J. K.
Shall we go on with our conversation about education still? Yes or no?
Audience
Yes.
J. K.
As far as one can see, the politicians have not been able to solve any problems. On the contrary, they are increasing more. Nor the scientists. They are creating the atom bomb and the counter-atom bombs and so on, so on. Nor the economists. Nor the social reformers. So what shall we do?
One sees the necessity of a new society, a new relationship between human beings—which is society. And we apparently, ordinary people like us, we don’t seem to change at all. We change slightly here and there, but not fundamentally. And the world is going to rot, disintegrating, and we seem to be utterly helpless. And we have children who are going to be a future generation, and they too seem to follow our pattern. So what does education mean? Not only the education of our children, but ourselves—what is the whole human life becoming? Where is it all ending up? Should we discuss that a little? Silence, or is it general approval?
Audience
The trouble seems to be, partly, that we have so many problems. We have the problem of our child, the problem of our wife or husband, we have the problem of earning a livelihood, the problem of our job and how to keep it. So many problems confront us.
J. K.
So what?
Audience
We don’t know how to consummate our energies in the essential—or indeed: what is the essential?
J. K.
Yes. So we don’t seem to be able to solve our own problems, right? We’re probably heaping our problems onto our children. So, where do we start with all this? Surely we can’t depend on politicians anymore, including Mrs. Thatcher, nor any of the scientists. So it behooves us to start with ourselves. Surely, that’s the only thing to do. So can we educate ourselves, not allowing time as a factor to change, to bring about a transformation, a mutation of our whole behavior?
Sheldrake
But is there any reason to assume that we can improve the world through education? The past history of the world gives reason for thinking that individuals can change, but doesn’t give much hope for thinking that entire societies can be transformed. And so, are we pursuing a chimera attempting to change the world through education?
J. K.
Please, discuss it.
Audience
It was once remarked that Germany, before the Second World War, was the most educated country in the world. I think, clearly, it depends what one means by education.
Sheldrake
Well, education of any kind that’s ever existed in the world has not, as far as we know, succeeded in making any particular country like paradise in terms of the way people behave. Some have been better than others. But is there any reason to believe in the perfectibility of mankind as a whole?
J. K.
Sir, is mankind different from you and me?
Sheldrake
Yes.
J. K.
In what way?
Sheldrake
I think when you have a collective, there seem to be laws and there seem to be factors of collective psychology different from this individual psychology. The psychology of mobs is different from the psychology of individuals who make up the mob. And so there seem to be general rules of collective psychology that mean that, somehow, the collective is different from the individuals.
J. K.
Is the collective different, psychologically, from us?
Sheldrake
Yes, I think so.
J. K.
In what way?
Sheldrake
I think the collective, a society, is something which contains social rules. A society has rules. All societies have rules and patterns of behavior. And we are parts of society. And I think the relation between individuals and the societies they live in; people often say it’s like the relation between cells and the body that they’re a member of. The body is more than the individual cells, and a society is more than the individual members of it. It has rules, within which the members interact. And so I think that there’s a distinct difference between human societies and the individuals that make them up. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. Although, of course, the parts are related to the whole and [???] relationship between them.
Audience
But is my greed fundamentally different from the collective greed?
Sheldrake
Yes.
Audience
In what way?
Sheldrake
I think collective greed is more likely to be a reflection of individual greed than war, as we were discussing last night, but on the whole, people within societies don’t behave particularly aggressively to other members of the society, but societies as a whole often behave aggressively to other societies. So it’s rather rare for ordinary, decent Englishmen to kill other Englishmen, but it’s very common in the last two wars for them to kill Germans or other people who the country declared war on. And this was a sort of social—you could say it’s a projection of individual things, but it’s not something that happens within. The society as a whole seems to have a dynamics which is not just that of the individuals within it. But I think this is a phenomenon that happens all through nature: collectives take on laws and properties which are not simply those of the parts that make them up.
J. K.
Is a collective an abstraction?
Sheldrake
No, I don’t think a country is an abstraction, or a society. It’s certainly a word, but I think societies have their own—the fact that anthropologists can study the laws, the customs of different societies—
J. K.
Yes, and is the individual also an abstraction?
Sheldrake
I don’t think so.
Audience
Then we have to distinguish between form and essence. We’ve put together a certain way of behaving, a certain way of dressing, which is temporary and a fabrication which we group. In essence, maybe we’re the same. Similarly, with the individual, we transfer things to the collective that manifests what we are inside. But together, we obey rules with a certain fabricated system.
Audience
Look, if we try to bring it back just to this room, can’t we see: here is a group of people in a collective who are demonstrating all the ways in which we, as individuals, privately avoid the central challenge and the essential point? Are we really discussing this matter as a collective in any way differently from the way in which we as individuals consider this matter? Aren’t we really continually going about it to ensure that we remain in the same situation, day after day? It may seem different—we’re talking together, a lot of people—but it seems to me that, really, we’re just putting out in the open the way in which we ourselves privately continue to remain as separate individuals, with the collective as another idea.
Audience
But would you say that that’s what we were pointing out in the discussions prior? That basically, that’s what education is: the knowledge that’s talked about, how we feel about the collective mind and the individual, that’s part of education, that’s the way we’re told how to think about things. It’s sort of implicit in the educational system. That seems to be the point we seem to be at.
J. K.
And also what am I to do? Even if I accept I’m an individual totally different from the collective, what am I to do? Facing all the terrible things that are going on in the world, what am I—a single, lonely, separate individual—to affect this enormous weight of the society? If I think that way, it seems so hopeless.
Sheldrake
Yes.
J. K.
So I give it up, or form a cult, which is all so meaningless. Perhaps, there may be another approach.
Sheldrake
What?
J. K.
Which is: I’m not an individual.
Audience
One step we’ve been trying to take so far is to get clear that there’s just one central problem, not a very large number of problems.
J. K.
Sir, my problem is a this; a very simple problem: I have so far lived as an individual, so far acted as an individual. My relationship with another has been individualistic. My search for truth, for God, whatever it be, has always been individualistic. I’ve also had the belief that in me there is God, and that God is looking after me, or I must go after that God. It’s all been a limited, individualistic activity. And seeing this enormous, complex society, with all the horrors, I feel so utterly helpless. Right? So, I say to myself: my thinking may be wrong altogether.
