Questioner (1): Education.
Questioner (2): Our lack of awareness.
Questioner (3): Love.
Questioner (4): Sir, sometimes, due to nervous fatigue, the mind seems to lose its sensitivity. I was wondering what we could do to cope with such a situation.
Krishnamurti: Could we take a problem like violence? It seems to me it is spreading all over the world; could we see what the implications are, and whether the human mind can really solve the social and also the inward problems, without any kind of violence?
As one observes, in every part of the world there are revolts and revolutions in order to change the social structure. Obviously the structure has to be changed; is it possible to change it without violence? - because violence begets violence. Through revolt one party can assume the power of government, and having achieved this, it will maintain itself in power through violence. It is fairly obvious that this is what is happening throughout the world. So we are asking whether there is a way of bringing about a change in the world and in ourselves which does not breed violence. I should have thought this would be a very serious problem for each one of us. Would you like to discuss this? What do you say?
Questioner: Yes, let's discuss violence.
Krishnamurti: But let us go into it really deeply, not just superficially, because in talking this over we should bear in mind that it must also alter our ways of life. I do not know if you want to go so deeply into this. My question is, whether the outside world, the social structure, the injustice, the divisions, the appalling brutality, wars, revolts and all the rest of it, can be changed, as well as the inward struggle that is going on perpetually. Can all that be changed without violence, without conflict, without opposition, without forming one party as opposed to another party, not only outwardly, but also without the inward division? - bearing in mind that division is the source of conflict and of violence. How is one to bring about this change, both outwardly and inwardly? I should have thought that would be the most important issue that we have to face. What do you say, Sirs? How do we discuss this?
Questioner: Shall we start with violence in a small child?
Krishnamurti: Shall we start with the children? With the student, or with the educator? - which is ourselves. Let us talk it over together, don't let me do all the talking.
Questioner (1): We should start with the educator.
Questioner (2): With ourselves. I see violence in ourselves every day.
Krishnamurti: Where would you begin to resolve this problem? In all parts of the world, even in Russia where some of the intellectuals and writers are revolting against the tyranny, revolts are going on; they want freedom, they want to stop wars. Where would you start with this problem? Stopping wars in Vietnam, or in the Middle East? Where does one begin to understand this problem? At the periphery, or at the centre?
Questioner: In oneself, in one's life.
Krishnamurti: Where would you begin? With oneself, with one's own home, or out there?
Questioner: Why not in both places? If one can bring about some superficial change, that may resolve a certain superficial problem. I see no reason why that shouldn't take place, as well as individual enquiry.
Krishnamurti: Are we concerned with superficial changes, with a superficial reformation? And therefore - which may be necessary - put our energies, thought, affection and care in outward, superficial reformation? Or do we begin at a wholly different level? - not as the opposite of it.
Questioner: Are the two exclusive?
Krishnamurti: I did not say they were exclusive. I said they were not opposite.
Questioner: I don't see it being a case of either one thing or the other. One can see very clearly that one can achieve saving a hundred lives by some superficial action. I see no contradiction.
Krishnamurti: I agree. There are many people who are pursuing superficial activities, thousands of them! Do we exclude that and entirely concern ourselves with our own house, or, in the very concern for our house, is the other included too? It is not an exclusion, or an opposition, or the avoidance of the one, and laying emphasis on the other.
Questioner: Well, Sir, I won't persist, but it does seem that very often people listen to you - myself included - who have thought that individual enquiry was extremely important to resolve the immediate problem to the exclusion of, say, political action, which at its own level may resolve some particular issues, though not fundamental ones. But I see no reason why they shouldn't go on in parallel.
Krishnamurti: I quite agree, Sir. Do we deal with the fundamental issues? Questioner: It is obviously the important thing.
Krishnamurti: So, where shall we begin? Which is the fundamental issue?
Questioner: The individual. The mass is the extension of the individual.
