a non-verbal...
Krishnamurti: Have you answered her question?
Chari: To myself I have. I have listened to scores of people and I have listened to K. I don’t know what it is but it is totally different.
Burnier: That means we say there is a ring of truth in it.
Zimbalist: Some people find a ring of truth in palmistry.
Bohm: You see, there are people who do imply that in some way you are deceiving yourself, and they do not see it that way.
Chari: No, I do not go along with this business of deceiving.
Bohm: I am not saying that is so, but I am saying that there are some people who do say so.
Chari: I mean, it is so clear. It is very clear.
T. Lilliefelt: There was a man who wrote to me and asked, “Are you agreeing with everything Krishnamurti says? Didn’t he say to you that you should doubt everything he says?” So the only way I could answer was to say, “Well, look, to me it is self-evident.” It is the best way I could answer that.
Krishnamurti: Ah, it may be self-evident to you. This is such a dangerous, delicate thing.
Burnier: That is the whole problem, that it is such a delicate thing.
Wilhelm: Well, for thought it is not possible at all to be sure about this matter. This is typical of thought, that it wants to be sure that it is not deceiving, that it is listening to truth. I think thought will never give up that question, and it is the right of thought never to give up that question. Thought cannot touch truth, thought cannot know about it.
Krishnamurti: You know, sir, Dr Bohm and I had a discussion of this kind in a different way. I will go into it, if I remember it rightly. First of all, is there such silence which is not the word, which is not imagined, induced? Is there such a silence, and is it possible to speak out of that silence? Do you remember, something of that kind that we discussed?
Bohm: The question was really whether the words are coming from the silence or from the memory.
Krishnamurti: Memory, that is it.
Bohm: Words coming from perception or from memory.
Bohm: You see, the words are being used to communicate whatever is being said along with the non-verbal; and the question is whether the words are directly communicating or coming out of the emptiness, out of the silence. Right?
Krishnamurti: Yes. That is the real question. Are you satisfied by this answer, by what Fritz has said, or by what Doctor Bohm said? “Satisfied” in quotes.
Burnier: No, sir.
Krishnamurti: Then, how do you find out?
Simmons: The very words you are using deny the possibility of being satisfied. To work at it intellectually is something that has nothing to do with those things.
Krishnamurti: Look, Mrs D, I love you, so I trust you. I trust you. Whatever you say will not be a lie. Because I trust you, therefore you trust me. I am putting it differently. I know you will not deceive me. Under any circumstance, you will not deceive me; you will not tell me something which is not actual to you. You will not invent an accident, or say, “I have a tremendous experience.” You will not invent.
Simmons: I might out of ignorance do something.
Krishnamurti: Wait a minute. But you trust me and I trust you, so there is a relationship of trust, confidence, affection, love. Like a man and a woman: if they are married, they trust each other; they know very well one will not tell a lie. Now, is that possible here? Because, as he points out, with logic, reason, I can deceive myself with all these things. Millions of people have done it. You see, it is too dangerous, even this. I can see the danger. Like the priest – I love the priest and he can play havoc with me.
Wilhelm: I think trust and investigation and logic and all that go together with love.
Krishnamurti: No, sir, but that is a very dangerous thing too.
Wilhelm: Of course, of course it is.
Bohm: Is there any way to avoid danger?
Krishnamurti: But I do not want to be caught in an illusion.
Burnier: So can we say that truth is in the silence, the silence of a listener as well as in the silence out of which the teaching comes?
Krishnamurti: But I want to know how that silence comes. I might invent it. I might have worked to have a silent mind for years, conditioned it, you know, held it in a cage and said, “Marvellous, I am silent.” So there is that danger, there is the trust danger, logic danger, thought is a danger. So what have I done at the end of it? I see all the dangers around me; I am caught in all those dangers, and I want to find out whether what K, what that man is saying, is truth. So I say, please, I want to abandon all this first. I cannot find that out.
Wilhelm: I think there is no way or procedure to find that out. There is no prescription. I cannot tell anybody how to find that out. I can say that, with all my being, I feel that something is true, and maybe I can convey it through my life, but I cannot convince anybody through words or reason, or through any method. And I cannot convince myself in the same way.
T. Lilliefelt: That is why it is very difficult to say you have to watch over the purity of the teaching. How are we going to watch over the purity of the teaching?
Krishnamurti: Quite right.
Zimbalist: Are we saying that perception has to be pure and in the realm of silence, the real realm of silence, not a fantasy realm of silence, in order to be able to even come close to this question?
Krishnamurti: Maria, you see, Dr Bohm is a scientist, he is a logical physicist, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I go to him and say, “Look, is what K says the truth?” How is he going to answer me?
Zimbalist: But doesn’t Dr Bohm, or anybody, have to go beyond the limitations of logic?
Krishnamurti: Look, I do not know anything about logic, reason and all that. I come to him. I have met him two or three times and I say, “Look, Bohm, tell me, please, I really want to know from you, because you are a logician, careful of the use of words, and so on. Please tell me if that man is telling the truth.”
Zimbalist: But you are then saying to use logic to...
Krishnamurti: No, I say, “Look, I know he is that.” You have misunderstood. I do not know anything about anything. I have heard Dr Bohm talk about all this. He is a physicist, he is fairly astute, he won’t deceive himself, so I go to him. Wait, listen to the end of it. And I am very interested because I have heard several people who are illogical, not careful. They say, “Yes, he is speaking truth.” I want to go to him and say, “Please tell me if he is telling the truth.” Truth, not some crooked thing covered up. How is he going to answer me? Right, sir? Answer me, sir. I am really interested in this because I want to find out.
Bohm: One point before we get to that is, when this man said that you may be just caught in a groove, and you looked at it for some time, what happened then?
Krishnamurti: I looked at it in several different ways, and I do not think I am caught in a groove, but yet I may be caught in a groove, so I left it. After examining very carefully I left it. And something takes place when you leave it after examination. Leave it alone; something new comes into it. But he will not be convinced.
Bohm: No, I do not know if you can convince this man; it is a matter of communicating something.
Krishnamurti: Yes. Now I am asking you, please tell me. I am a stranger, I have heard about you, I come to you, I say, “Please, Doctor, I am really interested to find out from you because you are logical. Please tell me, I want to know the truth of what that man is saying.”
T. Lilliefelt: Sir, obviously you cannot tell him. To me it is a great reality. I cannot communicate it to you. This is what I have found out, and you have to find out for yourself. You have to test it on your own.
Krishnamurti: But you may be leading me up the garden path.
T. Lilliefelt: Well, all I can say is I cannot really communicate it.
Krishnamurti: Or you may be up the garden path yourself.
E. Lilliefelt: But then why should I go to David Bohm, much as I respect him?
Krishnamurti: I am telling you, darling. I happen to hear about him. I do not know any of you. I live in Yorkshire in England and I heard about him, and he is the nearest man, and I go to him. That is all. I want him to answer my question: how does he know that he is speaking out of that? How does he know? Go on, sir, help me.
Bohm: One thing I can say is that I have questioned it and I said, you know, it may be so, it may not be so. I have gone into that in the same way, and have looked carefully into the question of self-deception.
Krishnamurti: Sir, I understand that, all right. I am very doubtful, I am very sceptical. I have been led by Gandhi, by this, by the other, by the latest guru, and all are wrong. They have led me up the wrong path; and I say, “For God’s sake, enough of all this.” Here is a man who is a scientist, a physicist, very well known all over the world, and I say, “For God’s sake, tell me.”