Audience
Absolutely totally, not partially.
J. K.
It may be wrong altogether, assuming that I’m an individual and being incapable to affect that. Then I become depressed, hopeless, neurotic, and run away into some institution or some ashram or somewhere, and I end up there. What’s the point all this?
Audience
And any attempt to ask how one could help one’s children or one’s students while one’s still in this sort of—
J. K.
In the same pattern.
Audience
—is doomed to failure or very limited success.
J. K.
Yeah. Challenge it!
Sheldrake
Well, maybe that’s the fact. Maybe it is hopeless.
J. K.
So we can’t do anything.
Sheldrake
Well, we may be able to do something about ourselves and about people we meet.
J. K.
Yes, but that’s a very small affair.
Sheldrake
Yes, but maybe we’re very small parts of whatever exists, and maybe we have to resign ourselves to this. Maybe this is the nature of things.
J. K.
I object to that. That’s such a limited, hopeless, self-centered activity. It has no meaning.
Sheldrake
But it may be true. I mean, the question is: is it true or not? If it’s true, one would have to accept it.
J. K.
I don’t know. I question whether it is true.
Audience
Could I take up that point Dr. Sheldrake had made a little earlier, that the individual is essentially different from the society as a whole, and you get new properties coming into existence in a large assembly of individuals? Well, doubtless, it is true that one mustn’t make always too close a parallel between individual psychology and mass psychology. Things can come out in a differing degree in these different situations, and as you rightly said, a Britisher will not normally seek to solve his problems with his neighbor by murdering him, and it is more common to do this on a collective level. But this is only a difference of degree, because neighbors do sometimes murder one another. And essentially, I think the situation is not very different. And also, I would suggest that it would be a mistake to say that the individual is related to the society in the same way that, say, a cell is related to the whole body, because undoubtedly the whole body in the assembly of cells has totally new properties which the individual cell doesn’t possess. But I don’t think you would—I mean, ultimately, in the structure and functioning of the brain, which, after all, is an assembly of cells. But if it really were like that, it would be very different situation. But I think you wouldn’t want to really push that analogy that far. I think the differences of the way in which the national leaders sit down to plan their foreign policies, and the thinking that goes on in their minds, is not really very different from the way they think in their personal lives, and the way they have developed as human beings during their childhood.
Sheldrake
Well, I rather think it is, you see. And I think the analogy between society and an organism is a very old one.
Audience
Yeah, but I don’t think it’s a good one.
Sheldrake
Well, I think there’s something to be said for it. But I think that these politicians are different. I mean, When they’re sitting at home chatting to their friends and family, they’re not saying to each other, “Shall we build more hydrogen bombs in case the neighbors break down our fence?” They don’t think that way. They don’t say, “Shall we pile up more arms because of our neighbors?” These are the phenomena that they only do in their role as politicians as part of the society. And I think these are emerging properties. It’s not a personal property.
Audience
I would say that this is the confusion.
Audience
People do this in all walks of life, not just politicians. They separate their personal life from their professional life. And this is a typical thing that individuals experience in their daily lives. And I think it’s a mistake to say an individual is totally different from society or totally the same, but somewhere in between.
Audience
But the individual doesn’t have so much information as a man who has government responsibilities. And that changes your outlook completely once you’re in power.
Audience
But sir, aren’t we talking about basic human psychology? Aren’t we talking about the psyche of what is basically in there, which is fear and violence and greed, and… you know? My greed, as Doris pointed out, is not different from anyone else’s greed, and my jealously is not different from another human being’s jealousy. Basically, the make-up of all human beings is the same.
Sheldrake
Yes, but I think when you’re talking about education and change, it’s possible to conceive of a number of individuals becoming non-greedy or non-jealous or non-aggressive. For a whole society not to be greedy, jealous, and aggressive, you’ve got to have at least a majority, if not all the individuals thinking that way. That means that, whereas an individual can make a free choice of his own to not to be greedy or jealous or aggressive, if you’re going to make everybody like this, and they’re also still going to be free individuals—
Audience
No, but I think that’s jumping a little bit. I think you’ve gone a step…
Sheldrake
Well, you made the jump from individual greed to greed of society. I say that there’s a choice whereby an individual can cease to be greedy. I agree, it can happen. Whether an entire society can decide not to be greedy without all the individuals or the majority of the individuals deciding, is another thing. You’re saying that society is made up of the individuals.
Audience
But I’m not even going that far. I’m saying human beings are basically greedy, acquisitive, self-centered, jealous, fearful and so on. That’s where I’m beginning. And I’m not going any further, as yet. If we start there, then perhaps we can see where we can go from there if one sees that part.
Sheldrake
Yes. All right, I agree about that. But I think there are some differences. Some are more greedy than others.
Audience
But the fear and greed is expressed in foreign policies of nations, and this is basically the same as the fear and greed and insecurity of individuals in their personal lives.
Sheldrake
Yes.
Audience
Well, that’s the important thing.
Sheldrake
Exactly. Now, moving to the next stage: if one’s going to transform the whole of society so that it’s no longer fearful and greedy, then not only have we got to transform a few individuals, we’ve got to transform most of them. And to transform most in one particular direction which goes against the normal human nature, which is deeply ingrained, to my mind could only be done by compulsion. And—
Audience
Isn’t this a hypothetical situation? Because we don’t actually know what would happen if you had a large group of people who were not greedy.
Sheldrake
We don’t know, but the original question came up: is this possible? You see, if it’s not possible—if all that can change is individuals, rather than entire societies—then the whole discussion starts as to whether this aim to change the world or change society is possible; whether society will always be roughly as it has been, and the only thing—
Audience
But supposing we just start—
Audience
I’m not sure we’re actually aiming to change society. I think we’ve already made a jump there. It seems to me that when one is talking about changing society, one normally talks in terms of an external change.
Sheldrake
But if we’re only talking about changing individuals, then this is a different matter.
Audience
Well, I’m not sure we’re talking about changing individuals either.
