What is the root cause of the disorder in the world?

Where did we leave off yesterday?

Questioner: The observer and the observed.

Q: I think we left off where somebody said he didn't want to disappear, in other words, the 'me', the 'self' doesn't want to disappear. And if we really fully go on with all of this it could well mean that 'me', the self, disappears, that's the end of it. We don't want that.

Krishnamurti: I don't quite remember, do you?

Mary Zimbalist: We talked about the observer and what we called a bundle.

K: Yes - oh yes.

MZ: And the notion was raised that perhaps one was just placing the self into the bundle.

K: We must bear in mind the subject we started out with, which was, what is one to do in a world that is steadily declining, deteriorating, with violence, and all that. What can a human being do about all that? That's what we started out with.

Yesterday and the previous day, we made it quite clear that the world outside of us, we human beings have created this. And after having created it, we are caught in that trap. And we think we are different from the activities that are going on outside of us. We pointed out too, that the world with all its violence and terror and greed and competition and violence, is made by man. And we, as human beings, are responsible for that. That is, the world is me, and 'me' is the world. I think that we made quite clear.

All the accumulated despairs, anxieties, grief, sorrow and violence, all this bundle is me, my consciousness is that. And that consciousness is part of the world. So that consciousness is the world. Right? We are clear on that point I hope. Can we go on from there?

And do we observe that bundle with all the content of this consciousness, do we observe it as though I was different from that consciousness, and can operate on that consciousness, try to modify it, change it, control it, suppress it, or run away from it. Or that consciousness, which is also the expression of the world, is me, and therefore there is no observer separate from that bundle which is the 'me'. Right? That's where we left off yesterday.

I don't know how far we have really grasped the significance of it. Could we discuss it a bit more? 'When I realise', as the questioner says, 'When I realise that I am the world and all the happenings in the world, psychologically, have been created by my ancestors and by me, I am part of that. I am not separate from that, I am the total quantity of all that.'

And there is a suspicion - probably in most of us - there is something beyond all this. Right? There is something superior, or which is not contaminated. Is that so? We ought to discuss this rather carefully. I don't know if it interests you, does it? We are following each other?

The Hindus have said that there is a superior entity, the Atman and so on, I won't go into all that, that is not contaminated, that exists in you. And that is operating, or that is the witness, he is the witness, watching. Right? I don't know if any of you know anything of the Hindu mythology or Hindu superstition, but it's part of that. That is, that there is a watcher who is not touched by society, by thought. And that is trying all the time to push away the things that man has created round it. I'm putting it rather crudely and briefly. That's one idea.

And also, probably in the Christian world too, and perhaps in the eastern world, there is the soul, something that is not part of this society. Right? I don't know if you have gone into it, if you have thought about it. So we ought to consider that too, if there is something in us, in me, in you, as human beings, that is not touched by the corruption of society, corruption of thought, corruption of time. Right?

Q: I've got a problem here, you seem to be implying there is some kind of individual, indivisible sort of state of peace.

K: No.

Q: I am saying are you saying we are the world, and it seems to me if we are the world then there's no place for a sort of private, personal, sort of subjective state.

K: I think so. I agree with you, there is no private 'me' apart from the public 'me'. (Laughs) I can deceive myself.

Q: Then if there isn't, why are you talking about the soul...

K: No, because...

Q: ...that sort of stuff, which is nonsense. I see that as being...

K: I'm talking about it because this is a prevalent idea.

Q: I don't think one can seriously think so.

K: Perhaps none of you have that idea. So we can drop it. Right? No, you're too quick to drop everything.

Scott Forbes: Sir, I think we might say that we don't believe in it but it's buried deep in many of our premises and the way we think.

K: No, I think, sir - look at it differently, if I may point out. Is the whole of me, my consciousness corrupt, in the sense, there is nothing more in me, there is no spot of clarity? You understand what I'm saying?

Q: We might as well all go home if that's the case.

K: Am I the whole bundle of this and nothing else? I'm putting the question differently. I wonder if you are meeting my point. Could we discuss this? Is there in my consciousness of which I'm not aware, of which I'm not cognisant, is there in me a field, an area that is not put together by thought. You understand? I wonder...

Q: Is that the question you are putting forth to us?

K: Yes, sir.

Q: Well, wouldn't it seem difficult when you ask us if there is such a thing, it does exist, that is beyond our cognisance, how would we know that, I mean, how could we even answer that question?

K: There is an idea, sir, that I'm not, I as a human, you know all that - I am not all this corruption, this time element, all the greed, envy, there is something in me which is not that, also. This is the religious attitude. You understand? I don't know if you...

Q: This has been said throughout the ages.

K: Yes.

Q: And it must be today the only hope of mankind, if I can dare use that word 'hope'.

K: So if there is such a thing which is not touched by time, that given the opportunity may wipe out all this.

Q: Exactly.

K: You understand? No, you're missing it.

Q: And yet on the other hand, that might just be a wishful thought.

K: That's just it. So what do you consider? This is a discussion - you understand? - we're trying to find out.

Q: You have been speaking about the objects of consciousness, I mean, is it possible if I am seriously interested to consider consciousness itself. In other words, I'm not concerned with the content but consciousness without any content as we know it, thinking process and so forth.

K: Do we know...