Zimbalist: If I were the person from Yorkshire, I would want to know out of what he was going to answer me.
Krishnamurti: That is what I am going to find out! I am going to find out if he is answering me from logic, reason, as a physicist. I have been through all the games before. Are you answering me that way? I will argue with him.
Bohm: Yes, I will tell him that is not this.
Krishnamurti: Therefore I say, “Tell me then, if all that is not it, then what is it? How do you in your heart of hearts, as a human being say to me that he is speaking the truth?” I want to feel that. I would object to all the logic and all that business. I have been through all that game before. Well, sir? How do you answer this?
T. Lilliefelt: Sir, the greatness of the teaching is that it cannot be passed on that way.
Krishnamurti: I did not say that. You are missing something. I want to know from you or from Dr Bohm whether K is speaking truth. It is not a question of passing it on.
E. Lilliefelt: But if I am not sure whether you speak the truth, why should I go to Professor Bohm, and think that he might be telling me the truth?
Krishnamurti: I have told you I have not heard K, my lady. I have explained all that.
E. Lilliefelt: You mean it is my respect for Dr Bohm?
Krishnamurti: No, I do not know him. I have heard his name, I have heard he is very well known, and I happen to pick up that K and he are great friends, so I come to him.
Burnier: There are also people who say things which are very similar, who are very clever, who have grasped this intellectually very well, and say they are speaking from truth.
Krishnamurti: They are saying that in India now. “You are the world” is the latest catchword. I want it from Dr Bohm, not from you, sorry. I know what you are going to say. You have told me that.
Wilhelm: In order to communicate that, I have to speak out of the same silence you were referring to.
Krishnamurti: No, sir, I want to know; please be simple with me. I want to know if K is speaking truth. And Dr Bohm has known K for several years, and I go to him and I say, “Please do tell me if he is speaking truth.” I want it straight from the horse’s mouth! [Laughs]
E. Lilliefelt: Dr Bohm is here. Let him tell us.
Krishnamurti: That is all I am waiting for.
T. Lilliefelt: I thought you wanted proof.
Krishnamurti: I did not want proof. Please listen, because it is a very serious question. It is not just a dramatic or an intellectual question; this is a tremendous question.
Zimbalist: But, sir, is there an answer? David may give an answer but that person is asking a false question to begin with.
Krishnamurti: Is he?
Zimbalist: Of course. How can a person know?
Krishnamurti: I say, “Look, I am a stranger. I do not want to know anything about books.” I go to him because I have heard about him. He has known K, and I go to him and I say, “Look, please just be simple with me. I wipe out all the logic stuff because I can play with all that. Please tell me directly if he is speaking truth.” I question him, you see. “Are you speaking out of knowledge? I want to know if scientifically, logically, you see the sequence. I say that is all trivial. You are always replying along those lines, but I don’t want to know that. I am as clever as you are about all that.” But here is a man who is a scientist, therefore he must have a very good trained mind, a scientist who is very well known, a scientist who suddenly has come into this, and I say, “What a strange thing. Has he gone cuckoo? Has he become a neurotic? Has he become a religio-scientist maniac?” I want to know. So I go to him and I say, “Please, to me this is very important, because if you say he is speaking the truth, I won’t accept it and I won’t reject it. I will listen to you because you have a good, trained mind. Therefore, perhaps you may deceive yourself but I am going to catch you, I am going to argue with you.” So I say to him, “Please, sir, treat me as a grown up man, treat me as though I am really very, very serious in this matter. Do not brush me off with a few words. I have come a long way by bus, bullock cart. I have travelled all over the world to find... And everybody says, “Yes, the Maharishi is truth, that man is truth, what Jesus said is truth.” And, it goes on. I say, “To hell with all this. I want to know from him.”
Bohm: Well, I think all I could say is that when we did discuss these things, it was from the emptiness, and that I felt it was a direct perception.
Krishnamurti: Direct perception.
Bohm: From the emptiness.
Krishnamurti: Yes. So, is direct perception unrelated to logic?
Bohm: It does not come from logic, no.
Krishnamurti: But you are logical all the same.
Bohm: Well, that merely is later. I mean, not at that moment.
Krishnamurti: Aha! So you are telling me, “I have found out whether that man is telling the truth because I had a direct perception, insight into what he is saying.” Right?
Krishnamurti: Now, be careful, sir, because I have heard some disciple of a guru saying exactly the same thing.
Bohm: I say that I may also have heard it from a guru, but a little later, by looking at it logically, I saw what he said was nonsense. By looking at the fact and the logic I saw it does not fit. So I would say that, in addition to direct perception I have constantly examined the thing not only logically but factually.
Krishnamurti: So you are saying that perception has not blinded you, that with that perception goes logic also.
Bohm: Yes, logic and fact.
Krishnamurti: Yes. So, perception-logic. Not logic-perception.
Bohm: Yes. That is the way it always has to be.
Krishnamurti: Yes. So, through perception, then logic you say, “Yes, that is truth.” Hasn’t this been done by the devout Christians?
Bohm: Well, no, logic is not enough because we have to see how people actually behave as well. We see that the Christians may say certain things but when we look at the whole of what they do, it does not fit.
Krishnamurti: Isn’t there a danger in this, sir? I am just asking. Isn’t there a terrible danger in this?
Bohm: I am sure there is a danger.
Krishnamurti: Yes. So you are saying something else too, to me, that one has to walk in danger.
Krishnamurti: One has to move in a field which is full of danger.
Krishnamurti: Now I am beginning to understand what you are saying. What, sir?
T. Lilliefelt: Walking on eggs.
Krishnamurti: Yes. Full of snakes.
Burnier: Which means being tremendously awake.
Krishnamurti: So you have learnt that. I have learned from talking to him that this is a very dangerous thing. You are walking over pitfalls full of danger, snakes. He has said you can only understand whether he is speaking truth if you are really prepared to walk in the field which is full of danger. Is that right?
Krishnamurti: A field which is full of mines. [Laughs] You are walking the razor’s path. He is putting it a different way. I did not want to go back to “razor’s edge.”
So am I prepared to do that? Because my whole being says, “Be secure, for God’s sake.”
Bohm: That’s the only way to do anything.
Krishnamurti: So you are telling me that you have learnt a great deal by this. I have learnt to be aware of the dangers that are around me and also to face danger all the time, and therefore have no security. And I say, “My God, this is too much,” and I walk away! [Laughter] That is what I want to get at. Can my mind, which has been conditioned for centuries upon centuries to be secure, abandon that and say, “Well, I will walk into danger”? That is what you are telling me. And that is illogical.
Bohm: Well, no, it is not.
Krishnamurti: It is logical but in a sense it is illogical, therefore I will accept it. [Laughter]
Bohm: Well, in principle it is the way all science should be done.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right. So, danger also means I do not trust anybody, any leader. I trust my wife because she loves me and I love her. That is irrelevant. But I do not trust any guru, any prophet.
T. Lilliefelt: Of course the word danger has to be explained too.
Krishnamurti: Oh yes, he has explained it very simply.
T. Lilliefelt: From my conditioning it is very dangerous.
Krishnamurti: No. He says all that to me: “I have walked in danger and I have found the logic of this danger, and I have found through the perception of the danger the truth of what he is saying.” And he says to me, “If you want to find out, old boy, yes, no security, no safety in this business.” While all the others give me safety. Right?
Zimbalist: Security becomes the ultimate danger. Security becomes the real danger.
Krishnamurti: Of course.