Sheldrake
We’re talking about education, and education is surely in the business of changing.
Audience
Well, in education, you’re trying to see the real significance of greed. What is the real significance of greed?
Audience
Well, We’re talking about whether oneself can change, not about whether we can change lots of people a little or lots of people a lot. We’re seeing that the problem is here in me and in you—as it clearly is, as we’ve established—and we’re not going very much further beyond that. We’re just saying: now, can that change? We’re not discussing what sort of education system might make it a bit easier for it to change a little bit. The actual question that’s been put before us is: is it possible now, for us here today (individually, if you like to use that word), for a change to occur?
Audience
But is it just that? Krishnaji said earlier we live in a terrible world. And can we do nothing about it?
J. K.
I didn’t say that; that we cannot do anything about it.
Audience
No, you said: can we do nothing about it? And if one can just—I mean, this is surely not just ourselves, it’s the whole situation.
Audience
The question being put is: if there is a change in us like this, then it may be possible for other changes to come about. But we can’t explore that except as speculation, unless the first step somehow or other occurs, which seems to be where we all continually, constantly stop. So the only really valid inquiry at the moment seems to me to be: can we change? We can go into what the effects that would have on other people and the schools and the world if it comes about. But if we are putting all our best efforts into it and can’t change, it’s impossible for us to discuss whether other people can change or we can change other people, or anything like that.
Audience
I think that there is no right answer to this question—what am I to do? Because there is no answer to this question because all the answers we shall give, they will be at the level of the “me,” intellectual or emotional. And the answer is only when “me” is not. So to discuss this, all the answers will be from “me” [???].
Audience
I don’t think we are talking about a planned change of any kind. That is what seems to be confusing us here. As individuals, we are probably capable of all kinds of behaviors. But there is a sheer constraint placed when we are in a group such as this. I know when I have to say something, I have to think about it, what other people might say, perhaps.
J. K.
Sir, as Mr. Nicholson pointed out just now, can I change now? That’s the whole problem. And if I do change now, immediately, how would it affect the society? This society which is so corrupt and all the rest of it? What’s the point of my changing if that remains like that? I’m just taking that up. Does changing my consciousness affect the consciousness of the world? That’s all my point. If I accept that I’m an individual, and I do change my consciousness with all its content, will it have any consequence or it’s just a slight transformation of a little mind?
Audience
But we don’t change.
J. K.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t change.
Audience
No, I’m saying: we don’t change because it might have an effect on other people.
J. K.
No, sorry. What is my relationship to society, and what is my action towards that society? And if I do act correctly—not selfishly, not greedily, and so on—will it have a tremendous wave that will cover the entirety of mankind, or is it just a walk in the backyard?
Audience
Krishnaji, so long as I’m self-centered, how do I know the answer to that question?
J. K.
Answer it. Go on, sir.
Audience
I don’t think that’s the way it works, really. I think that the change, or the discussion of the possibility of the change, comes about from seeing the necessity of a change. What happens to it later on is, in a sense, none of your business.
J. K.
It’s none of my business, I agree. But I’ve a feeling that if I, as an individual—which I don’t accept that. I am not an individual. I’m the result of the collective. My greed is the common greed of mankind. My envy, and so on, so on, so on, is the common factor of all mankind—psychologically. So I don’t think in terms of the individual.
Audience
So you don’t think in terms of society, either.
J. K.
No. I think in terms of humanity, whose consciousness is the common consciousness of mankind.
Audience
But you’re also, sir, not saying that you are bound by the level of that consciousness?
J. K.
No, of course not.
Audience
You imply also, sir, that if you think of yourself or approach change as an individual, then no real fundamental change will occur.
J. K.
No. Go on, sir, the ball is in your court.
Sheldrake
I agree that a change in the consciousness of one person is likely to affect the consciousness, in some subtle ways, of all other people. Now, there’s a difference between saying it changes the consciousness of mankind, this is an abstraction. If you say it changes the consciousness of other individuals, isn’t this a different way of saying it? Why do you want to use the abstraction “mankind,” rather than, say, “other individuals throughout the world”?
J. K.
We’re all affected by Hitler, Gandhi, Jesus, Buddha—we’re always being pressurized by all the people around us. We are that.
Audience
Yes. But sir, at the same time, the way Hitler affects this consciousness is entirely different than the way this consciousness might be affected by a real change in someone.
J. K.
Which means I have to be free of Hitler, all the Hitlerian business. I have to be free of the propaganda that I’m a Hindu or a Christian. So there must be freedom from all this first.
Audience
Well, it also implies, sir, that trying to see how one change in consciousness will affect the whole—
J. K.
That comes a little later.
Audience
Yes. Hitler might not be a good example.
J. K.
First, I do not accept myself as an individual.
Sheldrake
No. But—alright, so if we agree that all these changes in consciousness of people (like Jesus and Hitler and so on) affect the consciousness of other people in the world—which I do accept myself—then we still have the problem that there’s consciousness of individuals, or at least of people—I’ll use the word “people” [???] the word “individual”—is changed, but we are still left with the problem of societies, namely nation states, castes, communities and so on, all seem to have their own historical dynamics, and they all seem to go on according to their own historical rules. And then the people within them all over the world are affected by this collective human consciousness. So it’s… [???] lots of different societies, all with different sorts of rules, all depending on their own historical purpose and their own historical conflicts between each other in other societies. These seem to have a different dynamic that seems to go on almost independently.
J. K.
Yes, sir. But do we acknowledge that the basic psychological content of each one of us is common to all mankind? That’s all, first.
Sheldrake
Yes, I acknowledge that.
J. K.
So: my consciousness—which is greed, envy, all that—is the common consciousness of mankind. However dynamic, however this or that, it is the common ground on which we all stand.
Sheldrake
Yes.
J. K.
Sir, the moment you admit that, I am not an individual. Nor are you an individual. Your consciousness is the consciousness of all mankind.
Sheldrake
Well, in one sense it is and in another sense it isn’t. I mean, in—
J. K.
Stick to one sense. I can play this ball game back and forth.
Sheldrake
All right, in one sense, yes, it is.