Q: Is it worth looking at that area?

K: Do we know consciousness, first of all, with all its content, or only part of it, not the whole content? You understand my question? That is, my consciousness is made up of all the traditions, superstitions, belief, illusions, suspicions, anxiety, and so on, all my consciousness is that, put there by thought. Right? Would you agree to this? Not agree, see it.

Q: I don't think I do agree with that, because I think for some time now I think I've had some kind of change, and I now see that there is no difference between what is going on inside me and the content of consciousness outside.

K: No, all right. I'm saying, the world consciousness is my consciousness.

Q: Yes, but that means you have an immediate problem like a doctor has a problem, they say there's no time for prophylactic medicine, looking into this - is there an area which is...

K: I don't quite...

Q: ...but that the situation is so, as you keep saying, so urgent that one has to deal with this, with this problem.

K: We are dealing with that problem.

Q: Because it's so violent that even the Church, they haven't got the time to sit there, they are all worrying, worrying about being humble and all this nonsense.

K: Then I'm not following your point. Perhaps others are following it.

Mary Cadogan: We seem to have jumped, because you said, you asked a question you said, is there consciousness apart from thought, I think.

K: No, no, I didn't say that.

Q: Or not made up, part made up, or something...

K: No, I only said, my consciousness is made up of all the things that thought has put together there: the nationalities, the racial prejudices, the beliefs, the ideals, anxieties, all that is the movement of thought, which includes emotional and all that, all that is the content of my consciousness.

Q: That's the content, yes.

K: Wait, wait. Am I aware of that or only part of it, depending on circumstances, incidents, happenings, pressures - only part of it. Or am I aware of the whole content? And if I am aware, is there in that consciousness, something which is not put there by thought? How do I find out. Because this is a question that has been put, been talked over, gone into by all the religious people, that there is god in you - in different forms, it doesn't matter. The whole Asiatic world believes that, practically, except part of the Buddhist and so on. I won't go into all that.

So I'm asking myself, therefore you're asking yourself, is there in my consciousness an area which is not put there by thought? You understand? You understand my question?

Q: We are asking, it would seem, I have a time-based mind and I'm asking now with this time-based mind, what is it like to be...

K: I don't know.

Q: ...without time.

K: I don't know what it's like, all that I know, I'm asking, because this has been one of the questions which mankind has gone into and asserted and denied, that there is something which is not put there by thought. Please, you must see this, this is not my opinion, this is what the world is thinking about.

Q: But surely this seems to be implying, if you say that there is something inside, you're suggesting that there is a soul, some sort of personal subjective experience, some private space.

K: No, they don't call it private, individual, they call it something, highest principle, eternal something or other.

Q: Isn't that the same thing?

K: So we can wipe that out if you agree, sirs. We can put that aside.

Q: I don't think it is quite right to put it aside, personally, forgive me, because I haven't been here for the past few days.

K: I know, sir.

Q: If one's putting away aside the content of consciousness it's one thing, but the very immediacy of consciousness, which we cannot dismiss, which is our very being, is rather a different area. And are you suggesting that we should dismiss that as an area of investigation?

K: I'm sorry I brought this thing, because I see you haven't gone into it, let's drop it.

Q: I think this gentleman is asking, sir, if there is anything in consciousness other than the contents.

Q: They are not in consciousness, as long as you're looking at things in consciousness, you're for ever looking at things that are away from oneself and not in one's immediacy of being. It seems to me that this area that we are discussing is a sort of peripheral area whereas there is another mode, which is a mode of...

K: Sir, I'm asking, sir - all right, I won't ask. My consciousness is its content. Right?

Q: No, I don't see it that way, sir. It seems to me that it is possible for consciousness to be, for awareness to be, for me to be without thoughts, without thought process.

K: Ah, I see what you are saying.

Q: And I think there's a danger in dismissing consciousness or the objects of consciousness, dismissing one's own immediacy of being.

K: Sir, our subject was: what am I to do, act, do, in life in a world that is violent, disorderly, disintegrating, what is my action towards that? And we have been talking over it for the last two days and come to a certain point, which was, that what is happening out there is not different from what is happening from here. We all agreed to that, agreed, no - I won't even use the word 'agreed'. We said we all saw that.

Q: We saw that.

K: Just a minute, sir, let me finish. And so the world is me, and I am not different from the world. Just a minute. That also we saw very clearly. It took two days to come to that point of view, sir.

Q: Forgive me.

K: And we said that being aware that I am the world, and that there is no observer different from the bundle which I am, right? - then what actually takes place? That's the whole point. You understand my... Perhaps you haven't followed clearly, I've not explained probably clearly. Much too briefly, probably.

Q: Yes, I do feel you have to consider the possibility though we are the world, there are gaps in the thought process, there are gaps between the words, and if there is care so that there isn't a complete continuity of the world within us.

K: We haven't gone into the continuity of that, sir. All that we have said so far is that the world is not different from me. The 'me' is the bundle of all my desires, depressions, anxieties, sorrow and so on. That is the bundle. Now am I observing that bundle as though the bundle is not me? You follow? Am I observing the bundle as though I was outside of it, and therefore looking at it? Then if I do that - we went into that - then there is the urge to act upon it, to control it, to shape it, to run away from it or suppress it. But the fact is that bundle is me, there is no observer. That's where we came to yesterday. Right, sir?