Krishnamurti: It is very clear, isn't it? We want change, both outwardly and inwardly, superficially and deeply. One does not exclude the other: I must have food in order to think! Without dividing, what is the fundamental issue? Where shall we tackle it? Where shall we put our teeth into it?
Questioner: What is the cause of violence?
Krishnamurti: Shall we discuss that?
Questioner: Why do we want to change?
Krishnamurti: That is a good question, too. Why should we change at all?
Another Questioner: Because we don't seem to be getting any where in our present state.
Krishnamurti: And even if you got somewhere in your present state wouldn't you want to change? Now, please, let us come back.
Questioner: In our present state we seem to have very little possibility of moving; we are caught in our own individual ways, by some event, over and over again. There is this lack of movement in which we are always caught in life in some way or another and therefore violence arises.
Krishnamurti: Shall we find out what are the causes of violence? Each one will have a different opinion; even the experts disagree on the causes of violence, volumes have been written about it! Shall we go on explaining the causes, or see violence as it is - as a fundamental issue in human relationship. And find out whether it should perpetuate itself, or be changed, or modified. What is the fundamental issue involved in violence? Questioner: We are apparently issued with a sort of animal brain, that is the main cause, I think we are naturally violent unless we can jump out of it. Half the time politicians are behaving just like chickens in a farmyard.
Krishnamurti: I know! (Laughter)
Questioner: Is it possible to look at the individual state of mind to find out whether we are intrinsically violent within ourselves, in the very mode of mental activity - whether this dualistic movement is itself violent?
Krishnamurti: So, Sir, what would you consider to be violence?
Questioner (1): I think it is self-involvement, selfishness.
Questioner (2): Separation.
Questioner (3): Reaction to fear.
Krishnamurti: We have been educated to be violent. Our animal nature and the activity of the human brain etc. are violent and dividing; we all know this. Self-centred activities, to be aggressive, opposing, resisting, asserting, all that makes for violence.
Questioner: There is also part of oneself that is repelled by violence and another part which likes it, thrives on it.
Krishnamurti: Yes. There is part of oneself which resists violence, is appalled by violence. Then, where are we?
Questioner: The desire to go into the problem of violence is only a partial seeing. I mean, one does not totally want to resolve the problem of violence.
Krishnamurti: Doesn't one?
Questioner: No.
Krishnamurti: Let's find out. Is it possible to resolve the question of violence totally? Questioner (1): Isn't rebelling against violence a kind of violence? I should think it could be very destructive.
Questioner (2): If the mind, with its conditioning, is violent to start with, then the outcome is bound to be violence.
Krishnamurti: So, what shall we do then, Sir?
Questioner: Would it be wise to just watch the violence without splitting, or separating?
Krishnamurti: The gentleman raised the question: do we really want to be free of all violence? Answer that question. Do we? Which means to have no conflict, no dualistic activity within oneself, no resistance, no opposition, no aggression, no ambition to be somebody, not to assert one's opinion and oppose other opinions. All that implies a form of violence. Not only the violence of self-discipline, but also the violence that makes me twist my particular desires in order to conform to a pattern, to make it moral, or whatever it is; all these are forms of violence. Will is violence. Do we want to be free of all this? And can a human being live, being free from it?
Questioner: It seems that in the process we call our life, tension is necessary. We have to distinguish, it seems, between tension and violence. I am reminded of the story of the languishing herrings who didn't really come to life until some dog-fish were put into the tank. When does normal tension as a process of life cease, and violence begin? Do we make a distinction here?
Krishnamurti: So you see tension is necessary?
Questioner: In everything there is polarity.
Krishnamurti: Please, Sir, let us find out. Does a human being - us here - want to be free of all violence?
Questioner (1): This seems to me a very difficult question because there are such a lot of contradictions in us. One says at this moment that one does not want violence; the scene changes, and in an hour's time one is violent, one is caught. One is broken up into so many facets. Questioner (2): Someone may seriously attempt to bring attention to violence within, but how does such a person react when he is confronted with violence outside?