Bohm: Of course. What you described is actually the scientific approach; every statement must be in danger of being false. Some people have put it that way.
Krishnamurti: Perfectly right, sir.
T. Lilliefelt: And this man may...
Krishnamurti: Ah, no, sir! Have you learnt a lot from him now? I have. I may come from Sheffield or Leeds or one of those horrible towns, Birmingham, and I go to him and he says, “I have found that what he says is truth because I have had a perception and that perception stands logically.” I can reason with it, but perception is outside reason. And in that perception I see that where I walk is full of pitfalls, danger. Therefore, I must be tremendously aware. Danger exists when there is no security. And all the gurus, priests offer security. Therefore, seeing the illogic of it, I accept his illogic too! [Laughs] I have got it.
Right, sir? Have I answered your question?
Burnier: Yes, sir.
Bohm: I am not clear that you should call it illogical. It is not illogical because it is the way logic has to work.
Krishnamurti: Of course. Are you saying, sir, direct perception, insight and the working of it demands great logic, great capacity to think clearly? But the capacity to think clearly will certainly not bring about insight. That is right. Then I say, “By Jove, you are Lao Tse.”
Bohm: What? [Laughter]
Krishnamurti: You know Lao Tse? Of course.
Burnier: But if the logic does not bring about perception, what does it do exactly?
Krishnamurti: Logic? It trains the mind, sharpens the mind. But that certainly will not have an insight.
Burnier: But it is not through the mind that the perception comes.
Krishnamurti: That all depends on what you mean by the mind.
Burnier: The logical mind.
Burnier: Sir, you are training something which you are not using.
Krishnamurti: What is that? What is that?
Burnier: Logic sharpens the mind.
Krishnamurti: Logic clears the mind. It makes the mind sharp, clear, objective, therefore sane. But that will not give you the other. Then, your question is, how will the other come about?
Burnier: No, that was not my question. Logic clears the mind, but is the mind the instrument of perception?
Bohm: Well, you must carry out the perception, see what is implied in it. If you perceive, for example, the ending of sorrow, or fear, something like that, it may be that the whole thing is deception. That is, logic is something which provides for clarity in what you are doing from there on.
Burnier: Yes, that is what he said, that it clears the mind of the debris, so to speak.
Bohm: Yes, but the debris might come if you do not have logic.
Krishnamurti: You might remain in debris if you do not have logic.
Burnier: It is all the time wiping away.
Krishnamurti: No, not all the time. Be careful.
Zimbalist: If the perception is a perception and so, truth, reality, why does it then need the discipline of logic?
Krishnamurti: No. He said perception works out logically. It does not need logic. Whatever it does is logical, reasonable, sane, objective.
Zimbalist: It is logical of itself.
Krishnamurti: That is it.
Bohm: It is logical without an attempt to make it so. Right?
Krishnamurti: That is it.
Bohm: It is like saying that if you see what is in this room correctly, you will not find anything illogical in what you see.
Krishnamurti: All right, sir. I am still the man from Yorkshire. I have understood this. Will the perception keep the debris away all the time so that my mind never accumulates the waste, the debris? That is your question, isn’t it?
Krishnamurti: So it does not have to clean, clean, clean.
Bohm: The perception can reach the stage at which it is continually keeping it clear. It can reach the stage for a certain moment.
Krishnamurti: All right, sir. That is, at certain moments I have perception; but during the interval between the perceptions there is a lot of debris; a lot of muck is being gathered. Our question is whether perception is continuous – wait, wait, wait, I know the catch in that – so that there is no collection of the muck, debris. Put it round that way. One perception keeps the field clear. Is that it?
Burnier: Can one make a difference between insight and perception?
Krishnamurti: Keep the same thing, don’t break it up yet. Those two words are synonymous. We are asking if it is continuous perception or if it is perception from time to time, with time intervals, and during those intervals there is a lot of collection of debris and therefore shaping again. Or does perception in itself bring about tremendous clarity in which there is no debris?
Bohm: Are you saying that this will happen, that once it happens it will be there forever? Is that the nature of your question?
Krishnamurti: That is what I am trying to get at.
T. Lilliefelt: Never again.
Krishnamurti: Ah, no, no, I don’t use “continuous,” “never again.” Keep to the question. Once perception has taken place, can the mind collect further debris? It is only when that perception becomes darkened by the debris that there is the process of getting rid of it. But if there is perception, why should there be collection, gathering?
Bohm: There are a lot of difficult points in this.
Krishnamurti: Of course.
22 March 1977
Krishnamurti: I think we were having a dialogue the day before yesterday about how one knows whether what K is saying is truth. He might be caught in his own illusions, in his own conditionings, and knowing them and not being able to get rid of them or free himself from them, has put together a series of words, a series of observations, and calls them the truth. How do you know what he is saying is actual, truthful and lasting? That is what we were talking about.
Dr Bohm said that when one has an insight, a direct perception into what is being said, then there is no doubt that it is the truth. Having that insight, that direct perception, you can logically work it out, prove that the perception is true. That is right. I am rather good at repeating, I see. Is that perception brief, only to be had at intervals and therefore gathering a lot of debris, a lot of messy, mucky stuff, or is one perception never-ending? We left off there. Shall we go on with that?
We have finished with everything else, haven’t we? That when K dies, the Foundations in India, Brockwood, Ojai and Canada will be guiltlessly, totally responsible for what they themselves have heard, perceived, had an insight into. Without guilt, they are responsible to their own perception, to their own insight and therefore to the truth of what K has said. That is the conclusion of all this month’s discussions. So we can leave all that aside.
So, we are asking ourselves whether it is a direct perception, enduring, and therefore never gathering rubbish, debris, those things that block perception, and so there is no further need of perception. One perception is enough; it opens the door so that there is insight all the time.
Bohm: Does that mean you never have any confusion?
Krishnamurti: Yes, you never have any confusion. We came to that point. What do you say, sirs? Discuss this. One has a perception, insight, and that insight has its own capacity to reason logically and act. Therefore that action is complete, because that perception is complete for the moment. Will further action confuse perception, or does perception have no further confusion? I do not know how to put this.
Bohm: We were saying that this whole thing is dangerous, these things are very dangerous.
Krishnamurti: Yes, we got that point.
Bohm: Because, you know, if you say I have an action that is always right...
Krishnamurti: Oh, that is dangerous.
Bohm: ...Then it is very dangerous.
Krishnamurti: What do you say?
Burnier: Yes, that is what we said, that logic has its danger. One could think one has an insight when it is not an insight.
Krishnamurti: And have the capacity to reason it out and act and say that is perfect action, complete action. Some people who read the Gita act according to that, and they call that insight; their actions are patterned after their reading, their observing. They say this action is complete. I have heard many, among the Catholics and Protestants, who are completely imbued with their reading. So, we see the danger; we are treading very dangerous ground, and therefore are being greatly aware.
Burnier: You also said that if the mind tries to find security in any of this...
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes, yes. The mind has always been seeking security, and when that security is threatened it tries to find security in insight, in direct perception. Would that be right, sir?
Bohm: In the illusion of insight.
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes, but it makes the insight into security. The next thing is whether there must be constant breaking of perception. That is, one day one sees very clearly and directly, one has direct perception, and then that fades away; there is confusion, and again a perception and action, and confusion. So on and on like that. Is that so, or is there no confusion? When there is deep insight, there is no further confusion. That is it.
Chari: We are saying is perception whole, or...?