Q: And what is action from there, that's what we are pursuing. That's it.

K: That's what I want to... Yes, that's it. That's why I began by asking, our subject was: what am I to do, living in this world which is so destructive, disorderly and so on, what am I to do? To find out that action we have discussed the last two days and come to this point: that is, there is only the bundle and not the observer. I don't know if you have gone as far as that. Right?

It was a logical conclusion. Right? I'm using the word 'logical' in the sense, as a river flows, naturally, and in the same way we have observed this whole process flowing, which is not a logical step by step conclusion. I wonder if you see. Like a stream or a river that's flowing constantly, it has its own logic. (Laughs) And what we have done is to follow that logic naturally. So there has been no effort. Right? There has been no definite opinion or conclusion - it's a fact. Right? We are observing the fact.

So. Have we really come to that point? That's my question, which is, are we looking at this bundle of consciousness with all its content as an observer looking in, or there is no observer but only this bundle? Have we come to that point, not as an idea, as a conclusion, but as an actuality, as a thing that is happening. Now could we go on from there?

Q: Sir we have seen that, now what are we going to do, if we have seen that?

Q: I don't know if we have seen that.

K: No, that's why... we may have seen it as an idea, as a conclusion, which is different from the actual - I dislike to use the word 'experience', it's a silly word - as an actual fact, you understand sir? - an actual reality.

David Bohm: Perhaps we could try to go on to the difference between the seeing it as an idea and actually seeing it as a fact, or as an experience.

K: Yes. We ought to talk over that a bit.

DB: Yes.

K: That is, do I observe it, is there an observation, and from that observation a conclusion which is an idea, or without idea observe, and not come to a conclusion? Sir, I see you sitting there. That's a fact, you're there. I may draw a conclusion from it. I may say I don't like you, it becomes an idea.

So when we say the bundle is me, is it an idea, or the real, the actual realisation that it is so? So we ought to talk over that a bit.

Q: Sir, the difficulty seems to be the way that we are looking. It seems that looking is struggling, because if that is so, if looking is struggling, then the answer to the question 'What can I do in a world that is violent' the answer is nothing, there is nothing I can do, if looking is struggling.

K: Yes, sir. First of all, we have discussed so far, is it an idea or is it an actual fact of which there is observation. You understand my...

Q: Sir, it seems that the words we have to use, which are not the thing, can be an obstacle if we think with the image of the words. It seems we have to put aside the image of the words.

K: Sir, I'm asking you a question, please find out - I may be wrong or perhaps you've already answered it. When you observe a fact, or rather, when there is an observation of a fact, does that observation bring about an idea, a conclusion, a concept, or merely observe the fact? Which is it that we are doing?

You see all this comes to: is there an action without the actor? I don't know if I'm jumping.

DB: Yes, I think it's a little too fast.

K: I'm going too fast. Right.

Q: Are you saying that acting is quite different from an action, it sounds like an abstract nonsense.

K: An action, action, don't say...

Q: Acting.

K: Acting. Is there an - as Dr. Bohm says, you have jumped too far ahead so I withdraw that. (Laughs)

DB: I would like to ask the question: what is it we are in contact with this actual fact of the bundle, you know, if we see it then we must have a contact with it, if it's an actual fact.

K: That's it.

Q: What is this contact?

K: Yes, that's it, put it there. Is there an actual contact with the fact?

DB: Yes, as we can contact with a real object.

K: Put it that way, sir, good. Let's put it that way, instead of using 'experience' and all that, is there an actual contact with the fact that I am the world and the world is me, and this bundle is me without the observer? Is that an actual contact?

Q: That contact is the way we live.

K: No, no.

Q: Sir, what we seem to do is wrestle with the idea, not make contact with the fact. You wrestle with the idea, and that seems to cause the conflict.

K: Sir, bear in mind, sir, all the time, we're asking: what am I to do? Right? And we've come to the point when we say, 'Are we actually in contact with the fact that I am the bundle?' You understand - contact.

Q: When I'm relating to you or to a person, when I'm relating, talking to a person, I see that actually there is no real relationship, there is a mess.

K: But we're not talking...

Q: Just, please - but when I go away from people, and I'm alone, somehow I still think that I know what is good, what is beautiful, what is holy, except that it's not coming through, but in the back of the mind this belief persists.

K: So what, what are you saying, sir?

Q: This, at some moments one sees that one is the bundle, when you're there but when you...

K: No, when you're in touch with that, you can't say occasionally I'm in touch.

Q: Sir, the difficulty seems to lie in actual contact.

Q: We must pull out this contact. We must pull it out somehow or another. Yourself or Professor Bohm, we must pull out this question of contact.

Q: Looking into it.

Q: Looking into it, to me it is the way I look.

K: All right, are you directly in relationship with it?

Q: If I act.

K: No, I'm not talking of action. I've come, a little later, sir. I said, let's bear in mind all the time, or in the background, put it there, that the question is, 'What am I to do in this world'? And we are trying to find out what is the right action in this.

And we are saying there is a right action when there is no observer. Right? That is, the observer has separated himself from the bundle. But the observer is put there by education - we went through all that yesterday, I won't go into it again. So as long as there is this division between the bundle and the observer, there must be conflict, and all that.