J. K.
So as long as I am not an individual, my whole thinking is different. My thinking is not individualistic. My thinking is the common ground on which we stand. If there is a change in one part of consciousness, it affects the whole—the group consciousness; collective consciousness.
Sheldrake
Yes, I accept that.
J. K.
If you accept that, then our education is not individualistic education, but the education which is to empty the content of one’s consciousness—greed, envy, fear, sorrow, beliefs, all that kind of collective thing, which is collective.
Sheldrake
Yes.
J. K.
And is that possible?
Sheldrake
Well, I think it is possible, but I don’t know if it’s possible through education.
J. K.
Let’s forget the word “education.”
Sheldrake
All right.
J. K.
Is that possible for this consciousness—which is common consciousness—for that consciousness which is now in me, can that content be… what? Transformed? Not gradually, but immediately? That’s the question he has been raising, and he’s sticking to that. So am I.
Audience
Can we also make the implication from that, that if that happens, that, in turn, affects the collective consciousness?
J. K.
Of course.
Audience
Therefore, a new factor is added or injected into that totality of consciousness.
Sheldrake
Yes. But it wouldn’t mean that everybody else would immediately undergo the same transformation. It might make it easier for subsequent peoples.
Audience
Yes. Are we making a mistake to try and make it numerically everybody? I mean, that’s such an absolute that—
Sheldrake
Well, we’re talking about the fact that we’re related to the collective, and things affect other people. So I’m just trying to analyze to what extent they affect other people. Whether we are talking about—
Audience
I think you can’t measure.
Sheldrake
Well, we’re talking numerically. We are talking about it in other people, or other members of the human race.
Audience
We’re also talking qualitatively. It’s not just a matter of numbers. We’re talking qualitatively, and about a qualitative change.
Sheldrake
I know. But I’m asking is: if this qualitative change occurs in one person, in a sense, it affects other members of the human race. But I’m simply asking the question: in what way does it affect them? And does it affect them as making easier a potential for change in them? In other words, would it make it easier for them to undergo the same sort of change? Will they themselves have to undergo it? I mean, it might make it easier for them to do it, lower the threshold, for this change to occur in others. What sort of effect does it have? That’s really what I’m asking.
J. K.
Sir, as we came to yesterday, we are a collection of memories. You agreed to that.
Sheldrake
Yes.
J. K.
Completely a collection of memories.
Sheldrake
No, we didn’t say we were completely.
J. K.
What is that?
Audience
We didn’t say it was completely.
J. K.
Oh, I see. Partially. Yes. Let’s come to a point. I say completely. My tradition, belief, the whole cultural, educational movement is to cultivate memory. And when I say my whole consciousness is memory, you say, “No, partly.” Which means there is some part in me, or in that consciousness, which is not memory. I say: how can that be? That may also be another memory which I have sublimated.
Sheldrake
But you yourself refuted that by bringing up the subject of love.
J. K.
Ah! No, don’t go back to that for the moment. I am trying to find out: if the whole of my consciousness is memory, how can one go beyond all that? That’s my question. Not: I have a part somewhere hidden in me, which is not memory. That’s a Hindu concept, a different Christian concept, and so on. There is in me a certain clarity of heaven, which is guiding, which is helping, which is shaping. Personally, I don’t accept that. That’s also part of my tradition which has been handed down to me—which is memory, again. So—
Sheldrake
The concept of it may be a memory, but the experience of it may not be.
J. K.
The fact may not?
Sheldrake
Yes, the fact may not be.
J. K.
How do I know the fact?
Audience
Through memory.
Sheldrake
No, you can know it directly.
Audience
Through experience.
Sheldrake
Through intuition.
J. K.
Through experience. Experience is the most dangerous thing! One can say there is this inside of me, a spot of absolute purity, et cetera. I can experience that. But that experience is already preconceived.
Sheldrake
Not necessarily. I mean, it could happen spontaneously.
J. K.
Ah! Now, wait a minute! To be spontaneous, you must have freedom.
Sheldrake
Yes.
J. K.
So you must have total freedom from all this to be really spontaneous.
Sheldrake
Well, does the spontaneity override the conditioning, or do you have to get rid of the conditioning first to be spontaneous? You see, it seems that this isn’t at all clear how this could…
J. K.
Please, somebody take it off me.
Sheldrake
I mean, obviously it has to happen spontaneously. You can’t, through deliberate action, override all your conditioning. That’s clearly another kind of conditioning.
Audience
How are you going to start finding out the answers to some of these questions which you’re asking?
Sheldrake
Well, we were given the answer yesterday. That’s the point. We came to this point yesterday, and then—
Audience
Is that the same as being given the answer?
Sheldrake
Well, I thought the answer was quite clear. The thing that Krishnaji raised that wasn’t memory was love. And this seemed to provide a clear answer to something that isn’t memory. And yet—
J. K.
All right. Just let’s look at that for a minute. I am memory, and you have told me a love, which is not memory. Right? You have indicated, you have suggested, you have shown me something which is not. Now, is it possible for this memory to subside so that the other can be? You follow my question?
Sheldrake
Yes, I think that’s a great mystery. I don’t know.
J. K.
Why do you call it a mystery? Did you call it a mystery?
Sheldrake
Yes, I think that’s a great mystery. I don’t know.
J. K.
Why?
Sheldrake
Because the relation between memory—which is the conditioning effect on our own individual and collective pasts—and something which is free and spontaneous, it’s not clear what the relation between these two things could be, because they’re incommensurate, and therefore the relation between them must be a mystery. There’s no clear and rational connection between the two.
Audience
Would you say that if one of the two were absent, the other would be?
Audience
Or is one born from the other?
Sheldrake
Well, my own view, I suppose, is that the creative activity of love, as it works, it casts off a residue, or it leaves behind a sort of residue, which becomes memory. In the great religions of the world one can see this process happening. Something that starts as living, free, and spontaneous leading to a shell, which can easily become an empty shell, which is then part of the tradition. So, that’s one relation between the two. I can see how you could get to memories from love. I can’t see how you could get to love from memory.
Audience
Well, if you could deal with memory in a way that would evaporate it in the active sense in the mind, would that not be like opening a window and letting something else in?
