K: Now, the me. Is it possible to completely
empty the mind of the me? Not only at the conscious level
but deep, at the deep unconscious roots
of one's being. S: I think it's not only possible
but it's the price that we must pay for being,
or being good, or being true or being at all, living.
To live, the price we must pay is to rid ourselves of me,
me-ness. K: Is there a process, a system,
a method, to end the me? S: No, I don't think there
is a process or a method. K: Therefore there is no process,
it must be done instantly! Now,
this we must be very clear, because all the religions
have maintained processes. The whole evolutionary system,
psychologically, is a process. If you say
– and to me that is a reality – that it cannot possibly be
a process, which means a matter of time,
degree, gradualness, then there is only one problem,
which is to end it instantly. S: Yes, to destroy the monster
at one step. K: Instantly!
S: Yes. Unquestionably that must be done.
We must destroy me-ness. K: No, destroy... I wouldn't use.
The ending of the me, with all the accumulation,
with all the experiences, what it has accumulated,
consciously and unconsciously, can that whole content
be thrown out? Not by effort, by me. If I say: 'By me I'll throw it out'
it is still the me. S: Yes. K: Or if I throw it out by exertion
of will, it is still the me. The me remains. S: It is not – clearly in my mind,
it is not an act, or an activity of the mind,
nor an activity of the will, nor an activity of the feelings,
nor an activity of the body, which will help me to see me
– no, pardon me – will help me to see.
K: See, yes. S: And since we, in this world,
are so wrapped up with doing, with having, with acting,
we really don't understand reflectively and profoundly
what takes place before we act or before we possess. And I think that
it is incumbent upon us to reflect backwards
and see that there is seeing before seeing takes place – in the two senses
of the word seeing – just as there is loving before
one becomes aware of loving, and certainly
just as there is being before one becomes
aware of being. K: Yes, sir, but I… S: Is the question reflecting
backwards deep, inwardly, deeply enough? K: Now just a minute, sir,
that's the difficulty, because the me is at a conscious level and at
the deeper levels of consciousness. Can the conscious mind examine
the unconscious me and expose it? Or the content of consciousness
is the me! S: No, the self transcends
the content of consciousness. But the me may well be
the content of consciousness. But the me is not the I,
the me is not the self. K: Wait, wait. I included
in the me, the self, the ego, the whole conceptual
ideation about myself, the higher self
the lower self, the soul: all that is the content
of my consciousness which makes the I, which makes
the ego, which is the me. S: It certainly makes the me, yes.
I unquestionably agree with that, that it makes that objective self
that I can examine and analyze and look at, compare, that I
can be violent with others about. It's explanatory, if you will, or
the summation of the whole thing which you put in the word 'me',
is explanatory of a history of a whole multiplicity
of present relationships but it's still
not getting at the reality. K: No, the reality cannot be got at,
or it cannot flower if the me is there. S: Whenever, as I said before,
whenever I insist upon viewing you as me, then
the reality cannot flower and freedom will not be. K: So, can the content
of my consciousness, which is the me, which is my ego, myself,
my ideations, my thoughts, my ambitions, my greeds –
all that is the me – my nation, my desire for security, my desire
for pleasure, my desire for sex, my desire to do this
and to do that – all that is the content
of my consciousness. As long as that content remains,
there must be separation between you and me,
between good and bad, and the whole division
takes place. Now, we're saying,
the emptying of that content is not a process of time. S: Nor is it subject
to methodology. K: Methodology.
Then, what is one to do? Let's look at it a little, take time a little bit over this,
because this is quite important because most people say:
'You must practice – you follow? – you must strive, you must make
a tremendous effort, live disciplined, control,
suppress'. S: I am very familiar
with all of that. K: That's all out! S: That has not been helpful. K: Not at all.
S: No, no. K: So, how is the content
to be emptied with one stroke, as it were? S: I would say – and maybe
we could pursue this together – the content cannot be emptied
by a negative action of repudiation of the content.
K: No, no. Obviously. S: So that is a blind alley,
we must not approach it that way. K: Obviously. By denying it,
you are putting it under the carpet. I mean, it is like locking it up.