Krishnamurti: Wait, Sir, that is a later question. Do we here see the importance of being totally free of all violence? Or would we like to keep certain parts of it? Is it possible to be completely free of all violence? - that means to be free of all irritation, all anger, of any form of anxiety, and of resistance to anything.
Questioner: I think there is a difference between you positing that question and an individual saying "I want to be free of all violence". Because the one is a dispassionate looking at the question, the other one is a movement - again a violent movement.
Krishnamurti: That is just it!
Questioner: It seems to me to be a real thing, or a reasonable thing, to look at the question rather than try to resolve violence. To me they are two different things.
Krishnamurti: Then, what is the question, sir?
Questioner: Is it possible to be completely free of violence?
Krishnamurti: That is all.
Questioner: It is quite different from seeking to be free of violence.
Krishnamurti: Quite! Then what do I do? - is it possible?
Questioner (1): If one sees the pattern of one's daily life, one sees that it seems that without some form of violence - or maybe what this gentleman calls tension - one could perhaps never carry through one distinct job in the face of the pressures and difficulties that often surround one in society. We talk about freedom from violence when we are angry, or afraid, as if we were trapped, but I feel that perhaps there is always some violence in our lives. It is difficult to conceive living, doing some job and so on, without some kind of drive which I feel is violence.
Questioner (2): Isn't there a difference between tension and violence? It seems that violence being resistance and aggression, is deadening; it tries to stop something. Whilst tension is moving with what you are doing. It seems to me we have to have an understanding of the difference between violence and tension.
Krishnamurti: Sir, can we pursue that question: is it possible for a human being to be completely free of violence? We have understood what we mean by violence, more or less.
Questioner (1): I don't think we have. If there is no difference between violence and energy, then I wouldn't want to be free of violence.
Questioner (2): If we could see our violence the whole time, there would be no violence.
Krishnamurti: No, Sir. before we come to that point, as a human being, have I said to myself: is it possible to live without violence?
Questioner: One obviously does not know.
Krishnamurti: So let us enquire, Sir, let us find out.
Another Questioner: Wouldn't the only way to find out be to do it?
Krishnamurti: Not only do it, but enquire, go into it, watch it, be aware of this whole movement of resistance. Knowing the danger of violence, seeing the outward effects of it, the divisions, the horrors, and so on, I ask myself: is it possible for me to be free of all violence? I really don't know. So I am going to enquire, I want to find out, not verbally, but passionately! Human beings have lived with violence for thousands of years and I want to find out whether it is possible to live without violence. Now where shall I begin?
Questioner: Would you first try to understand what violence is?
Krishnamurti: I know very well what it is: anger, jealousy, brutality, revolt, resistance, ambition, all the rest of it. We don't have to define endlessly what violence is.
Questioner: I don't really see ambition as violence.
Krishnamurti: No? Another Questioner: Is it possible to see how it arises in oneself, when it comes up, when it reaches the surface?
Krishnamurti: Sir, must I wait till anger comes up, and then be aware of that anger and say, "I am violent"? Is that what you propose, Sir?
Questioner: The movement leading up to it is very rarely caught by us.
Another Questioner: Should we understand thought? - the sudden thoughts?
Krishnamurti: Sir, it is such a vast problem, don't let us take little bits of it, let us observe it at the very core. What makes the mind violent in me, in this human body, in this person? What is the source of this violence? Watch it in yourself.
Another Questioner: Is it my desire to achieve something, to gain something, to be something? I want to look and see how much of the violence that I knew I had, I could give up - and still survive within acceptable limits. That would be my first step.
Krishnamurti: Within acceptable limits - and that may also be violent.
Questioner: Yes, I would expect I should still have a degree of violence.
Krishnamurti: I am asking myself whether it is possible to live without violence and I say: what is the root of this? If I could understand that, perhaps I would know how to live without violence. What is the root of it?
Questioner: The feeling of revolution, of separation.