Krishnamurti: Yes, if the perception is complete, whole, then there is no confusion at any time. If that so-called perception is not complete, not whole, one may deceive oneself that it is whole and act upon that, which brings confusion. Yes, that is it.
Zimbalist: Krishnaji, is there also a possible danger that one has a genuine perception, insight, is not fooling oneself, and that out of that comes a certain action, but then one could fall into making whatever that action was a formula.
Krishnamurti: That is generally what happens.
Zimbalist: But that implies a real perception. Isn’t it corruption of the perception just to make a pattern out of the action instead of continuing perception?
Krishnamurti: Are you saying making patterns out of perception?
Zimbalist: It is like looking out of the window and seeing something, but then not looking out of the window again. You say it is the way it was when you saw it.
Krishnamurti: Yes, quite. Take scientists. I am not talking of Dr Bohm. They have an insight into something. Because they have specialized they have an insight, and that insight is put into the category of science, unrelated to their lives. We are talking of a perception that is not only in the field of action but also in daily life.
Bohm: It is whole.
Krishnamurti: It is whole.
Kishbaugh: And thus a continuity.
Bohm: But I still do not think we have looked at this danger. You see, for example, you stated the other day that a man came to you and said, “Maybe...”
Krishnamurti: Yes, “You are caught in a rut.”
Bohm: Now, you did not say immediately, “I know I am not, because I have had a perfect insight.”
Krishnamurti: Ah, that would be deadly!
Bohm: But rather you said you looked at it for several days.
Krishnamurti: Of course.
Bohm: I am trying to find out what we are driving at, if you are saying that there might be insight which never goes back into confusion. But are we not saying that there is just such an insight?
Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right. Sir, would you say that when there is complete perception, not illusory perception, there is no further confusion?
Bohm: That seems reasonable. If it is complete perception, then there is no room for further confusion.
Krishnamurti: That means from day to day there is no confusion at all.
Bohm: But then why did you feel it necessary to look into it?
Krishnamurti: Ah, why did I? Because I may deceive myself. Therefore I must be alert. It is dangerous ground and I must watch it.
Bohm: Are we seeing this as an insight now? That when there is an insight of that kind, there is no further confusion; but we may deceive ourselves, nevertheless.
Krishnamurti: Yes, therefore we must be watchful.
Zimbalist: You mean after the real insight you would then deceive yourself?
Krishnamurti: No, wait. You have a deep insight, complete, whole. Someone comes along and says, “Look, you are deceiving yourself.” Do you instantly say, “No, sorry, I am not deceiving myself because my perception is complete”? Or do you listen to him and go to your room and look at it all afresh? It does not mean that you are denying the complete perception. You are watching again to see if it is real or if it is illusory.
Kishbaugh: But that is not necessarily an intellectual process?
Krishnamurti: No, no, it is intellectual as well as non-verbal.
S. Siddoo: Is perception something that is always there?
Krishnamurti: Ah, you are leading to dangerous ground, the Hindu idea that God is always there inside you, that most people have that, abiding, deep, divinity, or soul or Atman.
Bohm: But truth is inside.
Krishnamurti: Yes, and it is covered up. Remove the debris, the confusion and there is insight. I do not think that is a conclusion.
That there is something divine, a soul, Atman, whatever you like to call it, inside, is a conclusion; and from a conclusion you can never have a total, complete perception.
Chari: Does it mean that the stepping out is for certain individuals?
Krishnamurti: No, no. When you say “certain individuals,” I think you are putting a wrong question, aren’t you?
Chari: No. If the possibility exists for everyone...
Krishnamurti: Yes, the possibility exists for human beings.
Chari: For human beings. Then there is some energy which...
Krishnamurti: ...Which is outside of them or which is in them.
Chari: Yes. We do not know.
Krishnamurti: Therefore do not come to any conclusion. If you have a conclusion, and you perceive from that, then that perception is conditioned, therefore it is not whole.
Chari: Yes. This conclusion would vitiate perception.
Krishnamurti: That is right.
Blau: Does that mean that there would not be the possibility of a deepening of perception or of insight?
Krishnamurti: You cannot deepen insight. You cannot deepen perception. You perceive the whole. That is all.
Zimbalist: Are you saying that perception if it is partial is not perception?
Krishnamurti: Of course, obviously.
Cadogan: You mentioned watchfulness after perception, in answer to something that David said.
Krishnamurti: No, no, what happened was at Brockwood, after I talked, a man came up to me and said, “You are getting old, you are stuck in a groove.” And I listened to it, went to my room for a couple of days, and I thought about it. I looked at it, said, “By Jove, he may be right.”
Cadogan: So you are suggesting that it could be possible.
Krishnamurti: No, I want to examine it. Do not say it could or could not.
Cadogan: Could being caught in habit happen again at certain levels?
Krishnamurti: No, when there is total perception there is no further confusion.
Cadogan: No getting caught in habit?
Krishnamurti: No further confusion, because it is whole.
Bohm: What if something happened to the brain, you see, physically?
Krishnamurti: Then, of course, it is gone.
Bohm: There seems to be a limit to what you say, because it assumes that the brain remains healthy.
Krishnamurti: Of course, the whole organism is healthy. If there is an accident like brain concussion, and something is knocked out, that is finished.
Zimbalist: Then the major danger is that we would mistake a partial perception...
Krishnamurti: ...For the total.
S. Siddoo: But it still means that it is in there. You are not tapping it from outside. That energy is within you then, isn’t it?
Krishnamurti: No, wait a minute, wait a minute. Go slowly. One has to go into this question of what perception is. How do you come to it? It is very important, isn’t it? You cannot have perception if your daily life is in disorder, confused, contradictory. That is obvious. Is it outside or inside? She is asking that question, all the time.
Blau: Isn’t that an artificial division, the outside and inside? Is that a real thing or is that just an illusion?
Krishnamurti: She said that this perception needs energy. And that energy may be an external energy, a mechanical energy, or it may be a non-mechanistic energy which may exist deeply inside you.
Blau: Well, we may conceive that it is outside and mechanistic but is that actual?
Krishnamurti: Both are mental concepts.
Krishnamurti: Would you agree to that? Both are conclusions which one has either accepted because tradition has said it, or one has come to that conclusion by oneself. So any form of conclusion is detrimental to perception. So let us go into it. What does perception mean? Can I have perception if I am attached to my position, my wife, my property? If I am attached, can I have perception?
Krishnamurti: Why do you say no?
Zimbalist: Because it colours the act of perceiving.
Krishnamurti: Yes, but take a scientist. He has his family, his attachments; he wants his position, money, but he has an insight.
Zimbalist: But it is not total.
Krishnamurti: So we are saying that total perception can only take place when there is no confusion in your daily life.
Wilhelm: May we look into that a little bit closer because couldn’t a total perception take place in spite of that, and wipe away confusion?
Krishnamurti: Oh, oh, oh, you see that is a dangerous thing, isn’t it? That is a conclusion.
Wilhelm: Well, the other may also be a conclusion.
Krishnamurti: No, no, I can see if the windows are not clean in the room where I live, and so my view is confused.
Wilhelm: But would that mean that there is a condition inside?
Krishnamurti: No. That is a fact. It is not a condition. If I have fear, my perception will be very partial. It is a fact.
Bohm: But don’t you need perception to end fear?
Krishnamurti: Ah, but in investigating fear, I have total perception of fear.
Burnier: But actually if there is fear or attachment, even one’s logic would be distorted.
Krishnamurti: All right. One is frightened. As you said, fear distorts perception. But in investigating, observing, delving into fear, understanding it profoundly, I have perception.