Sheldrake
Yes, but I don’t think you could actually evaporate it through will.
Audience
Not through will, but is there some other way of evaporating it?
Sheldrake
I think you’d have to just let it come. I don’t see how you could actually do it deliberately. And nor do I see how you could do it repeatedly or regularly. It seems to me that most of the time we have to live in the world, and we need our memories. We may have moments when this insight comes, but it’s not something we can maintain 24 hours a day or many times a day.
J. K.
Sir, we said too yesterday, if I remember rightly, love is not memory. Right?
Sheldrake
Yes.
J. K.
But my whole being is memory.
Sheldrake
Well, some of it.
J. K.
Wait—my whole being is memory. I don’t admit there is some spark in me which is not memory. That’s, again, maybe tradition. So I don’t know what that love is. I really don’t. Suppose I don’t. Then what am I to do with this thing called memory, which is me? That’s the question.
Sheldrake
But if start to try to do something with it, I’m back into the same old trap. We came to a point yesterday when you were talking about listening.
J. K.
Sir, go back. Go into it. I am memory, and you have told me love is not that. But my whole being is this extraordinary collection of memories, experiences, tradition, all that. And I may not be able to capture that thing. So I’m only concerned with this. That may be your imagination, maybe just something which is romantic. But I’m stranded with this. You’re talking about the other bank, but I’m on this side of the bank. So what am I to do? What is the action or non-action? Please, don’t introduce spontaneity, if you don’t mind. I am here, on this bank, and there is no boat to take me across there, so I am stuck with this. What am I to do? I have meditated, I have sacrificed, I have disciplined, I’ve done every kind of dirty trick I can invent, and I’m still there.
Audience
I can’t move from here, if I feel that. If I feel that I’m confronted with this realization that this is all I am, and there’s no way out because I’ve tried all that.
J. K.
Ah! I don’t admit there is no way out.
Audience
Not with my usual attitude or way of life. I’ve tried all the ways out and see that, as I am now, there is no way out and I can’t move from here.
J. K.
So I am on this side of the bank. It’s a simile, that’s good enough. I’m on this side of the bank. I have done every kind of thing man has invented to reach the other bank, but I am still, at the end of it, here. And I ask you, who are all very well educated, et cetera, I say, “Please, what am I to do?” I have been to all the gurus, all this rubbish. I’ve finished with them. I’m still here.
Audience
The attempt to get to the other bank is surely a rejection. A rejection. The fact that I want to go to the other bank—
J. K.
I don’t. I can’t. I have tried to get to the other bank. All the educated, clever people, the saints, the gurus, everybody says, “Do this, do that, and do the other thing,” and at the end of it, I am still here.
Audience
But I’m not accepting it.
J. K.
I am accepting it. I am here. I don’t say “I don’t want to be here.” I am there. You’re not facing something.
Audience
At the end of Friday session, didn’t we come to the point where you see that any effort to get across the river or change—
J. K.
I don’t want to get rid—
Audience
—no, it’s part of the same thing that’s keeping you there. And, if I remember correctly, you said that if you remain with that—
J. K.
That’s all I’m saying. I am stuck here. I don’t know what the other bank is. I don’t want to imagine the other bank. I’m not even interested in the other bank. I’m here with my sorrow, my pleasures, with my agony, and all the rest of the beastly existence that I live. And I say to myself, “What am I to do?” Or: not to do anything at all? Which may be the most positive action.
Audience
We cannot escape that existence you’ve just described.
Audience
Escape it, sir. We can’t escape that existence.
J. K.
Ah! I am that. I have been through all those tricks. I’m fairly intelligent. I’m stuck here and I say, “Any movement from me is still part of the same old pattern.” So I won’t move. I don’t reject, I don’t accept, I don’t try to escape from it. I say, “Here I am.”
Audience
Isn’t there a transforming quality in just seeing it and being with it? Just see that. Doesn’t that transform the situation?
J. K.
Ah, ah! I don’t know. Please, can we discuss that?
Audience
Sir, it’s a very special not doing anything that you’re talking about.
J. K.
But I have done everything!
Audience
Yes, but the not doing of anything—
J. K.
I have come to the point when I see whatever I do is still the same—on this side of the bank. So I refuse to do anything.
Audience
But there are some kinds of not doing anything, which is what most of the world does, which doesn’t do anything either.
J. K.
I’m not talking of the world. Just leave the world for the moment. I have experimented, I have meditated, I have talked about kundalini, I’ve talked about this and that and every other kind of rubbish, and I’m still stuck at this end. You’re not answering my question. I am here. I refuse to move.
Audience
But haven’t I reached some kind of love there? Because [???] I’m not individual any longer then. I have achieved something already.
Audience
The great preoccupation with the “I,” with the wish to transform oneself, is itself a negative thing. The image of the river bank is perhaps not inclusive enough. We are in life, we are in relationships [???] situations.
J. K.
Yes, I have been through all that. I have altered my relationship with my wife, with my friends. I’ve played all that thing. At the end of it all I say, “I’m still here.” I’m not depressed, I’m not hopeless, I haven’t thrown up the sponge.
Audience
You’re not accepting that either. There’s no acceptance in that.
J. K.
No. Are we together at that point? That’s my point. I want to come to that. Or are we still intellectually playing the game? Or emotionally, romantically say, “There is the other bank, how lovely, God is looking after me and there is in me,” et cetera, et cetera? Knowing politics won’t change. Those politicians are like me: greedy, seeking power, position, all the rest of the ugly business.
Audience
They may be, but we are also saying that we are better.
J. K.
Ah! I’m not saying that. I am part of that whole structure. So I say to myself, “I’ll just not move from that position.” Move in the sense: let thought invade with any kind of enticement.
Sheldrake
I don’t see what there is to say, in the circumstances. I don’t see any way out of that.
J. K.
Ah, there is a way out.
Audience
But that means we’re all dying to hear what the way out is.
J. K.
Ah! See, that—ah, wait a minute! I’ve refused all the gurus, so you can’t make me into a guru.
Sheldrake
So how do we know there’s a way out?