Krishnamurti: You say the root of this violence is separation, division, the "me". Can the mind live without the "me"? Please go on, let us enquire.
Questioner: Is it true that as long as there is an objective, or desire of any kind, there is the seed of violence?
Krishnamurti: Of Course! That is the whole point. We must go step by step into this. Please, Sirs, go on! Questioner: Does not this pose the question: is it possible to live without any objective?
Krishnamurti: Yes. Is it possible to live without any objective, without any principle, without any aim, without any purpose?
Questioner: The purpose is life.
Krishnamurti: The opposite of that is to drift. Therefore we must be careful that we don't think in terms of the opposite. If I have no objective, then I am just drifting. So I must be very careful when I say, "To have an objective is a form of violence; to have no objective may be to drift.
Questioner: But this is irrelevant, Sir, because whether one drifts or not isn't the question. The question is: is it possible to live without violence?
Krishnamurti: I'm only warning, Sir, not to go into the opposite. Now, is it possible to live without direction? Direction means resistance, means no distraction, no distortion, it means a continuous drive towards a goal. Why do I want a purpose, an end? And that end, the goal, the purpose, the principle, the ideal - is it true? Or is it a thing which the mind has invented because it is conditioned, because it is afraid, because it is seeking security, both outwardly and inwardly and therefore invents something and pursues that, hoping to have security?
Another Questioner: At times one has perhaps had intimations of this other thing and those intimations seem to give a drive.
Krishnamurti: Yes, one may have an intimation of it, but that isn't good enough for me. I'm going to find out whether it is possible to live without violence, and that is a passionate thing. It is not just an ideological fancy, I really want to find out.
Questioner: The trouble is, I don't really feel this question.
Krishnamurti: You don't feel it?
Questioner: Not enough to reach out, to go towards it. Krishnamurti: Why don't you? Why not? The whole issue of existence is this!
Questioner: I think this is a problem for most of us.
Krishnamurti: Good God! They are burning, they are destroying, and you say, "I am sorry, it doesn't really interest me!"
Questioner (1): If the question of violence interests you, I think you are already assisting the burning and enjoying it. I think if you didn't have violence in yourself, you wouldn't be really interested.
Questioner (2): Sir, what is the meaning of the word "violence"? Would you include things such as enthusiasm for something, drive, pep? Would you call these things violence?
Krishnamurti: Not what would I call it, Sir - what do you call it?
Questioner: I don't know...
Krishnamurti: I am not an oracle, let us find out. Let us stick to this question. Is it possible for me to live completely without violence?
Questioner: We are caught in a terrible trap.
Krishnamurti: We are caught in it; do we remain in it?
Questioner: No, but we have a body and a self to preserve. It is very difficult.
Krishnamurti: What shall I do? - please, answer my question! To me this is of tremendous importance. The world is burning. Don't say, "My body is weak, this is difficult, it is not possible, I must be a vegetarian, I must not kill." I am asking: is it possible? And to find that out, I must find out what the source of this violence is.
Questioner: I think it is being divided. If I am divided I must be violent. I feel I will be destroyed, therefore I am afraid. Krishnamurti: Therefore we accept violence?
Questioner: No, but we want to destroy the thing we are afraid of.
Krishnamurti: Sir, would you put it this way: if you could find the source, the root of this violence, and if that root could wither away, you might live a totally different kind of life. So, wouldn't it be worthwhile to find out what is the root of it, and whether it can wither away?
Questioner: Probably it is connected with fear.
Krishnamurti: I am not interested in fear. I want to end violence because I see violence begets violence. This violence is an endless process. You know what is happening in the world. So I ask myself: is it possible to end violence? Before I can answer that question, I must find out what is the root of all these innumerable branches.
Another Questioner: But we can't do it by thinking about it.
Krishnamurti: We are going to find out. We are going to think about it and see the futility of thought, and then go outwards. But we must exercise our intelligence, our thought.
Questioner: So long as I want to do anything, there is violence to a greater or lesser degree.