Bohm: You are saying that there is a certain thing you can do which will make perception possible.
Krishnamurti: Of course.
Bohm: Which means although you have fear and it does distort, the distortion is not so total that you cannot investigate it. Is that what you are saying?
Bohm: That there is still some possibility of investigating even though you are distorting in fear.
Krishnamurti: I realize I am distorting perception through fear. Right?
Bohm: That is right. Then I begin to look at fear.
Krishnamurti: I investigate it, look into it.
Bohm: In the beginning, I am also distorting that.
Krishnamurti: Therefore I am watching every distortion. I am aware of every distortion going around me, in me.
Wilhelm: But the difficulty lies there. How can I investigate when I am distorted?
Krishnamurti: Wait, just listen. I am afraid and I see fear has made me do something. That is a distortion.
Wilhelm: But before I can see that, the fear has to fade away.
Krishnamurti: No, I am observing fear.
Wilhelm: But I cannot observe fear if I am afraid.
Krishnamurti: Sir, take a fact. You are afraid. You are conscious of it. That means that you become aware of the fact that there is fear, and you observe also what that fear has done. Right? Clear.
Krishnamurti: And you begin to look into it more and more. In looking deeply into it, you have an insight.
Wilhelm: I may have an insight.
Krishnamurti: No, you will have insight, which is quite different.
Wilhelm: Yes, that is different.
Bohm: What you are saying is that this confusion around fear is not complete, that it is always open to mankind...
Krishnamurti: Who is investigating, who is observing.
Bohm: If you try to investigate something else while you are afraid, you will get lost in confusion. But it is still open to you to investigate fear, and that is what you are saying. You say that is a fact.
Krishnamurti: Yes. One suffers, and sees what it does, observes it, opens it up, spreads it out, unrolls it. In the very unrolling of it you have a certain insight. That is all we are saying. That may be partial. Therefore one has to be aware that it is partial, that its action is partial, and it may appear complete. So you watch it, watch it.
Bohm: I think it is a point that needs to be emphasized that very often it looks as if it is totally impossible to look if you are distorting. You are saying that, as a matter of fact, when you have a distortion the one thing you can look at is the distortion.
Krishnamurti: That is right.
Bohm: That you really, factually and actually have that capacity.
Krishnamurti: One has that capacity.
E. Lilliefelt: Would you say that again?
Bohm: When you are distorting something through fear or suffering, if you look at most things they will be distorted, but it is actually possible as a matter of fact to look at that distortion itself.
E. Lilliefelt: In your fear.
Krishnamurti: The fear that has created the distortion.
Bohm: You can look at that. The factor which creates the distortion can be looked at, so you cannot say that no perception whatsoever is possible.
Krishnamurti: That is just it. If you do, you have locked the door.
Wilhelm: Could one say that the fear can look at itself?
Krishnamurti: No. No, no, no. Fear: one is afraid. In looking at that fear, not having an insight, watching it, you see what it does, what its action is.
Bohm: You mean by looking, being aware of it?
Krishnamurti: Being aware of it without any choosing; being aware. And you see what fear does. And in looking at it more extensively, deeply, widely, suddenly you have an insight into the whole structure of fear.
Wilhelm: But still that question is open: in that moment of fear I am fear.
Wilhelm: Therefore there cannot be complete fear, there must still be a possibility to look at that fear.
Krishnamurti: How you observe fear matters. Whether you observe it as an observer, or the observer is that. You perceive that the observer is the observed, and in the action of that there is distortion, confusion. You examine that confusion, which is born of fear and so on, and in the very process of examination you have an insight. You do it; you will see it, if you do not limit yourself, if you do not say, “I am too frightened, I cannot look,” and run away from it.
Zimbalist: To simplify it, when you said you cannot see through the window if it is dirty because it distorts, the action of examining the fear, the distorting factor, is the cleansing of the window.
Krishnamurti: And how you observe, how you investigate, that is the real thing.
Bohm: The point is that although you cannot see through the window, you can see the dirt on the window and clean that dirt.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right. That is right.
Zimbalist: You work on the dirt.
Bohm: First you look at the dirt, at what is actually in your field of perception...
Krishnamurti: That is it, that is it. This is a very complex thing. Perception can take place only when there is no division between the observer and the observed; and perception can take place only in the very act of exploring. How you explore implies there is no division between the observer and the observed, and therefore watching the movement of fear; and in the very watching of it there is an insight. I think it is clear.
You see, sir, K says, “I have never done this.”
Bohm: Never done what? Gone through all this? Then how do you know somebody else can?
Krishnamurti: That is just it. Let’s look at it. You have not gone through all this. You see it instantly. And because you see it instantly your capacity to reason logically explains all this. Another listens to this, and says, “I would like to get that.” I do not have to go through all this messy stuff.
Bohm: Are you saying that all we have been discussing till now is merely a pointer to something else? Are you saying we do not have to go through all that?
Krishnamurti: Yes. I want to get at that.
Bohm: In other words that helps to clear the ground in some way, but it is not really the main point.
Krishnamurti: No, sir, no shortcut. Must you go through fear, jealousy, anxiety, attachment, or can you clean up the whole thing instantly?
Chari: Obviously, going through fear and so on is not the total perception.
Krishnamurti: The total perception is only possible when there is total perception of fear. Dr Bohm is asking if one must go through this whole process.
Zimbalist: Did you previously say that you have never done this, and by having that immediate total perception you are able to see what those with the dirty windows can do to clean the windows; but that that is not necessary, that there is, perhaps, a direct, an immediate way for those who have not...?
Krishnamurti: No, first put the question. See what comes out of it.
Dr Bohm says to K, “You have probably not gone through all this. Because you have a direct, a whole insight, you can argue, reason logically, act; it becomes very clear. Because K is always talking from that total perception, what he says can never be distorted.” And another listens to all this and says, “I am frightened, I am jealous, I am this, I am that, and I cannot have total perception when I am in all this.” So I take attachment or fear or jealousy into the observation. I have an insight; and then I take...
So, is it possible through investigating, through awareness first, and discovering that the observer is the observed with no division, the very process of investigation – which is merely observing without the observer – and seeing the totality of it, will finish all the rest? I think that is the only way.
Blau: Is it possible that the fact that one does not have certain fears, jealousy, whatever, could be part of one’s conditioning, say if you were raised in a certain way or you went to certain school?
Krishnamurti: But there may be deeper layers of it. You may not be totally conscious, may not be totally aware of the deeper fears, and so on. You may superficially say, “Well, I am perfectly all right, I have none of these things.”
Blau: But if one went to, say a school in Ojai, would it be possible that the kind of learning and investigation that would take place in such a school would make it clear?
Krishnamurti: Obviously. But he asks if one must go through all this process.
Bohm: Wouldn’t it be better to move from the personal? We are discussing what is open to man, right?
Krishnamurti: Yes, man.
Bohm: Rather than any individual.
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes. Is it open to a human being without going through all this messy stuff?
Cadogan: By “messy stuff,” you mean involvement with the fear.
Krishnamurti: All the fear, sorrow, jealousy, vulgarity, attachment that you go through step by step. Can a human being see the whole thing at a glance? And that very glance is the investigation, and complete, total perception.
Blau: Which is what you mean when you say the first step is the last step.
Krishnamurti: Yes, total perception. Seeing somebody in sorrow, and that very perception acts.
Blau: But what would be one’s responsibility towards someone whom you see is in sorrow?