J. K.
If you will listen, I shall tell you. Sir, I’m dreadfully serious over this matter, because I don’t think there is any other action but non-action. Because we’re always acting about that, trying to do something about it.
Audience
We are not completely discontent in that state.
J. K.
Yes. I’m not trying to run away. I’m not trying to suppress myself. I’m not doing—thought is totally inactive. Because thought has put me on this bank. Right? That’s the first thing I’ve realized: that thought has put me on this bank. And if thought says again, “I want to get there,” it’s the past, I’m still here. So can one remain there without any thought? You understand what I mean by thought? Not become vague, or a vegetable, or anything. Just without the pressure of thought, without the interference of thought.
Audience
Krishnaji, the great danger in what you’ve just said seems to be that it becomes a prescription.
J. K.
It is not. Is it a prescription?
Audience
Krishnaji, the pressure of thought is really the problem, the interference of thought isn’t really the problem.
J. K.
Because thought has created this mess in the world. Right, sir?
Sheldrake
Yes.
J. K.
And the politicians are still working in the field of thought. Thought being partial, their activity will always be partial. Scientists, the artists—they are all partial. And so is it possible for thought to see what it has done? Both the beautiful architecture, surgery, and all the rest of it, but also, psychologically what thought has done: created such havoc in our relationship with each other. And for thought itself to realize that it cannot interfere. Go on. This is the real problem. Go on, discuss with me. Can thought perceive itself?
Audience
But you’re introducing something. You’re saying that there may be something in thought that isn’t conditioned, that isn’t—
J. K.
No, my question is, please—I’m not challenging you, I’m just questioning—my question is: can thought see itself? Be aware of itself? See its movement? What is this?
Sheldrake
Well, we can see the structure of thoughts and ideas, but we’re always doing it with other thoughts. So we can always stand back and look at thoughts.
J. K.
Aha! Then who is it that stands back?
Audience
Well, as long as we’re considering other thoughts, it seems to be other thoughts. So I [???]
J. K.
That is still thought.
Audience
Yes, we can see some thoughts, but with other thoughts.
J. K.
Ah! No, not one thought sees another thought. That’s not my question. But: thought itself observes itself.
Sheldrake
I don’t know if that’s possible or not.
Audience
So far, we’ve said that all our thoughts are conditioned by our past. So, if that’s the case…
J. K.
Madame, can I observe the rising of anger? You can.
Audience
Yes.
J. K.
So is there an awareness of thought arising—of itself, not “I am aware of it”?
Audience
I don’t think so.
J. K.
Go on. Let’s find out.
Audience
I don’t see how thought can observe itself any more—I think there is something beyond thought which is the observer.
J. K.
Then you introduce another factor.
Audience
One does, but I think that’s what is there.
J. K.
That’s just the difficulty, that’s what I’m asking.
Audience
I feel that is real.
J. K.
I’m asking myself: I am aware when anger arises. I can see the whole movement of it—or greed, violence, and so on. Why is it not possible for thought itself to be aware as it arises? If it is possible in one direction, why not thought itself?
Audience
But what sees the anger arising? Is it thoughts perceiving anger arising, or is it something else which sees the anger arising?
J. K.
Ah, can’t you see, sir? Look: you call me a fool, and I can see the reaction, getting annoyed with the word.
Audience
Yes, but Krishnaji, when you see it, it seems to stop.
J. K.
Not a question of seems to stop, but the very arising, sir.
Audience
Yes, you can see the arising, but—
J. K.
Wait, wait, wait. Arising, that’s all I’m asking. Is there an observation? Can thought observe itself arising?
Audience
In the first case, does anger see itself arising, or does thought see anger arising?
J. K.
No, sir.
Audience
What action takes place [???]?
J. K.
Sir, when I’m angry it just bursts out, right? Then, a few seconds later or minutes later, I say to myself, “I’ve been angry.” At the moment of anger I’m not aware that I’m angry. It’s only later. Now, I am asking at the arising of anger, not later.
Audience
You’re saying something quite simple. I can’t put it into words very well, but there seems to be a watchfulness that seems to be very aware of something coming.
J. K.
Are we tremendously complicating a very simple thing?
Audience
I think maybe we are, Krishnaji. Of course, we’ve all had those moments when you realize that thought has been absent. When you realize that, isn’t that thought watching thought because it’s come back?
J. K.
Ah. No. When you say, “I have watched thought acting”—
Audience
No, no, not acting. You suddenly become aware that there’s—
J. K.
Not “you become”—ah, you see?
Audience
I’m not putting it very well. I’m assuming that we all have moments—I certainly have had—when you realize that thought has been absent, and has been absent. But when you realize that, thought is back.
J. K.
Yes, that’s all.
Audience
But that moment of realization is thought watching a thought.
J. K.
Go on. Explain it to yourself, you’ll see it. You said just now that—I’m just repeating what you said—that you watched thought arising. Right?
Audience
Yes.
J. K.
And you saw that thought was acting.
Audience
No, it had been absent. There had been—
J. K.
All right, it has been absent. And also, at other times you saw thought is active.
Audience
Well, the very moment when you realize that thought has come to an end, it’s back. That realization is thought, isn’t it?
J. K.
Yes, of course.
Audience
So it seems the same as observing anger arising: the observation of thought coming back is thought watching thought.
J. K.
Of course. I’m talking about thought itself, per se, arising. Is that possible? And that gentleman says it’s not possible. It may be. Or there is no watcher at all. Now we are thinking in terms of watcher and the watched.
Audience
But isn’t it the same thing?
J. K.
No, that’s an idea still.
Audience
Is it the totality of thought, then, in itself?
Audience
Is it the totality of thought in itself, the lady says?
J. K.
I don’t have to answer. You answer it. I’m not the only guru here. We’re all gurus.
Audience
There seems to be a state of awareness which is not thought.
Audience
I don’t know, sir, but it seems to me that thought is such a fragmented thing that I don’t see how thought can watch itself. How can a fragmented thing watch itself?
J. K.
Then, I realize I am memory, a bundle of memories. I’m on this side of the bank, right? And thought has realized that any movement from it is still to move within the limited area of the bank. Right?
Audience
Yes, sir.