Krishnamurti: I understand this. I just said, look: is it possible to live without violence? And to find that out, there must be an enquiry into the root of it.
Questioner: What I am trying to say is, that the whole structure of life as we know it, is wanting to do this, wanting to do that - everything involves violence.
Krishnamurti: Of course, Sir, that's agreed.
Questioner: Paradoxically, might one consider self-preservation?
Krishnamurti: You see, you are all not bringing up the main, fundamental issue. Questioner: Sir,you keep talking about the root, but living in a town, the way life is at the moment, violence in human society is just like the air one has to breathe, it is like a fog that envelops everything. The question about the root of it doesn't spring to my mind. One sees violence in an animal-like way, one knows of people being frightened and behaving in a certain way, but one is only aware of a series of reactions.
Krishnamurti: I understand all that, Sir. I am asking you: what is the root of this?
Questioner: The self.
Krishnamurti: The self! All right. If the "me" is the root of all this, what shall I do? Having discovered the "me" wanting this, not wanting that, the "me" wanting a purpose and running after it, the "me" that resists, that has a battle with itself, if that is the root of violence - which for me is the root - then what shall I do with it?
Questioner: You cannot do anything.
Krishnamurti: Wait, Sir! Do I accept it? Do I live in this battle, with this violence?
Questioner: I feel, Sir, that if you say, "I am violent", you haven't got to the root of the problem.
Krishnamurti: No, you haven't. Quite right.
Questioner: Because one can go on saying "I am violent" endlessly.
Krishnamurti: Agreed. I see the "me" with all its branches is the cause of violence; it is the "me" that separates: you and me, we and they; the Blacks and the Whites, the Arabs and the Israelis, and so on.
Questioner: Rationally, you could say: eliminate the "me".
Krishnamurti: How is the mind to eliminate its own structure, which is based on the "me"? Sir, do look at the issue. The "me" is the root of all this; the "me" is identified with a particular nation, with a particular community, with a particular ideology or religious fancy. The "me" identifies itself with a certain prejudice, the "me" says "I must fulfil; and when it feels frustrated, there is anger and bitterness. It is the "me" that says, "I must reach my goal, I must be successful", that wants and doesn't want, that says "I must live peacefully", and it is the "me" that gets violent.
be an entity, to me it is more of an action, or an activity. Is this word not misleading us?
Krishnamurti: No, it isn't. It does not mean it is something solid, like the trunk of a tree. It is a movement, it is a living thing. One day it feels marvellous, the next day it is in great depression. One day it is passionate, lustful, the next day it is worn out and says, "Let me have some peace." It is a constantly moving, active thing. How is this movement to transform itself into another movement, without becoming violent? First, let us get the question right. We said: this is a movement, it is a living thing, it is not static, it is not something dead, it is adding to itself all the time, and taking away from itself all the time. This is the "me". And when the "me" says, "I must get rid of the `me'," wanting to have another "me", it is still violent; the "me" that says: "I am a pacifist, I live peacefully", the me that seeks truth, the me that says "I must live beautifully, non-violently", is still the "me" which is the cause of violence.
What will the mind do with this living thing? And the mind itself is the "me". Do you understand the question? Any movement on the part of the "me" to get rid of itself, to say "I must wither away", "I must destroy myself", "I must gradually get rid of myself", is still that same movement of the "me", is still the "me" which is the root of violence. Do we realize that? Do we really see that? Not theoretically, but actually realize the truth of it, that any movement of the "me" in any direction, is the action of violence. Do I actually, sensuously, intelligently, see the truth of it, know the feel of it? If the mind does not, it can go on playing with words for ever.
Questioner: Does the mind consist only of the "me"? Are they identical?
Krishnamurti: When the mind is not occupied with the "me", it is not the "me". But most of us are occupied with the "me", consciously or unconsciously.
Questioner: We seem to be able to give up all kinds of thoughts and as the "me" is put together by thought, why can't we discard it?