Krishnamurti: The response to that person, to that human being, is the response of compassion. That is all. Nothing else.
Blau: For instance, if you see an injured bird, it is very easy to deal with that, because it really does not require very much of you. But a human being has a much more complex set of needs.
Krishnamurti: What can you do actually? Somebody comes to you and says, “I am in deep sorrow.” Do you talk to him out of compassion, or out of a conclusion, or out of your own peculiar experience of sorrow which has conditioned you, so you answer according to your conditioning? A Hindu, who is conditioned in a different way, will say, “My dear chap, I am so sorry, next life you will live better. You suffered because you did this and that.” A Christian would give him some kind of conclusion to take comfort in, because a man who is suffering wants some kind of solace, some kind of comfort, somebody’s lap to put his head on. What he is seeking is comfort and avoidance of his terrible pain. Will you offer him any of those escapes, or will whatever comes out of compassion somehow help him?
Blau: But is there a responsibility, say as a Foundation, instead of dealing with an injured bird, to deal with an injured spirit? What is the responsibility of the Foundation?
Krishnamurti: The responsibility of the Foundation is not born of guilt, or rather, there is no responsibility to feel guilt, which we went into. Are you compassionate, or do you condemn the person, or do you give him comfort and hold his hand? You may hold his hand because you are compassionate, or hold his hand because you are conditioned a certain way.
Bohm: Are you saying that, as far as sorrow is concerned, you cannot directly help anyone, but the energy of compassion itself may?
Krishnamurti: That is right, that is right. That is all.
Blau: But many wounded spirits will come, and I think it is going to be a problem to know how to deal with that.
Krishnamurti: It is no problem if you are compassionate. Compassion does not create problems. It has no problems, therefore it is compassionate.
Burnier: You are saying that total compassion is the highest intelligence.
Krishnamurti: Of course. That intelligence which is compassion operates when you meet it. That is clear. If there is compassion, that compassion has its own intelligence, and that intelligence acts. But if you have no compassion and no intelligence, then you are conditioned, and you reply in whatever way someone wants. I think that is fairly simple.
But to go to the other question: must a human being go through all this? Has no human being said, “I won’t go through all this. I absolutely refuse to go through all this”?
Bohm: On what basis does one refuse? It would not make sense to refuse to do what is necessary.
Krishnamurti: Of course, of course. You see, we are such creatures of habit. My father is conditioned, I am conditioned, and so on, generations upon generations are conditioned. And I accept it, I work in it and I operate with it. But if you say, “Sorry, I utterly will not ever operate from my conditioned response,” something else may take place. If I am a bourgeois, and I realize I am a bourgeois, I do not want to become an aristocrat or of the middle class, but I refuse to be a bourgeois. The aristocracy are bourgeois, everything is bourgeois as far as I am concerned. So I say, “I refuse to be a bourgeois.” Which does not mean I become a revolutionary or join Lenin and his group, or Marx and his group. I refuse. Those are all bourgeois for me. So something does take place when you kick out the whole thing. You see, sir, a human being has never said, “I will kick out the whole thing. It is all so much rubbish.” I want to get at that.
Bohm: Are you saying that, even when I say I am going to get rid of the whole thing, that is not necessary?
Krishnamurti: Of course, of course. This is just saying, “I won’t be a bourgeois.” It is just words.
Bohm: But isn’t the key to this somewhere in desire? There is some sort of desire for continuity, for security.
Krishnamurti: Right, sir. Bourgeois implies continuity, security, belonging to something, a lack of taste, vulgarity.
Chari: But Krishnaji, if you are saying that K never said this, he never had the need to say it, we can only conclude that you are some kind of a freak.
Krishnamurti: No, no, you can say he is a freak but it does not answer the question. Somebody comes along and says, “I have never been through all this, what are you talking about, why should I go through it? I haven’t touched all this.” You don’t call him a freak. You say, “By Jove, how does that happen?”
Simmons: Saying you are not going to be a bourgeois, really is going through it. In saying, “I won’t be a bourgeois,” you are really discovering it in yourself.
Krishnamurti: No, that is a different matter. How shall we put this? If a human being says, “Look, I have never been through all this,” what do you do? Do you call him a freak, or do you say, “How extraordinary. Is he telling the truth? Has he deceived himself?” You discuss with him. He says, “No.” Then your question is, “How does it happen?” You are a human being, he is a human being. You want to find out.
E. Lilliefelt: Well, you ask how we are different.
Krishnamurti: No. You are a human being. Don’t you ask how it happens? Don’t you say, “Must I go through all this”? Do you ask that question?
You see. I am asking you, must you go through all this?
Lee: I think when he says there is this person who has never gone through this, one says, “Yes, but you are different.”
Krishnamurti: Can we put the whole thing differently? If you seek excellence, not excellence in something, but the essence of excellence, everything falls away, doesn’t it? Or do you seek excellence in a certain direction, and therefore never the essence of excellence? If I am an artist, and I seek excellence in my painting, I get caught in that. Or if I am a scientist, I get caught in that. But if I am not a specialist of any kind, am just an average human being who does not take drugs, does not smoke, an ordinary, fairly intelligent, decent human being, and I sought the essence of excellence – not “sought,” that is important – would that happen? The essence would meet all this. I wonder if I am conveying something.
Zimbalist: You are implying an excellence.
Krishnamurti: The essence of excellence.
Zimbalist: The essence of excellence that is above, beyond.
Krishnamurti: Do not categorize it yet. Wait a minute, listen carefully first. Listen, listen, do not object, reject and say “but.” The very demand for excellence, how you demand it, brings the essence of it. You demand it passionately. When you demand the highest intelligence, the highest excellence and the essence of it, and when fear arises...
Bohm: Where does the demand come from?
Krishnamurti: Demand it, do not ask where it comes from. It may be from a motive, but the very demand washes it all away.
Cadogan: In a sense this is slightly new ground because for many years we seem to have been just looking at our dirty windows, but now you are really saying demand this excellence, which we do not know.
Krishnamurti: I do not know what is beyond it, but I want to be morally excellent.
Bohm: Does excellence mean goodness, really?
Krishnamurti: I demand the excellence of goodness, the flowering; I demand the excellent flower of goodness. In that very demand there is an essence.
Oh, I give up.
Bohm: Does perception come in this demand?
Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right.
Cadogan: Well, can you go further with this for us now?
Zimbalist: Could you go a little into this quality of demand?
Krishnamurti: It is not demand. Sorry, demand means asking, demand means imploring, wanting. Cut out all that.
Zimbalist: It does not mean that?
Krishnamurti: No, no.
Zimbalist: Because then you are back with prayer.
Krishnamurti: Oh, no, no, I wash all that away; it is not prayer. That is all rubbish. Sorry.
S. Siddoo: You are really saying, Krishnaji, that the impossible is possible within the average intelligent human being. It is really possible.
Krishnamurti: We are saying that, yes. We are saying that. Which is not a conclusion, which is not a hope. I say it is possible for the average human being, who is fairly clean, who is fairly decent, fairly kind, who is not a bourgeois.
S. Siddoo: Traditionally, we are conditioned to believe that there are people with no conscious content of consciousness. It is very difficult for people like me to feel that one could really be completely free of it.
Krishnamurti: You see, you have not listened, my lady. Please listen first. Do not bring all these objections. Just listen to what he is saying. He is saying that what is important in life is the supreme excellence which has its own essence. That is all. And to demand does not mean begging, prayer, getting something from somebody.
Bohm: The point is that we tend to confuse the demand with desire, you see.