It is still there. S: It's a pretence.
K: That's just it, sir. One has to see this. One has to be
tremendously honest in this. Otherwise one plays tricks upon
oneself, one deceives oneself. I see clearly, logically, that the me
is the mischief in the world. S: Well, I don't see that so logically
as simply intuitively. K: All right. S: It's not the result
of a discursive act. K: No, no.
S: It's not a dialectical… K: No, of course not. Not analytical,
dialectic – you see it. You see a selfish human being,
whether it's politically high or low, you see human beings, selfish, and how destructive they are. Now the question is,
can this content be emptied, so that the mind
is really empty and active and
therefore capable of perception? S: Probably the content
cannot be simply emptied. I think that the content
can be put in a perspective or can be seen for its inadequacy,
or its inappropriateness, by a very energetic act
of simply seeing. That's what I said
in the beginning that so long as I look at the truths
of any given religion, I am not finding truth itself.
And the way I discover the relative value of the truths
of any given religion is precisely by seeing truth itself,
in itself, not as an object. K: No, I cannot,
the mind cannot perceive truth if there is division.
That I must stick to. S: Once you have
division of any kind… K: That's finished. S: …then you're in the categorical
level, and then you will not see. K: Therefore my question is whether
the mind can empty its content. This is really – you follow? S: I follow what you are saying
and I think you are devising
a new methodology. K: Ah, no, no! I am not
devising a methodology. I don't believe in methods. I think they are the most
mechanical, destructive things. S: But then, after having said that,
then you come back and say but if the mind is to…
if the self is really to see it must empty itself of content.
Isn't this a method? K: No, no.
S: But why, sir, is it not a method? K: I'll show you, sir.
It is not a method because we said as long as there is division
there must be conflict. That is so, politically,
religiously. And we say, division exists
because of the me. Me is the content
of my consciousness. And that the emptying of the mind
brings unity. I see this, not logically
but as fact, not conceptually. I see this in the world
taking place and I say, 'How absurd,
how cruel all this is.' And the perception of that
empties the mind. The very perceiving
is the act of emptying. S: What you're suggesting
is that the perception of the inappropriateness of
the content of consciousness or of the me, the perception
of the inadequacy of this or the truthlessness of the me
is in itself the discovery of being. K: That's right. That's right.
S: I think we should pursue that. K: We should. S: Because I wonder if the perception
is in fact that negative or might in fact be very positive. That it's rather in the simple seeing
of the being of things, – it wouldn't have to be me or you,
in the objective sense, it could be this table
or my hand – that I discover the inadequacy
of the content of consciousness or of these objective sorts of things
like me or you. So it may be a rather profound display of intellectual,
or rather, personal energy that simply makes itself by
reason of the display visible to me. It's dissipating and at the same time
it's easy to deal with concepts – we've agreed on that –
it's easy to create concepts. It's easier, I maintain,
to see simply. K: Of course.
S: Prior to concepts. K: Seeing.
S: Just simply seeing. K: Sir, I cannot…
There is no perception if that perception
is through an image. S: There is no perception if the
perception is through an image. I think that is very true. K: Now, the mind has images. S: The mind is bedevilled
with images. K: That's just it. It has images.
I have an image of you and you have an image of me. These images are built
through contact, through relationship, through your saying this,
your hurting me, you know, it's built, it is there!
Which is memory. The brain cells themselves
are the residue of memory which is the image formation.
Right? Now, the question then is: memory, which is knowledge,
is necessary to function – technically, to walk home,
or drive home, I need memory. Therefore memory
has a place as knowledge. And knowledge as image
has no place in relationship
between human beings. S: I still think that we are
avoiding the issue at hand. Because I think what you have said
relative to the question of memory is, as you have suggested,
terribly important but I don't think that memory, or the repudiation of memory
by consciousness, or the repudiation
of the content of consciousness is the solution of the problem.
I think what we have to do is say how is it, Krishnaji, that you – I'm not talking methodology now –
but I know that you have seen. How is it that you saw,
or that you see? And don't tell me
what you eliminated in order to describe to me
how you see. K: I'll tell you how I saw.