But when there is the realisation, the actual fact that I am the bundle and there is no observer - you follow, sir? - then what takes place? That is, when there is direct relationship with the fact, actual contact with the fact - I am using different words - actual embracing the fact, the fact is me. I am in complete contact with that fact. There is no part of me that says I'm different. So the fact is entirely me. I don't know how to...

Q: Then there's no interference when the fact affects, whatever takes place, it must spring from the fact, because there's nothing to interfere with that relationship that you are talking about.

K: We are not quite meeting each other, I'm afraid.

Q: It seems that instead of really trying to get at that, we're already trying to project what it will be like when we have it.

K: That's what I'm...

Q: In that then we have something to move towards.

K: Yes.

Q: And that seems to be part of the difficulty.

K: I've not moved from this one thing, which is, I want to act in this world, and I see whatever I do either creates more mischief, more misery, more confusion, so I say to myself, 'What am I to do?' I don't think you feel this!

Q: There is shock when one sees it.

K: What am I to do? Wait a minute, sir. So in examining that, I have found out for myself, the world is me, I am the world, there in no other - that's a fact. I have embraced it, I have kissed it, I have hugged it, I am in contact with it, there is no difference between that and this.

And that violence and deterioration is part of me, so this bundle is me. That's a fact. So I am entirely in contact with it, wholly, there is no part of me that is not touching it entirely. I can't put it ten different ways.

Q: Got it now. I can see that.

K: Right. Then what takes place? Wait - from there there is action. My mind has reached that point, you understand? - where it is entirely in contact with that fact, then what takes place? I can tell you what takes place but I don't want to.

Then from that there is an action which is complete - for me. Therefore don't accept what I am saying. Up to now we have logically, verbally, clearly explained this fact. Now I'm asking, after two days of discussion and verbal exchange, are we in contact with it completely, so that there is no hiatus, gap, saying, sorry, there is part of me which is not that.

Q: But, surely, if all that goes on day and night, goes on here, what else can it be but me?

K: Have you answered my question, madame?

SF: Sir, could we say that we have a certain contact with that fact and it's incomplete, and then look at what we can do to bring about more complete contact with that.

K: Ah, you can't do anything more. Either you see it or you don't see it.

Q: Sir, can we discuss the state of mind? It seems the only question really we can talk about now is the state of mind in which this perception can take place, otherwise there's no point, I mean, it just seems that we're not getting it. Or I can only speak, maybe I should only speak for myself. It seems that maybe there is a state of mind, a perception, which is not a struggle, which is not an effort, but personally it seems extraordinarily difficult to be in that state, in that position, in that place.

K: Sir, are you answering my question? (Laughs) I'm sorry to stick to that.

Q: Look, sir, I see that this violence, this world which is going on throughout the world is me.

K: Now, wait, just a minute. Is that an idea or a fact to you, your breath?

Q: It's a fact, sir, I can see it.

K: Wait, wait - I want to know. Not you can see it - it is so.

Q: Feel it.

Q: Yes, I feel it and I want to do something.

K: Wait, no! Then if you want to do something, you've already separated the fact from the fact. You understand sir? I say action will come into being when there is the realisation and complete contact with the fact. From that there is a different kind of action. This is logical, sir, please, logical in the sense, I'm using the word 'logical' in the sense like a river that flows, it's not clear-cut, put there by thought, logically step by step, it's like a river that's flowing, flowing, flowing. It has its own logic, its own beauty, its own movement.

Q: There is shock and despair at seeing this, when you say this is me and there is nothing with what you've got that I can do.

K: Now wait a minute.

Q: I have tried all those things.

K: You're still acting, you're still concerned with the doing, I'm not. I started with the question - what to do? - but I say I must find out if there is an action which is absolutely without regret, without - you know, all the rest of it. I want to find out. So I say, is the world different, I come to all that, I say I am the world.

Now what am I to do? To answer that question, I say to myself, 'Am I absolutely in touch with the fact, or I'm imagining it, or is it an idea, or is it some hope, because I want to act properly.' You follow, sir?

Q: Yes, I do.

K: So I'm not concerned for the moment with action.

Q: Krishnaji, we are very concerned with the action, and that's part of the difficulty, we already want to act rightly before going through all the...

K: No I don't know what right action is, I said that.

Q: Yes, but I think that we assume that there is a right action.

K: I don't know.

Q: And move towards it.

K: You assume but I don't know.

DB: That may be one of the troubles, that there is a big, continual cloud of thoughts which are making assumptions about what the situation is and what to do.

K: Yes... You're not meeting this.

Q: There's really only the seeing, isn't there?

K: You can see visually, optically, but it may be not whole, not complete.

Q: I think the point where we're at is that we're not in complete contact with this fact.

K: That's all. Then if you're not completely in contact with the fact, then what will you do to be completely with it?

Q: Stated as an idea one would say, I am aware of the bundle as 'I', state as a fact, one would say the bundle is aware of itself.

K: No, sir.

Q: I think the simple fact is that I'm not at all sure that I grasp this fact of the bundle. If you could put it differently.

K: I am all that, sir. Right? I won't even call it a bundle. I am greed, I am envy, I am anger, I suffer, all that is me. Right? And I won't, you know, that's simple, I won't enlarge it. All that's me.