Krishnamurti: Of course, sir.
Zimbalist: And there is no belief.
Krishnamurti: No belief, no desire.
Bohm: If people feel that they want to give up desire, then there is a danger of giving up this demand as well.
Krishnamurti: How do we put this? Let’s find a good word for this. Would the word passion be suitable? There is passion for this, passion for excellence.
Blau: Does that imply that that passion has an object?
Krishnamurti: You see how you immediately... Passion burning, not for something. The communists burn, are passionate to see that their ideas, their gods, Lenin, Marx, are all over the world. That passion is very petty and limited. The Christian missionary’s passion is going out to Africa and living an appalling life; that passion is born of the love of Jesus. That is not passion; it is very limited, very narrow. Putting all that aside, I say passion.
Bohm: You were just saying that people have had some vision or dream of something and it developed a great energy. But we are saying it is not a dream, not a vision, but nevertheless some perception of this excellence.
Krishnamurti: All those passions feed the ego, feed the “me,” make me important, consciously or unconsciously. We are cutting out all that. A human being who has a son has a passion that he will grow into an extraordinary human being, something original.
Bohm: He sees that it is possible and therefore he has the passion.
Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right. It is possible. Is that what is missing in most human beings? Is that what is missing in the Foundation members? Not passion for something, but its welling up? [Pause]
Suppose there is a passion that the Ojai centre must be the most extraordinary place, full of beauty, grandeur and light. In the same way, there is this passion in a human being who demands supreme excellence, not in writing a book but the feeling of excellence. That may shatter everything else. That human being did not demand it. That human being says, “I never even asked for this.”
Bohm: Well, perhaps that is the conditioning. We are conditioned to mediocrity, not to demand, not to make this demand. That is what you mean by mediocrity.
Krishnamurti: Yes, mediocrity is a lack of real passion – not passion for Jesus or for Marx or Engels.
Chari: We are conditioned not only to mediocrity, but to direction, so the demand always has some direction.
Krishnamurti: Demand has a direction, quite right. That is right. I like the word demand because it is a challenge. It is a demand, a challenge for you, a passionate challenge to create something marvellous.
Chari: Doesn’t a demand without direction imply that it is not in time also?
Krishnamurti: Of course. It demands no direction, no time, no person. So, sirs, does total insight bring this passion? Total insight is the passion.
Bohm: Yes, they cannot be separate.
Krishnamurti: Total insight is the flame of passion, which wipes away all confusion, burns away everything else. Don’t you then act as a magnet? The bee goes to where the nectar is. In the same way, don’t you act as a magnet when you are passionate to create, to bring a child or student to something?
Is there a lack of fire? You see, if it were missing, I would ask for it.
Cadogan: Krishnaji, is it possible to go into something that Radhaji said? She said something about the relationship between the conditioned and the unconditioned mind, and whether we can ask not for small things, but somehow leap beyond that into something bigger.
Burnier: We were talking about mind being sick. I asked if it is part of the sickness that it asks only for small things and never for the great things.
Krishnamurti: Yes. A sick mind says, “Please heal me so that I can carry on my daily stupidities.” That is all.
Burnier: Whatever the “me” asks for, asking in a direction is the small thing.
Krishnamurti: Of course. Quite right. You are asking what the relationship is between the conditioned and the unconditioned; and also what the relationship is between two human beings when one is unconditioned and the other is not. There is no relationship. An egotistic passion forms an ideal, and passion for that ideal is a very selfish passion.
Burnier: How can you say, sir, that there is no relationship between the unconditioned human being and the conditioned?
Krishnamurti: There is no relationship from the conditioned to the unconditioned; but the unconditioned has a relationship to the other.
Bohm: They are not totally separate. Otherwise they would be totally unconnected.
Burnier: But logically one could ask if there is an essential difference between the unconditioned and the conditioned. Because if you say there is, then there is duality.
Krishnamurti: Is there an essential difference between the conditioned and the unconditioned? What do you mean by essential difference?
Burnier: There are no opposites. There is no duality. But if there is an essential difference between the conditioned and the unconditioned there is duality.
Krishnamurti: Ah! I see what you mean, but you see, one human being is conditioned, “X” is conditioned. “Y” is not conditioned. “X” thinks in terms of duality. His very conditioning is duality. That duality has no relationship with “Y.” But “Y” has a relationship to “X.”
Burnier: Because there is no duality.
Krishnamurti: Yes. The other has no duality, therefore there is a relationship.
You asked some other question, which is whether essentially, deeply, both are the same.
Burnier: Could we put it like this? When you say, “You are the world; the world is you,” does it include the conditioned as well as the unconditioned?
Bohm: It seems that if the unconditioned mind can be related to the conditioned, can understand the conditioned, or comprehend it, then there is not really a duality.
Krishnamurti: No, sir, she is asking a different thing, if I may interpret her. I may be getting at the same thing differently. You are the world and the world is you. That is a deep fact, truth. The conditioned exists. Is the conditioned included when you say the world is you and you are the world? And in that statement is there the unconditioned also?
Bohm: The world could not be the unconditioned, could it?
Krishnamurti: The world is me and me is the world.
Burnier: That is an absolute fact. It is a fact only to the unconditioned.
Krishnamurti: Oh, not at all. Be careful, Radhaji. It is so. It is an obvious fact.
Bohm: What do you mean by “the world”?
Blau: Do you mean that only the unconditioned can perceive that?
Krishnamurti: Yes, that is what she says. I am refuting it. I say it is not quite like that.
Burnier: I am saying it in the sense that I may say, “I am the world; the world is me,” but I revert to action which is a contradiction of that. Therefore, it is not an absolute fact to me. There may be moments when I see the fact of it.
Krishnamurti: Yes, yes. I see what you are saying. Are you saying, “I say to myself very clearly, ‘I am the world and the world is me,’ and feel it”?
Burnier: I feel it, yes.
Krishnamurti: And I do something contrary to that, act personally, selfishly. That is a contradiction of the fact that the world is me and the I am the world. Right? And you are saying that in that feeling both exist. You are asking if the conditioned as well as the unconditioned exists.
Burnier: You also made that statement. I would say that the statement is a complete fact because you do not revert to an action...
Krishnamurti: Which is not whole.
Burnier: ...Which is not whole.
Krishnamurti: So, wait a minute, look at it. When a person says this merely as an intellectual conclusion or a momentary feeling...
Burnier: It is not an intellectual conclusion because I am saying what my position is, and I accept that for you the position is totally different.
Krishnamurti: No, you do not even have to accept it. Cut out the person. Wait a minute, look at it the other way. There is the fact that the world is me and me is the world. So there is no me at all. When I say I am the world and the world is me, the “me” is not. But the “me” may have a house that has to be insured. It is not me. I am not identifying myself with it. It has to be insured because it may burn. Is that action incomplete?
Krishnamurti: Be careful, go very slowly into this. That person may marry, have sex, and so on. Would that be incomplete?
Burnier: How can I say? I cannot imagine.
Krishnamurti: Do not imagine it. See the fact. The fact is that when one says that I am the world and the world is me...
Burnier: There is no me.
Krishnamurti: No me. But the house has to be insured. I may be married, have children, I have to go to earn a job, but there is no me. See the importance. There is no me all the time. I function, but there is no me seeking a higher position. When there is no me, I am married but not attached. I do not depend on wife, husband. There is no me.
So when the world is me and I am the world, there is no me; the appearances may give you the impression that the me is operating, but actually for a man who feels “The world is me and I am the world,” there is no me. To you looking at it, there is.