You simply see! S: Yes, now, suppose
you wanted to say to someone who had no such experience,
'You simply see'. Because I say the same thing
myself all the time, 'Well, you simply see' and people say,
'You simply see, how?' And we must,
if we are to be teachers, deal with this:
'Let me take you by the hand and I will show you
how to see.' K: I'll show you.
I think that's fairly simple. First of all, one has to see
what the world is, see what is around you. See. Don't take sides. S: Yes. I think our terminology
may get in the way here. Suppose rather than say, 'One must
start by seeing what the world is' we were able to start by saying,
'One must see the world.' Not concerned
with natures or categories. K: No, no. See the world.
S: Yes, no whats. K: See the world.
S: See the world. K: Same thing – see the world.
S: Yes. K: See the world as it is. Don't translate it
in terms of your concepts. S: Now, again, could I say,
'See the world as it is is-ing?' K: Yes, put it… S: Does that help?
I mean, we are trying to… K: See the world as it is.
You cannot see the world as it is if you interpret it in your
terminology, in your categories, in your temperament,
in your prejudices. See it as it is, violent, brutal, whatever it is.
S: Or good or beautiful. K: Whatever it is. Can you look at it
that way? Which means can you look at a tree
without the image of the tree – botanical and all the naming –
just look at the tree? S: And once you have discovered
– and it's not easy in our world to discover –
the simple experience of seeing the tree without thinking
tree-ness, or its nature, or, as you say, its botany
and things of that kind, then what would you suggest is the
next step in the pursuit of seeing? K: Then seeing myself as I am. S: Underneath the content
of your consciousness. K: Seeing all, not underneath.
I haven't begun yet. I see what I am. Therefore self-knowing. There
must be an observation of myself as I am, without saying: how
terrible, how ugly, how beautiful, how sentimental. Just to be aware,
of all the movement of myself conscious
as well as unconscious. I begin with the tree.
Not a process. I see that. And also I must see, this way,
myself. The hypocrisy, the tricks I play
– you follow? – the whole of that. Watchfulness, without any choice
– just watch. Know myself.
Knowing myself all the time. S: But in a non-analytical
fashion. K: Of course. But the mind
is trained to be analytical. So I have to pursue that.
Why am I analytical? Watch it.
See the futility of it. It takes time, analysis, and you can never really analyze,
by a professional or by yourself, so see the futility of it,
the absurdity of it, the danger of it. So, what are you doing? You are seeing things as they are,
actually what is taking place. S: My tendency would be to say
that when we discuss this we may use these words like,
'Seeing the self in its fullness with all of its negative
and positive polarities.' Seeing the self in its fullness
and then realizing the futility of… analytically looking at
certain dimensions of the self and then saying,
'But I still must see.' K: Of course. S: Because at this point I have not
yet seen. Because all I have seen are the analytical categories
I've used to take myself apart somehow or other,
in little pieces. K: That's why I said – can you look
at the tree without the knowledge? S: Without the prior conditioning.
K: Prior conditioning. Can you look? Can you look at
a flower, and without any word? S: I can see how one must
be able to look at the self. I must be able to look
at you, Krishnamurti, and not use the word
'Krishnamurti'. Otherwise I will not see you.
K: That's right. S: This is true. Now, after I have learned,
through thinking to say, 'I must see you
and not even use the word', then... K: The word, the form,
the image, the content of that image,
and all the rest of it. S: Yes. Whatever the word
denotes, I must not use. K: Sir, that requires
tremendous watchfulness. S: Yes. It requires… K: Watchfulness in the sense,
not correction, not saying, 'I must, I must not'
– watching. S: When you use the word 'watching'
– and again because we are teaching,
we must be careful of our words… K: Being aware – doesn't matter
what word you use. S: Watching has the connotation of
observation, and observation has the connotation of putting
something out there to look at under a microscope,
as a scientist would do. And I think this is what
we don't want to teach. K: No, of course, of course. S: So now, if you could use again,
Krishnaji, the word 'watching'… K: Instead of watching, being
aware, choicelessly aware. S: Choicelessly aware.
Fine. All right. K: That's right.