Q: But it's also a fact that anyone that I am in relationship with insists that there is a me too. And I have to relate to that fact. What is the entity that responds to that? Is it intelligence?

K: To what?

Q: Somebody relates to me. Let's just suppose for a moment that I haven't got a 'me'...

K: I don't...

Q: ...and somebody insists there is a 'me', there is a self, you know a physical entity with a relationship.

K: Sir, what do you mean 'something relates to me'?

Q: Well, the rest of the world. All the people which you're talking about, that are causing all the violence, including myself.

K: Sir, the world, with all the people in it, with all their mischief, with all their conceit, with all their vanity, with their etc., is part of me. I am not in contact with...

Q: We are talking about a microphone, it's no use your telling me that you're part of me.

K: What?

Q: I mean, I know you're a different human being.

K: I have got a brown skin.

Q: Yes, but you're not just a brown skin...

K: ...not as tall...

Q: ...you are a different - you know, entity.

K: Ah, you see, I am only, sir... you are missing my point, or I'm not explaining. Psychologically all human beings are similar. Right? Do you accept that?

Q: No. (Laughter)

K: Human beings, whether they live - we've been through all this - whether they live in Russia, or this... suffer, they're uncertain, they're unhappy, they're insecure, they are violent, greedy, envious, competitive and so on. They are similar, psychologically, inwardly. Modified perhaps by their culture, by environment, by the climate, but the core of it is similar.

Q: Yes, but why is it similar? Why is it similar? That's the question.

K: Why? That's been gone into too, sir. Why is it similar? Because we human beings, who have lived for a million years, have not resolved this problem.

Q: It's the main...

K: Is not the reason?

Q: Well, I think the fact that there is the problem that hasn't been solved...

K: Wait! We are trying to solve it. We are first stating - we have to go back over and over again - we are stating that the psychological similarity of all human beings, therefore the world which they have created is me. Psychologically I'm not different from you.

Q: No, there are all these questions like Aristotle's business of substance, you know, this privation of being, all this that has to be related to. You know, I feel empty, you were talking about the emptiness inside oneself and all this stuff.

K: That's part of me.

Q: It's not someone else is feeling am I empty.

K: Sir, that's part of me. I'm also empty, as a human being. I also feel terribly lonely - I don't personally - I'm saying as a human being concerned with the question which has been the subject all of our discussions over the last two days, is what am I to do?

Q: Could I try putting this in slightly different words?

K: Yes, sir, delighted.

Professor Wilkins: What you are saying is that what is required is an intense realisation that it is a fact that each individual is an integral part of the whole human consciousness.

K: Right.

W: The whole human condition.

K: Right, sir.

Q: And that the differences which appear significant to us, are...

K: ...superficial, trivial. Now have you understood that, sir?

MC: Krishnaji, I feel this is the point where we always jump and you are always ahead of us and we get lost, so can I ask a question...

K: Delighted.

MC: ...and say that I feel that we come to the point when we see the bundle of memory, of violence, greed and all the limitations, but it seems here that nothing really then is fully clarified. Is there a way of exploring that more totally than we do, and is it that there is something we don't look at that is nearer even than the content of consciousness. Is there some part of consciousness that slips through our exploration, when we try to see this?

K: I wonder, Mrs Cadogan, if you heard what Professor Wilkins said. He said we are integral part of all humanity, though we think we are separate, we are really essentially...

MC: No, I don't think we are separate...

Q: I don't think anybody here thinks that we are separate.

MC: Sorry, could I say, once you see that we are not separate, one sees that we are not separate, then one looks at this process of consciousness, to see - not to see - but just to understand.

K: I don't quite follow - sorry. What are you trying to tell me?

MC: Well, I feel we looked at this bundle so many times.

K: No, I will drop the word 'bundle'. Take another.

MC: You look at, you see the bundle, the bundle which is the fear, the greed, the doubt, the fear, the pain. But that seems almost like the symptom rather than the deep fact, somehow. There seems to be a movement of consciousness which comes before that which somehow we don't quite get to grips with, which still causes a separation. Can we go into that any more with you? Will you help us?

Q: Sir, it seems that everybody seems to be looking for a readymade answer for it.

K: No, I don't quite follow what Mrs Cadogan is saying.

Q: Could it be...

K: Would you explain, sir? If you have understood.

Stephen Smith: Well, I think what it may be is that there is a kind of in each person as they're born, in each child there is a search for meaning begins. In each child search for meaning begins, in each person a search for meaning begins. What does it mean?

MC: No, it's not that.

SS: No?

K: I don't think she meant that.

Q: There is no self, there is only a state of being, and what seems to be happening just now is that nobody is paying any attention to the fact that this bundle has as much capacity for good as it has for the other. And it is the awareness of this factor which to my mind suggests that there is no necessary will or desire. When one becomes aware of the fact, then the condition of being a part of, also creates within its own self the ability to be one thing or the other which we are all - but the turning over within ourselves towards right action or wilful action is something which is the bundle itself.

K: Sir, are you answering Mrs Cadogan? Are you explaining what she meant, because some of us have not understood what she meant.

Q: I do not know if I am explaining that.

K: That's all, I asked, sir. You're saying something different from her.