Burnier: So it would be wrong to say that both the conditioned and the unconditioned are there. There is only the unconditioned.
Krishnamurti: No, no, no. When there is the actuality that the world is me, I am the world, there is no me. And that human being lives in this world. He must have food, clothes and shelter, a job, transportation, but yet from the outside, you say, “Hey, you are having a lovely time, you are pretending.” When the world is me and I am the world, there is no me. Can that state, that quality operate in all directions? It must. But when you say, “I am the world and the world is me,” and there is no me, there is no conditioning. When a human being says, “I am the world and the world is me,” there is no “I.” There is no “I.”
Bohm: Therefore the other person also is not there. There is no “you.”
Krishnamurti: There is no “me,” no “you.” When you ask if the unconditioned exists in this state, you are asking a wrong question. That is what I was getting at. Because, for that man who says, “I am the world,” et cetera, there is no “I;” there is no “you” either. When there is no “I”, there is no “you.”
Bohm: The question then is how does that person see the kind of confusion that arises around “I” and “you”? He sees that it is going on in the world, that people are generally confused about this.
Krishnamurti: That I exist; that there is only you and me. And you also think there is only the same thing.
Krishnamurti: So we keep this division everlastingly. But when you and I really realize, have a profound insight that the world is me and I am the world, there is no me.
Bohm: There is no me and no you. But “the world” means everything.
Krishnamurti: The world of living, of everything. There is no you.
Burnier: You have answered my question, because then the question: is there an essential difference between this and that, does not arise, because there is no “between.”
Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right. There is no you; there is no I. When he says, “I am the world,” there is no “me;” therefore there is no “you” in that state, which does not include the conditioned.
Bohm: Why do you have to say, “I am the world,” first and then deny there is me at all?
Krishnamurti: Because it is an actuality.
Bohm: But then you are implying that I am still there if I say, “I am the world.”
Krishnamurti: It is an actual fact that I am the world.
Bohm: Whatever I mean by the word I, I also mean by the words the world. So we do not need those two words. It is just everything.
Krishnamurti: No, sir. This is very dangerous. If you say, “I am everything...”
Bohm: Well, I am trying to find out what you mean by “the world.”
Krishnamurti: If I say, “I am everything,” then the man who is killing is part of me.
Bohm: Yes, now suppose I say, “I am the world,” instead; how does that change?
Krishnamurti: All right. I see the actual fact I am the result of the world. World means killing, wars, the whole thing.
Bohm: The whole of society.
Krishnamurti: The whole society, I am the result of that.
Bohm: And I see that everybody is the result of that.
Krishnamurti: Yes, everybody is the result of that. I am saying the result is I and you.
Bohm: Yes, and the separation.
Krishnamurti: All that. When I say, “I am the world,” I am saying all that.
Bohm: You mean to say I am generated by the world.
Bohm: I am identified with everything.
Krishnamurti: Yes. I am the product of the world.
Bohm: I am the product of the world is what you mean. But the world is the essence of what I am.
Krishnamurti: Yes, the world is the essence of what I am. I am the essence of the world. The same thing. The essence. When there is a deep perception of that, not verbal, not emotional, not romantic, not intellectual, but profound, there is no you or me. I think that holds logically. And there is the danger that if I say the world is me, I am everything, then I will accept everything.
Bohm: Really I am the product of the whole of society, but I am also the essence of the whole of society.
Krishnamurti: Yes. I am the essence; I am really the essential result of all this.
Zimbalist: Does it help to use the word ego?
Krishnamurti: Yes, ego, me and you. It is the same thing, it does not matter. You see, when you say “me,” or “ego,” or “I,” there is a possibility of deception that “I” is the very essence of God. There is all that superstition.
Wilhelm: But there is still another question. Is the unconditioned mind also the product of all that? Then you see we come to a contradiction.
Krishnamurti: No. There is no contradiction. The result of the world is this. I point without using the word “I.” The result of the world is that also, two human beings. Which means the result has created the “I” and the “you.” When there is an insight into the result there is no result.
Bohm: Yes, the result vanishes.
Krishnamurti: That means no result. Therefore you and I do not exist. That is an actual fact for a man who says, “I am not the result.” You see what it means? There is no causation in the mind; and therefore, having no causation, there is no effect. Therefore it is whole, and any action born of it is causeless and without effect.
Bohm: Well, you have to make that clear, in the sense that you still use cause and effect in ordinary mechanical things.
Krishnamurti: Sir, the human being, “X,” is the result. “Y” is also the result. “X” says, “I”, and “Y” says, “I;” therefore, there is you and I. But when “X” says, “All right, I see this,” and investigates it, looks into it, and has an insight, in that insight the two results cease. Therefore, in that state there is no cause.
Bohm: Yes, I see. There is no cause and no effect.
Krishnamurti: Now, from that, action takes place. That action is without a...
Bohm: ...A residue. There is no residue in the mind.
Bohm: Although it may leave a residue.
Krishnamurti: No, wait a minute, sir, let’s go into it a little bit. In that state there is no result, no cause, no effect. That mind acts. That mind acts out of compassion. Yes, sir, I have got it. Therefore there is no result.
Bohm: In some sense it would look as if there were results.
Krishnamurti: But compassion has no result. “A” is suffering and goes to “X,” and says, “Please help me to get out of my suffering.” If “X” has compassion, his words have no result.
Bohm: Yes. Something happens but there is no result.
Krishnamurti: That is it.
Bohm: But I think people generally are seeking a result.
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir. Let’s put it round the other way. Does compassion have a result? When there is result, there is a cause. Has compassion a cause? Then it is no longer compassion.
Bohm: It is an extremely subtle thing.
Bohm: Something happens which seems final and yet it is not. But compassion also acts.
Krishnamurti: Compassion is compassion, it does not act. Because if it acts because there is a cause and effect then it is not compassion. It wants a result, and therefore goes back to the origin. Logically.
Bohm: If somebody says there is a person in suffering, I would like to produce the result that he is not in suffering, but that is based on the idea that there is “me” and “him.”
Bohm: If there is no him and no me, there is no room, no place to have this result.
Krishnamurti: It is a tremendous thing. One has to look at it very, very carefully.
Blau: But his suffering is...
Krishnamurti: Look, look, Mrs Blau, the world is me and I am the world. When I say, “me,” “you” exist, both are there. “You” and the “I” are results of man’s misery, selfishness. It is the result. When one looks into the result, goes into it very, very deeply, the insight brings about a quality in which “you” and “I” do not exist. We are the result; and there is no result. This is verbally easy to agree to, but when you deeply see it there is no you or me, and therefore there is no result, which means compassion. Now if that compassion acts, the person upon whom it acts wants a result.
Krishnamurti: Compassion says, sorry, there is no result. But the man who suffers wants a result. He says, “Help me to get out of this,” or, “Help me to bring back my brother,” son, wife, or whatever it is. He is demanding a result. This thing has no result. The result is the world.
Chari: So compassion does affect the consciousness of man?
Krishnamurti: Yes. It affects the deep layers of the consciousness. I must not go into all that now. For the moment, leave it there.
The “I” is the result of the world. The “you” is the result of the world. And for the man who sees this deeply, with a profound insight, there is no “you” or “I.” Therefore that profound insight is compassion, which is intelligence. And intelligence says: you want a result, I cannot give you a result. I am not the product of result. The compassion says: this state is not a result, therefore no cause. No cause means no result, no time.
24 March 1977