J. K.
I have come to that point: that any movement of thought is to bring back to this memory, to this side of the bank. So thought itself says: there must be no interference. I don’t know if I’m making it clear.
Audience
Are you saying that thought itself has seen that any movement away [???] ?
J. K.
Yes. That’s all for the moment. That’s all.
Audience
Is that the same as saying that that is a moment of insight?
J. K.
Ah! No, let’s forget insight for the moment. Sir, thought has realized what it has done. It has built the most marvelous cathedrals, temples and mosques, and all the things in the mosques, in the temples, in the churches. Thought has realized it has created marvelous instruments of surgery. It has also realized the submarine, the torpedoes, the man-of-war, and so on. And also, it has realized thought is fear, thought is pleasure, thought is suffering. Thought itself has seen itself in action. Right? Of course. This is simple. One can see this. And thought says, “I am all that.” It may not express it verbally. Thought realizes: this is me. Not the man-of-war, fortunately. This is me. And so thought says to itself, “By Jove, I must be absolutely quiet; not interfere.” So that’s a tremendous revolution, isn’t it?
Audience
Well, you’re making the thought to be very creative.
J. K.
Not creative. It realizes, sir. What is the courage? There is no value. What thought has created is courage. I wonder, sir, if we have realized—if I may most respectfully ask—if we realize the activity of thought; its immense contribution and its immense danger?
Audience
But Krishnaji, are you suggesting that thought might help us to look at things in a different way?
J. K.
No. Look, Mr. Jenkins, thought has created the instruments of surgery—the most extraordinarily delicate instruments, right? And also thought has created the submarine. And also thought has created God: the thought that in me there is that marvelous state. Thought has also created misery, confusion, division between nations. Thought has been responsible for all this misery. I wonder if one realizes that. Not verbally—deeply, profoundly, in one’s guts.
Audience
It sounds to me, in that realization, there is the ability for it to stop its continuity.
J. K.
Ah! No, in that realization, thought itself says, “By Jove, anything I do must be still contributing to that.”
Audience
So then what happens?
Audience
Nothing.
J. K.
What do you mean, what happens?
Audience
Thought stops in its track.
J. K.
Does—forgive me for asking you, sir—with you, does thought stop in its track?
Audience
Sometimes it does.
J. K.
No, no—sometimes—that’s like being hungry sometimes. But does it stop in its own track; say, “No further”?
Audience
That would include all one’s individuality, one’s plans for the future, as well as just the movement of thought. The whole…
J. K.
Of course. After all, sir, if you once admit thought is partial—because it is born of knowledge, and knowledge is never complete—if you once admit that, it’s always partial, then one begins to see its contradictions. You follow? Its activity, the nature of a beautiful instrument, and also the divisions, the miseries. Thought, it is really responsible for all this.
Audience
The whole of one’s relationship to the world.
J. K.
Yes, the world. Thought is not the universe.
Audience
The whole of my relationship to the world.
J. K.
Yes, the whole of me is thought.
Audience
So it’s not just the movement of thought which is going to stop in my mind for a moment or two, but it’s the whole movement of the world as I know it.
J. K.
Yes. That is, is there freedom—sorry—is there a freedom from knowledge? Or am I always working within knowledge, which is memory? What, sir?
Audience
One thing I didn’t understand. You said, “I begin to see.” That would imply this is a process in time.
J. K.
Yes, sir.
Audience
I’m not being awkward, I’m trying to understand it.
J. K.
Is it possible not to think in terms of time? To put it differently: is it possible to end totally this becoming something, which is time? Right, sir? Can that end? So, to come back: is education helping us to live in becoming?
Audience
Yes. That’s the way education is structured.
J. K.
I know, sir. It is structured. So let’s break, let’s look at it differently. I have a son—I haven’t; suppose I have a son or a daughter. How am I to help them to see this point? Where examinations exist, the college, university, in one direction, to get a job, to get a career, specialization, and also, psychologically, he’s doing the same inwardly. That is: becoming something, reaching nirvana, reaching heaven, reaching God. All that—which is becoming, becoming: “I am not that, but I will be that.” Can all that movement end?
Audience
Thought can only exist in time.
J. K.
Of course, sir. Thought is time.
Sheldrake
But is becoming thought? Do you think that, even if one’s in a state of thoughtlessness, not thinking, that becoming can continue in the absence of thought? Or the sense of becoming can exist in the absence of thought?
J. K.
Sense of becoming, of course, psychologically. Because, sir, look: I’m violent, I will be non-violent—which is becoming.
Audience
That’s thought.
Sheldrake
Well, yes, but I’m talking whether the sense of becoming is itself thought, or whether there’s a sense of becoming which—I’m thinking, for example, if one looks at animals, many animals are not thinking in any normal sense of the word, and yet they’re becoming, and their entire being is devoted to becoming.
J. K.
Are they becoming psychologically or physically?
Sheldrake
Well, I think they do both. They grow and develop, and then they carry out a series of actions which are related to becoming in various ways.
J. K.
But is that becoming different from my becoming not violent? You understand my question?
Sheldrake
Yes. I don’t know. That’s my question. What I’m trying to find out is whether becoming, which is basically within our biological nature—
J. K.
Biologically, yes, I admit that.
Audience
—yes. And then there’s a sort of higher level of becoming where thought is concerned with becoming, with desires and actions, et cetera.
J. K.
That’s it. That’s it.
Sheldrake
Now, if one goes beyond that, is there an intrinsic sort of becoming that persists even beyond thought? Or just, is time merely a conception or is it something intrinsically built in that somehow persists, even in the absence of thought?
Audience
You mean: do we go on getting older if we don’t think?
Sheldrake
No. I mean that if, in the absence of thought, we have any kind of consciousness at all. And even if it’s just blank, then there’s nothing to say.
Audience
Where does the word “blank” come from?
Sheldrake
Well, we’re talking about something [???] we have to use words.
J. K.
Oh no, I’m not talking of being blank.
Sheldrake
No, I said if it’s a blank, then there’s nothing more we can say about it.
J. K.
There is a great deal more to say about it, but I won’t go into it. Wait a minute, sir. I am talking of not becoming, psychologically.
Sheldrake
Yes.
