Krishnamurti - The Way of Intelligence

The Way of Intelligence

Copyright 1985 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd.

The Way of

Intelligence

J. Krishnamurti

CONTENTS

Index of Participants

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K) IN DIALOGUE WITH

RADHA BURNIER: RB

ASIT CHANDMAL: AC

SWAMI CHIDANAND: SC

RAJESH DALAL: RD

P.Y. DESHPANDE: PYD

SHANTA GANDHI: SG

ALAN HOOKER: AH

IVAN ILLICH: II

PUPUL JAYAKAR: PJ

SUDHIR KAKKAR: SK

BRIJ KHARE: BK

RAJNI KOTHARI: RK

R. KRISHNASWAMY: KS

KRISHNAN KUTTY: KK

T.N. MADAN: TNM

N. VASUDEVAN NAIR: NVN

ASHISH NANDY: AN

G. NARAYAN: GN

ACHYUT PATWARDHAN: AP

SUNANDA PATWARDHAN: SP

QUESTIONER: Q

UMA RAMASWAMY: U

RAVI RAVINDRA: RR

REV. RINPOCHE: RNP

SANJIVI: SAN

SATYENDRA: SAT

JAI SHANKAR: JS

DAVID SHAINBERG: DS

RUPERT SHELDRAKE: RS

SARJIT SIDDHOO: SS

SRIRAM: SRIRAM

SUBRAMANIAM: SUBRAMANIAM

E.C. GEORGE SUDARSHAN: GS

P.K. SUNDARAM: PKS

ROMESH THAPAR: RT

NANDISHWARA THERO: NT

JAGANNATH UPADHYAYA: JU

KAPILA VATSYAYAN: KV

O.V. VIJAYAN: OVV

MARY ZIMBALIST: MZ

One

ILLUSION AND INTELLIGENCE

Rinpoche: Sir, when the observer observes, he is the matrix of thought, of memories. So long as the observer is observing from this matrix, it is not possible for him to see without naming, because that naming arises out of that matrix. How then can the observer free himself from this matrix?

Krishnamurti: I would like to know whether we are discussing this as a theoretical problem, an abstraction, or as something that has to be faced directly without theories?

Jagannath Upadhyaya: This question is directly connected with ones daily life.

K: Sir, who is the observer? We take it for granted that the observer is born of the matrix, or that he is the matrix. Or, is the observer the whole movement of the past? Is this a fact to us or an idea? Does the observer himself realize that he is the whole movement of the past? And that as long as he is observing, that which is being observed can never be accurate? I think this is an important question. Can the observer, who is the whole movement of the past, with all his conditioning, ancient and modern, be aware of himself as being conditioned?

Achyut Patwardhan: The observer when he looks at a fact, looks with his old conditioning, samskar. And so he cannot see the fact as it is.

J.U.: Can we accept this?

K: Are we all on the same level as Rinpocheji, who has asked this question: The observer is made up of the past and as long as he is rooted in the past, is he able to see the truth of a fact? If he is not aware of himself as the observer who is conditioned, there will be a contradiction between himself and the thing which is being observed, contradiction being a division.

A.P.: As long as he does not see this clearly, there will be conflict in the act of seeing.

K: Sir, the question arises then: Is it possible for the observer to understand himself and discover his limitations, his conditioning, and so not interfere with the observation?

RNP.: That is the basic problem. Whenever we try to observe, the observer is always interfering in the observation. I would like to know whether there is a method to cut off the me which is interfering.

K: The observer is the practice, the system, the method. Because he is the result of all past practices, methods, experiences, knowledge, the routine, the mechanical process of repetition, he is the past. Therefore, if you introduce another system, method, practice, it is still within the same field.

RNP.: Then how can it be done?

K: We are coming to that. Let us first see what we are doing. If we accept a method, a system, the practising of it will make the observer more mechanical. Any system will only strengthen the observer.

J.U.: Then this leads to a deadlock.

K: No. On the contrary. That is why I said, does the observer realize he is the result of all experience, of the past and the present? In that experience is included methods, systems, practices, the various forms of sadhana. And you now ask, is there a further series of practices, methods, systems, which means that you are continuing in the same direction.

J.U.: I feel that it is not only possible to reject the past totally but the present as well. The past can be negated by observation, but the power of the present will not go unless the past is negated. One is concerned with the present moment.

A.P.: The present and the past are actually one. They are not separate.

J.U.: Therefore, we should negate the present. The roots of the past will be negated when the present is broken.

A.P.: You mean by the present, this moment, this present moment of observation?

K: This present moment in observation is the observation of the whole movement of the past. What is the action necessary to put an end to that movement? Is that the question?

J.U.: What I am saying is, it is on this moment of time that the past rests and on this moment that we build the edifice of the future. So, to be completely free of either the past or the future, it is necessary to break the moment in the present, so that the past has no place in which to rest and no point from which the future could be projected. Is this possible?

K: How is this movement of the past which is creating the present, modifying itself as it moves, and which becomes the future, to end?

J.U.: By the process of observation we negate the past. By negating the past we also negate the present. And we cease to build the future based on the desires created by the past. Only observation remains. But even this moment of observation is a moment. Unless we break that, we are not free from the possibility of the rising of the past and the creation of the future. Therefore, the present moment, the moment of observation, has to be broken.

K: Are you saying, sir, that in the state of attention now, in the now, the past ends; but that the very observation which ends the past has its roots in the past?

J.U.: This is not what I am saying. I do not accept the position that the past creates the present or the present the future. In the process of observation, past and future history are both dissolved. But the question is that again the histories of the past and the future touch on this moment, this existent moment. Unless this moment itself is negated, the past and the future are again restored to activity.

To make it clear, I would like to call it existence, the moment of is ness. One has to break this moment of is ness, and then all these tendencies, whether they reflect the past or project the future, are broken. Is this possible?

K: This question has special relevance for you. I want to understand the question before I answer. I am just asking, not answering: The past is a movement. It has stopped with attention. And with the ending of the past, can that second, that moment, that event, itself disappear?

J.U.: I would like to make it more clear: This moment is an existent moment.

K: The moment you use the word existence, it has a connotation. We must look at it very carefully.

Pupul Jayakar: It is not stable.

J.U.: I would like to call this moment kshana bindu, the moment of time. The suchness of the moment, the is ness of the moment, has to be broken. Is this possible? In the movement of observation there is neither the past nor the possibility of the future. I do not even call it the moment of observation because it does not have any power of existence. Where there is no past or future, there cannot also be any present.