Krishnamurti: No, Sir, it is impossible to discard anything, except perhaps smoking cigarettes. Please, let us stick to this one thing: do I actually see that in the action of the "me", negative or positive, there is a form of violence. It is violence. If I don't see it, why not? What is wrong with my eyesight, with my feeling? Is it that I am afraid what will happen if I see it? Or am I bored with the whole thing? Please, come on, Sirs!
Questioner: Sometimes one is carried away, and therefore...
Krishnamurti: No, Sir, no. It is not a question of being carried away. Not to be violent - I want to find this out!
Another Questioner: We can't rake up the energy to keep the mind on the subject.
Krishnamurti: No, Sir. If you say you haven't the energy, the collecting of that energy is again a form of the "me", which says "I must have more energy in order to tackle this". Any movement of the "me", which is thought, conscious or unconscious, is still the "me". Do I really see the truth of this?
Questioner: Is there something behind the "me" which in essence is not of thought?
Krishnamurti: Do listen to that question; don't say, "We don't know or we do." Is there anything behind the "me" which is not of the me?
Questioner: If there is, and we think about it, it is yet again part of the "me".
Krishnamurti: Who is putting this question? Surely it is the "me"! Questioner: Why not? Thought is a tool, why not use it?
Krishnamurti: No, you can t say "Why not" - it is still the movement of the "me".
Questioner: You have asked: do we really see that any movement of the "me" is violence? I think the only reason that we can't see it, is because we reject violence.
Krishnamurti: Oh, no. Either you see it or you don't see it. It isn't a question of something that prevents you from seeing. I don't see my affection for my dog, or for my wife, or husband, for the beauty of it is part of me; because I think that is a most marvellous state.
Questioner: Sir, by definition you have virtually said that life is violence, movement, change.
Krishnamurti: As we live now, life, living, is a form of violence.
Questioner: Is life possible without change, without movement?
Krishnamurti: That's what we are asking. The life we lead is a life of violence, which is caused by the "me", and we are saying: do we see that any movement of the "me" in any direction, conscious, or unconscious, is a form of violence? If I don't see it, why don't I see it? What is wrong?
Questioner: It seems to me it is the "me" that is seeing it.
Krishnamurti: Wait. Is it the "me" that sees it?
Questioner: Is it intelligence?
Krishnamurti: I don't know, you find out! What is it that sees that the "me" is the root of all mischief? Sir, please watch it. Who sees it?
Questioner: I don't see it. I'm afraid to give up everything I've ever known.
Krishnamurti: So you don't want to see that the "me" is responsible for this hideous mess. Because one says: I don't care if the world goes bust, but I want to have my little corner. Therefore I don't see the "me", the root of all mischief.
Questioner: Would you soy there is another "me", other than the thinking process with an object in view? When I think towards something, towards an object, to me this is the "me", and there is no other "me" except that process.
Krishnamurti: Obviously.
Questioner: But you said it isn't the thing that sees the significance of the question.
Krishnamurti: No. We said, this "me" is a living thing, a movement. All the time it is adding to itself and taking away from itself. And this "me", this movement, is the root of all violence. Not only this "me" as something static which invents the soul, which invents God, Heaven and punishment - it is the whole of that.
We are asking: does the mind realize that the "me" is the cause of this mischief? The mind - use the word intelligence if you like - which sees the whole map of violence, all the intricacies, sees it by observing, this mind says: that is the root of all evil. So the mind now asks: is it possible to live without the "me"?
Questioner: The process of seeing is different from the process of moving in a certain direction towards something.
Krishnamurti: Right. The process of seeing is entirely different. It is not a process. I won't use that word. The seeing is seeing now; it is not a process of seeing. Seeing is acting. Now, does the mind see this whole map of violence and the root of it? And what is it that sees? If the "me" sees it, then it is afraid to live differently, then the "me" says "I must protect myself, I must resist this, I am afraid". Therefore the "me" refuses to see the map. But the seeing is not the "me".