Q: I'm still...

K: First we haven't understood what she has to say.

Q: I think what she is trying to say is that, we get always stuck at this one point that there is this bundle which is made up of suffering, pain, effort - is there a step which we are missing before that?

K: Is that it?

MC: Not quite. I feel we're looking at the content of consciousness rather than the structure of consciousness. There seems to be something more vital that's not understood by us. But it's more vital than the pain or the symptoms which...

K: All right, is there something more vital than all this.

MC: That slips through, it slips through, it moves without us seeing what happens.

K: Yes, I understand.

MC: We are not aware of it.

K: I think I understand what you're trying to say. Is there something more vital behind all these symptoms. Is that it?

MC: Yes.

K: Behind all the sorrows, misery, blah, blah, blah. Is there something much more active than this?

MC: Yes, that escapes our awareness.

K: Yes, that escapes - at last we've got it! You answer... some of you answer it, sirs.

Q: I think Mrs Cadogan is where I am. When you were a few minutes ago and I've been looking at this in these last few minutes - is it a fact that I feel that all this which is going on in the world is me, is this a fact or is it an idea? And to me Mrs Cadogan is saying ah, now wait a moment, it is a fact, but really I feel that she feels it's an idea, and she wants something in between which is going to bridge the gap between idea and fact.

K: No, no, no, not quite sir, not quite that. Sorry to contradict you, which is not, as far as I understood what she meant was, apart from all the symptoms, greed, envy and so on, so on, is there something much more vital, active that we are missing?

MC: In our own process.

K: Yes, in the process of examination and investigation, are we missing something which is much more, which is deep, which has great vitality, which will wipe away all this. More or less. Right? Have I got it?

MC: Yes, yes, I mean something is not clear, you see, and one feels it so immediate, so vital each time, and its - yes, you go on Krishnaji, you explore that area.

Q: Sir, doesn't this imply that there is a division in consciousness, in what Mary is saying?

K: No, no. Sir, may I put it differently? Is there a cause, root...

MC: Root, root.

K: ...which is producing all this. Just a minute, just a minute, just a minute. Let's understand the question properly. The branches are all this, anger, jealousy, blah and so on, so on, the root, is there, if one can touch the root, then the symptoms may disappear. Is that it?

MC: It's the root.

K: Yes, that's what I'm trying to get at. Is there...

Q: Can I ask another question? Is this really a collective thing, I mean, are we talking about the structured form of the human being, human species, I mean something, you know, some sort of, like DNA, kind of thing, is that the kind of thing or general consciousness, is that what you are talking about?

Q: Yes, it's part of...

K: Yes, that's why, I've made the question clear for myself, I don't know if the others understand it. If instead of always talking about pruning the branches and cutting the flowers and leaves and so on, if we could go to the very root of it, the tree would wither away. Right?

SF: Are we suggesting that this root is not...

K: I am only trying to understand what Mrs Cadogan was saying.

SF: I thought she was implying that there was something other than contents that was part of this root.

K: No - the content, sir, no, the content are the leaves of the tree. Right? Put it like that - the branches, the flowers, the fruit and all that, but the root, if we can touch the root and understand that, the symptoms and all that will disappear. That's what, if I understand rightly, that's what she's trying to convey. Is that right?

MC: The root is what seems to elude our observation.

K: Yes, yes, yes. Right? Is that understood? Have we understood?

MC: Yes.

K: My god!

Q: Would it be helpful to say that then if I give up the desire to see this as a fact, and if I give up the fear of not seeing this as a fact, that would help?

K: No, there is no giving up. There is no sacrifice, there is no taking of vows, but only investigating and understanding. Right? As far as I'm concerned.

So Mrs Cadogan's question is, instead of always talking about the branches and the leaves and the fruit thereof, go to the root of it. Right?

MC: Can we go to the root of it.

K: Go to the root of it.

Q: Is there a root at all?

K: Of course, must be. Answer that question, sir. You're all ready to answer - go ahead.

Q: Sir...

K: Wait - piano! (Laughter)

Q: I think that, you see, as long as I say to you, you know, I'm this bundle, but I keep on believing that some part of me is not that, and I keep on doing that, which is a fact. You know, I'm stuck there.

K: Yes, sir, that's your whole illusion.

Q: And that's where I stay.

K: Yes, yes.

Q: Part of me is not the bundle, part of me is good.

K: Yes, yes, I understand, that's what I tried to explain when I said at the beginning of the talk, some of us, some of the part of the world believes there is something which is not this.

SS: Perhaps if we could answer Mrs Cadogan's question, we could...

K: I'm coming back, sir - he's pursuing his own idea, he hasn't moved away from it.

Q: Yes.

K: Sorry.

SS: Could I suggest that possibly, this is only a suggestion, that what underlies the various symptoms is some sense of grief, some sense of frustration that life is an uncomprehended reality.

K: You see, Mrs Cadogan has asked that question. He says I'm really not interested in that question but there is a part of me that says I am different, there is something I'm not all that. And he's repeated this three days. And he'll go on repeating it, because to him that is an experience which he won't let go. And we said that to investigate one must be free of all one's experiences, prejudices, knowledge and so on - to investigate. Right? If I'm a Marxist I can't investigate. If I am caught, attached to my experience I can't investigate.