J. K.
That’s all, not anything else. Because that is part of our great struggle, conflict: I must be, I must not be, I have been, I should be, and all that. I’m talking in that field only.
Sheldrake
Yes, all right [???]
J. K.
Now, if there is an end to becoming—is that possible, first? I am conditioned, I must not be conditioned. Tell me how to be, et cetera, et cetera. So is there a becoming psychologically at all? Or thought has said, “You must become that”? I don’t know if I’m making myself clear. I’ve always a cause and an effect. I always have a goal, an end. But if I have no cause, if I have no end, if I have no saying, “I have been, I should be,” if I wipe out all that—what? What remains?
Sheldrake
Well, clearly, whatever remains can’t either be a sense of individuality, or a sense of time, or a sense of becoming, or a sense of goal.
J. K.
I said I wiped out all that.
Sheldrake
Yes. So we can say what it’s not, but I don’t see what we can say about what it is, of what remains.
J. K.
I think we can, more or less. We can indulge in description, but the description is not the real. Our minds are always occupied with something, right? Something or other. What happens if there is no occupation? Do I go to sleep? Does the mind go to sleep, and therefore must be occupied to keep itself alive? Or if the brain, if one sees occupation, whether it is with Jesus or cooking, is the same occupation.
Sheldrake
Well, it is occupation. I don’t think it’s the same occupation.
J. K.
Yes. So I’m concerned whether it’s possible not to be occupied.
Audience
If one is not becoming and one is not occupied, one still is.
J. K.
Now, what is that?
Audience
Being as distinct from becoming.
J. K.
Is that being static?
Audience
This is what thought tends to put on this.
J. K.
So—that’s right—so what is that state when there is no becoming? When thought is in abeyance, as it were, what is that state?
Audience
I feel that state is awareness.
J. K.
Awareness. Just awareness?
Audience
That’s what I feel.
Audience
I feel a sense of freedom.
Audience
Awareness of the whole.
J. K.
Let’s look at it for a minute. I’m occupied with meditation, with writing, with this, with that, and I say, “How silly. I won’t be occupied.” There is no occupation. What is happening? Is it empty? And what’s wrong with being empty?
Audience
It doesn’t seem possible to empty oneself of thought. It doesn’t seem possible.
J. K.
Why do you say it’s impossible?
Audience
Because one’s mind is endlessly going on and on and on, and it seems to be almost—
J. K.
Going on and on with what?
Audience
With thought.
J. K.
Ah, well. That’s why we asked, madame, if thought could see itself in action.
Audience
This emptiness which you have described is an attainable state, I think, but now we have to ask: how long can we remain in that state, and what is the value of being in it?
J. K.
Ah, not how long—then we are back.
Audience
But we are back. We don’t live in that state. The question is how it modifies life and the world.
J. K.
Sir, for a few seconds I have this feeling of complete emptiness, and therefore a feeling of wholeness. I don’t know if it’s right. I feel empty—not “I feel.” There’s emptiness, and that has the appearance or feeling or the actuality of something whole. It lasts a few seconds and then I’m back, right? I’m then occupied. I’m occupied with that feeling now. “By Jove, I had that feeling, that sense of enormity of wholeness, and I’d like to capture it again.” So that becomes my occupation. That is: I’m occupied with something that is finished. Now the memory is reviving that, and we’re occupied with that.
Audience
You might then write a very good poem. A Wordsworthian description of poetry; emotion recollected in tranquility. Which surely is a worthwhile companion.
J. K.
Sir, that’s over. As far as I’m concerned, that incident of wholeness is gone, finished. I’m not concerned anymore with it. It’s a dead thing. But my concern is: why is my mind occupied? Is it because if it’s not occupied, it’s frightened? Because in occupation there is a certain sense of security? Suddenly take it away, I’m lost. So it’s frightened.
Audience
This could also be a habit.
J. K.
It can be a habit, of course. Or it feels, “If I’m not occupied, I am terribly lost, I am lonely.” You follow? All those things operate.
Audience
Aren’t most people occupied because they don’t want to see what they are?
J. K.
Yes, sir.
Audience
But we’ve also said when we’re not occupied—it lasts a second or so—there’s this marvelous feeling of wholeness. And so when we’re thinking of not wanting to be occupied, it’s just conjecture, surely?
J. K.
Ah, not when, no. To observe ourselves and be aware that we’re occupied.
Audience
But you pointed out the incident just now of not being occupied, and there being a marvelous feeling of wholeness. When you’re again occupied, you want to continue this. But on the other hand, you’re also saying we’re afraid not to be occupied. And yet we want this marvelous feeling of wholeness.
Audience
Krishnaji, you also said whether this feeling of wholeness is static. When the mind is not occupied in becoming or in any other sense, whether that feeling is static.
J. K.
Find out, sir.
Audience
Well, my immediate response is that, even for a split second, I get this feeling of wholeness.
J. K.
Just a minute. Because we have talked about it, or it is actuality?
Audience
It is an actuality.
J. K.
No, no, sir. Be clear, be careful. Because Mrs. Porter talked about being whole and the marvelous feeling of it, that very verbalization has helped me to capture something through the words. Be careful. It is not an actuality.
Audience
You reach a stage whereby you cannot believe yourself either way. You can be in a position whereby you can doubt yourself endlessly.
J. K.
Sir, look, we started asking: why are we so occupied? Because when you are so occupied, there is no space. Right? No freedom. When the mind is turning over, chattering away by itself, there’s no freedom. And one asks: why doesn’t one stop being occupied? That’s all.
Audience
Something must follow that, sir. These moments of freedom from the known, these epiphanies, these moments of perception, must then lead on to something.
J. K.
It does. Oh, it does.
Audience
They form a new conditioning. We’ve been talking about states of being all this time, but being must lead to doing. Perhaps there is the root of change.
J. K.
Even that word, sir—if the universe has no cause for existence, why should we have a cause? I don’t know if this leads….
Audience
Does this habit of occupation damage your brain cells? The habit of occupation, will it damage the brain cells? So it becomes a habit of your brain [???]?
J. K.
Isn’t it time to stop? Our tummies may be occupied.