Questioner: Seeing has no purpose, has it? Krishnamurti: There is no purpose in seeing the map; it just sees.
Questioner: But, immediately I say that I see it...
Krishnamurti: Wait! Do we realize that the mind which is observing this entire map is entirely different from the "me" which sees it and is afraid to break from it? There are two different observations: the "me" seeing, and "seeing". The "me" seeing must inevitably be afraid, and must therefore resist and say, "How shall I live?" What shall I do? Must I give this up? Must I hold on?" and so on. We said: any movement of the "me" is violence. But there is a mere seeing of the map, which is entirely different. Is this clear? Now, which is it that you are doing?
Questioner: The "me" is seeing.
Krishnamurti: You say the "me" is seeing - therefore it is afraid.
Another Questioner: Of course, it is afraid.
Krishnamurti: What will you do, knowing any movement of the "me" is still furthering that fear?
Questioner: I don't know.
Krishnamurti: Ah! What do you mean by, "You don't know"?
Questioner: To me, the "me" is all I know.
Krishnamurti: No, Sir, we have made it very clear. Do listen to this. There are two actions of seeing. Seeing the map non-directionally, non-purposively, just seeing, and the "me" seeing - the "me" with its purpose, with its drive, with its directive, with its resistances. It sees and is afraid to do this, or that.
Questioner: Are you using the word "see" now in the way in which you normally speak of being aware? Krishnamurti: I am just using the word "seeing" for a change, that's all.
Questioner: Sir,you tell me there is a state in which you can see without the "me", but I have never experienced this.
Krishnamurti: Do it now, Sir! I am showing it to you! There is the "me" that looks at this whole map of violence and therefore is afraid and resists. And there is another seeing which is not of the "me", which just observes, non-objectively, non-purposively, and says, "I just see it".
But this is simple, isn't it? I see you have got a green shirt; I don't say, "I like it" or "I dislike it", I just see it. But the moment I say, "I like it", it is already the "me" saying "I like it; and therefore all the rest of it follows. This is sufficiently clear - verbally at least.
Questioner: Could we go into the question of why this looking without the "me" is so very difficult and happens so rarely.
Krishnamurti: I don't think it is difficult. Don't say it is difficult; then you are stuck, then you have blocked yourself.
Questioner: Could one summarize this by saying that in one case there is a seeing without purpose, and in the other case purpose is involved?
Krishnamurti: Yes, that's all. Can I look without direction? When I look with a direction, it is the "me". What is the difficulty in this, may I ask?
Another Questioner: Usually we have the illusion that looking, with a direction is looking.
Krishnamurti: Looking with a direction is not looking obviously.
Questioner: There is a difference between looking and seeing. If one is looking, one is involved.
Krishnamurti: Don't let's complicate it. We said: does the mind see the whole map, without any direction?
Questioner: The map is selected from both directions. Krishnamurti: No, no. Just look. This whole structure of the "me" is violence; the structure being the way I live, the way I think, the way I feel, my whole reaction to everything is a form of violence which is the "me". That is all in the category of time. The "seeing" has no time - you are seeing it. The moment I see with time there is fear.
Questioner: There is seeing, and the thing seen. When once you have seen something is it the old mind that has seen?
Krishnamurti: Yes. Now do find out, Sir, how do you see? Do you see non-purposively, or purposively? Do you see in terms of time? That is, do you say, "It is too difficult, it is too complex, what am I to do?" Or do you see without time?
If you say, "I don't see it without time," the next question is, "Why? What is the difficulty?" Is it physical blindness, or is it psychological disinclination to look at anything as it is? Is it because we have never looked at anything directly, are always trying to avoid, to escape? Therefore, if we are escaping, let us see that - not try to find out how to resist escape.
Receive Krishnamurti's thoughts daily, in your
mailbox Subscribe to Krishnamurti's Daily Thoughts
Please bookmark to Stumble 
Read the Daily thought of Denis Jones
or, Eileen Caddy's thought for today