So he's playing with us. Sorry. After three days you're sticking to it. We have explained very carefully. I'm not being rude, or irritated or angry, we explained very carefully, that's also part of our illusion. And you say, why do you consider that illusion, because - it's still thought - says, 'There must be something.' The whole movement of thought we have investigated.

So to come back to Mrs Cadogan's question, which is, if we can cut the cause, everything is simple. The symptoms will disappear.

Q: I'm not saying that, I am questioning.

K: Wait! - I'm saying that.

Q: Yes.

K: So is there a cause for all this?

Q: Are you suggesting in saying is there a cause for this, I mean, it seems to me rather like saying that the bundle...

K: Cut out the bundle, sir.

Q: No, hang on!... that we are looking for a result beyond it. Are we also assuming that there is an individual - are we talking about an individual, separate, or are we talking about something deeper, which I hope is what we're talking about.

K: The individual is only superficial movement. There is no 'me' but the world.

Q: There are distinct bodies, aren't they, I mean your body is different from mine.

K: Of course, sir, don't! I mean obviously, you're short, I'm tall, brown, black, but psychologically we explained carefully, we are all similar.

Q: We are talking about consciousness.

K: We are an integral part of humanity, I am not an individual. I like to think I'm an individual. It gives me great sense of vanity, separateness. But actually, psychologically, I'm an integral part of this world which is so terrible. Right? To me that's not an idea, not a belief, a conclusion - it's so, in my blood it is so!

So Mrs Cadogan's question is: is there a cause which in our investigation we are missing? If we could go into that, then perhaps the symptoms may disappear - may, I don't say it does, or it will.

Q: Sir, earlier on we said that human consciousness is all the little bits that thought has put together.

K: Sir, are you answering her question?

Q: That's what I'm doing.

K: What is that?

Q: I'm saying that the branches of this tree are all the things that thought has put together. And so lower down must be the mechanics of thought.

K: Sir, Shankar, what do you think is the cause of all this? Cause, not idea, not a conclusion, the root of it.

Q: I think it's the thinking process that has created all this.

K: Would you accept that?

MC: I don't really feel that, that's what I'm trying to get to.

K: What he's saying is, the root cause of all this is - sorry, I've got a cramp - is the whole process of thinking. Thought is the root of it. Thought being born of knowledge, and knowledge implies ignorance.

MC: Implies?

K: Ignorance. Knowledge and ignorance go together. There is no complete knowledge.

MC: I feel this is concerned with the same thing, which is the structure of our consciousness.

K: No, no, he's saying something else. It's not the structure. The structure is the result of thinking.

Q: Which also implies time.

K: All that. He's read what I've said a dozen times! (Laughter)

MC: I feel this is interesting but we're moving away from what I was looking at.

K: No.

Q: Can I try to clarify Mary's question, I'm not quite clear - are you talking about the roots of violence, or the roots of our being?

MC: I was trying to talk about the part that slips through our awareness, almost a movement that comes. We can see our greed, our nationalism, that's easy. And we're not necessarily trapped obviously in that, but there is still something which moves too fast or too something for our awareness. So that we are still restricted in this way.

Q: That isn't necessarily the root of violence, is it?

MC: Well it may be.

Q: Yes, but I mean you are saying there is something that is escaping us, that is so immediate.

Q: Yes.

Q: But that isn't necessarily a thing of violence, the root of violence.

MC: But I wondered if Krishnaji could somehow...

K: Let's do it slowly. Are you saying, we've always talked about the symptoms, the branches, and never the root?

MC: Well, I don't say never but at this moment...

K: Wait - never - doesn't matter. In our investigation we have always looked at the tree, at the branches, at the fruits and so on, but we have never gone down deeply, to see what is the origin of all this.

Q: Or the thing that moves so fast.

K: Yes, yes, yes.

MZ: May I ask if the root in question could be considered the root of thinking - is thinking a branch of this root, or is it some other factor that somehow weaves its way through thought?

MC: Thinking could be a part or a branch of the tree.

K: What is that?

Q: It could be.

MZ: We're looking for something deeper then, as a cause of all this human trouble, deeper than thinking, is that it?

MC: Or more immediate than thinking.

Q: Now here we're back to the thinking.

K: What did you say?

MZ: Well, I was trying to find out if in this analogy if thinking is a branch of something deeper, which we're looking for, or is thinking actually down there in the roots.

K: Is the cause. Yes.

MZ: Is there some primal cause before thinking?

K: Yes. Right?

Q: I get the feeling that the way the discussion's going that we always get trapped in the new words. We use some words which seem to be helpful up to a point, a metaphor, I mean we had the metaphor of contacting the thing itself, and we could get into that, a way. And then we seem to come up against a block and we feel that there must be something else beyond that, we are not getting through to the thing itself. And so we come up with a new image, and a new word which seems helpful.

MC: But this is not an image to me.

Q: No, I know.

MC: To me this is something which has been there a long time in my life. It has not been clarified.

K: But Mrs Cadogan, what is right action? Confronted with this world, what am I to do - that's how we started.

Q: And my right action...

K: What is correct action, which will be correct always. Not dependent on circumstances, environment, and so on, so on. And that is the question which we proposed. Will the answer what to do cover this question, your question?