S: This we must do. K: Yes. Choicelessly aware of... ... of this dualistic, analytical,
conceptual way of living. Be aware of it.
Don't correct it, don't say:'This is right'
– be aware of it. And, sir, we are aware of this,
so intensely, when there is a crisis. S: We have another problem
that precedes this one by an inch. I think the other problem is:
what kinds of questions can I ask myself
in order to be aware of you and not use the categories,
or to be aware of the fact that, in being aware of you,
I am using the categories and the stereotypes
and all these other funny images that I use all the time.
Is there some way in which I can address myself to you,
using certain kinds of words, not ideas, words that
don't relate to ideas at all, using certain kinds of words
that don't relate to ideas, that somehow they will teach me
– or teach you or whomsoever – that there is
something more important, of more significance in you
than your name, or your nature, or your content, your consciousness,
or your good or your evil? What words would you use
if you were to teach a young person, or an old person
– we all have the problem – what words would you use in
order to make it understandable in a non-rational or, better,
in a pre-rational way that you are more
than your name connotes? K: I would use that word,
I think: be choicelessly aware. S: Choiceless. K: To be choicelessly aware.
Because to choose, as we do, is one of our great conflicts. S: And we, for some strange reason,
associate choice with freedom which is the antithesis
of freedom. K: It's absurd, of course!
S: It's absurd, yes. But now, so then
to be freely aware. K: Yes. Freely, choicelessly. S: In the sense of choicelessness,
freely aware. S: Now, suppose that someone
would want to say 'But, sir, I don't understand
completely what you mean by choicelessly aware,
can you show me what you mean?' K: I'll show you. First of all, choice implies duality. S: Choice implies duality, yes. K: But there is choice:
I choose that carpet better than the other carpet.
At that level choice must exist. But when there is
an awareness of yourself, choice implies duality,
choice implies effort. S: Choice implies a highly developed
consciousness of limitation. K: Yes, yes. Choice
implies also conformity. S: Choice implies conformity
– cultural conditioning. K: Conformity.
Conformity means imitation. S: Yes. K: Imitation means more conflict,
trying to live up to something. So there must be an understanding
of that word, not only verbally but inwardly,
the meaning of it, the significance of it.
That is, I understand the full significance of choice,
the entire choice. S: May I attempt
to translate this now? K: Yes.
S: Would you say that choiceless awareness means
that I am somehow or other conscious of your presence
to the within of me and I don't need the choice?
The choice is irrelevant, the choice is abstract, the choice
has to do with the categories when I don't feel, having seen you,
that I must choose you, or choose to like you,
or choose to love you, that no choice is involved. Then would you say I have
choiceless awareness of you? K: Yes, but you see, sir, Is there in love, choice? I love. Is there choice? S: There is no choice in love. K: No, that's just it. Choice
is a process of the intellect. I explain this as much as we
can, discuss it, go into it, but I see the significance of it. Now, to be aware.
What does that mean, to be aware? To be aware of things about you,
outwardly, and also to be aware inwardly,
what is happening, your motives. – to be aware, again choicelessly:
watch, look, listen, so that you are watching
without any movement of thought. The thought is the image,
thought is the word. To watch without... ...without thought coming
and pushing you in any direction. Just to watch. S: I think you used a better
word before, when you said… K: Aware.
S: To be aware. K: Yes, sir.
S: Because it is an act of existence
rather than an act of the mind or the feeling.
K: Of course, of course. S: So then we have to… I have
to somehow or other become eventually, and therefore be
aware, in a pre-cognitive sense of your presence.
K: Be aware. That's right. S: And this antecedes choice.
K: Yes. S: And it makes choice
unnecessary. K: There is no choice
– be aware. There is no choice. S: Be aware.
Choiceless awareness. K: Now, from there,
there is an awareness of the me. Awareness, how hypocritical
– you know – the whole of the movement
of the me and the you. S: Sir, you're moving backwards
now, we've already… K: Purposely. I know. I moved
so that we relate it to. So that there is this quality
of mind that is free from the me and therefore no separation.
I don't say, 'We are one' but we discover the unity as a
living thing, not a conceptual thing, when there is
this sense of choiceless attention. S: Yes.