MC: You say, what is right action, what is right action - for me the only right action seems to be to explore this unresolved part of my consciousness, obviously there is still something not understood, which is the key to going into all the things we are going into.

K: Yes, yes, now, unexplored part of your consciousness. Right?

MC: I don't know if... All right, yes. Not mine, I don't think it's mine in particular, I mean it's consciousness...

K: Is there any part of your consciousness that cannot be explored? How do you explore the deep, hidden consciousness? You follow? I'm pursuing - the deep, hidden consciousness may be the root. You understand? How am I, with my conscious mind to explore that which is hidden? You're answering my question? I can't.

Q: I agree.

K: No, sir, don't agree or disagree.

Q: Well, that's how I see it.

K: No, no, no. (Laughs) It's not a question of agreement or disagreement. There are hidden parts of me and my conscious mind says I must investigate that, which may be the root of it. Right? The root of all these symptoms. Right?

Now how am I, how is the conscious mind, the mind that thinks, the mind that has knowledge, the mind that is caught in various illusions, to investigate something which is totally hidden?

The analysts have said, analyse. Right? We won't go into that. Or it will reveal through dreams, through sleep. Or it will reveal itself through meditation. I'm proposing various systems which man has put together to find the deep, hidden cause. Right? Now, we deny analysis - obviously. The other is dreams. There too there must be an interpreter or the interpreter goes on while you're dreaming - it has happened, I know this - you have a dream and the interpretation is going on at the same time. And you wake up, it may not be true. Right?

So we're thrown back to one thing, that's meditation. Now that covers a large field, which means - wait - I'll explain briefly, which means conscious mind being absolutely quiet. Then in that quietude things may be revealed. Right? 'Thing' being the root. You're all... Right? So how shall we do this? Will you meditate - I mean this seriously - to see that your conscious mind, the thinking mind, stops completely. Then there is a possibility of the deep, hidden activity surfacing itself. Right? - possibility, I don't say there is.

Now, instead of going through all these methods, systems and so on, is it possible - just a minute - to see the whole thing instantly? You follow? The cause, the symptoms, the activities of the symptoms, the totality of the thing, seeing it immediately.

Q: The whole.

K: The whole works. I say it is possible only when all the symptoms have disappeared.

MC: You're saying that, Krishnaji?

K: I'm saying that. When all the symptoms have subsided.

SF: Sir, to me that's...

K: Nonsense.

SF: Too fast.

K: I know, I'm answering her query quickly.

SF: Because the way I hear that, we are saying that once if we see the entire root...

K: No, not the entire root - the whole thing.

SF: The whole thing, the root and all the branches and all of it...

K: Is that possible, first.

SF: But Mary was saying that that is not possible because that root exists.

K: No.

Q: That's what blocks the perception of the whole thing.

K: That's what she means, too - she means that. Says, it is possible. Unless you want to go into that, that it is possible to see the totality of this whole movement.

MC: It is the whole consciousness.

K: The whole of it.

MC: The whole, the structure, the content...

K: Whole of it. I mean the whole.

MC: On the instant.

K: I mean the whole, the root, the branches, the whole of it, to see it. It's not a miracle, it's not - that leads us off somewhere else, for the time being.

I am left at the end of this discussion, after three days, I don't know what to do. Right? But let's be clear, when I, when there is the realisation that I'm integral part of the whole of humanity - you understand, sir, what it does? You don't. When I am the integral part of all humanity, what has taken place when there is the realisation of this fact, enormous fact - you understand, sir? - it's not just words. What takes place?

Q: Could it be said that action then loses its aspects of activity, doing, and becomes the aspect of actuality, lifestyle?

K: Sir, I am concerned with what takes place, you follow? - before action, before anything. When I so completely realise, the mind realises that it is part of all humanity.

Q: There is no more self-centredness.

K: No, no, no. What takes place?

Q: It must be compassion.

K: No, no, that's why haven't you come to that point, that's what I'm asking. We have logically like a river, we explained, why haven't you come to that point, say yes, I know what it means, there is...

Q: Because the sense of separateness is still operating with us.

K: So all these three mornings are wasted mornings.

Q: Not unless I see this.

K: Because we're still living at the verbal level.

Q: Yes.

K: So I say, are you observing all this as an idea or conclude from the observation a series of ideas, or are you really in contact with reality, with that truth that you are the integral part of this whole, vast, decaying humanity?

I say if you realise that, there comes quite a different state. From that there is action.

Sir, what is love? Just a word? Doesn't this happen when you're really in contact with that fact that you are integral, that you are humanity? Gosh, something happens to you, doesn't it?

We better stop - lunch. (Laughs) Sir, I meant to ask - do we meet tomorrow or do you want a rest?

Q: No, let's meet tomorrow.

Q: Krishnaji may want a rest.

K: No, just a minute, don't - you're not giving me a rest, don't think about that. You've had three days of verbal exchange. Right? Your minds have been drilled (laughs), pushing back and forth.

Q: Do you need rest, sir?

K: Do you want a rest tomorrow?

Q: Do you need rest, sir?

Q: No.

Q: No.

Q: Can we give you a rest, Krishnaji?

K: What?

Q: Can we give you a rest with all of us.

K: Don't bother about me. (Laughter) You decide.