Jiddhu Krishnamurti (1895 - 1986)

EXPLORATION INTO INSIGHT - 'LISTENING WITH THE HEART'

K: Shall we discuss that?

FW: Could we enquire into the nature of matter?

K: You see, sir, what I said was that thought is a material process and whatever thought has built - technological, psychological beliefs, the gods, the whole structure of religion based on thought, is a material process. Thought in that sense is matter. Thought is experience, knowledge stored up in the cells and functioning in a particular groove set by knowledge. All that to me is a material process. What matter is, I do not know. I won't even discuss that because I don't know.

FW: I am not enquiring into it from the point of view of a scientist. Let me say matter is something unknown. So I feel when we explore into the unknown...

K: You can't explore into the unknown. Be careful, you can explore into the known, go to the limit of it and when you come to the limit of it you have moved out of it. You can only enquire into the known.

P: Which is, into thought?

K: Of course. But when he says examine, explore, investigate into the unknown, we can't. So Pupul puts a question which is: What is it, what does it mean to listen with compassion?

P: This is a crucial thing. If we have compassion, everything is. K: Agreed, but we have not got it, unfortunately. So how should we approach this matter? What does it mean to listen, and what is the nature and the structure of compassion?

P: And what is this listening with the heart? It is a very important thing. Is there a listening which is much deeper than the ear listening?

K: Can we take the two: listening and listening with the heart, with compassion. First, what does it mean to listen, what is the art of listening?

FW: Perhaps we could approach the subject the other way round. What does it mean not to listen?

K: What do you mean, sir?

FW: When we ask what does it mean to listen, it seems very difficult and I think that perhaps if I am very clear about what it means not to listen...

K: It is the same thing. That is, through negation come to the positive. If you could find out what is listening and in the investigation of what is listening you negate what is not listening, then you are listening. That is all.

P: Can we go on? So there are two problems involved, which are, what is listening - in which is implied what is not listening - and what is compassion? What is the nature and the structure of the feeling and the depth of it, and the action that springs from it?

K: Go on, discuss it.

FW: I feel that in this question of compassion we have the same problem, because I feel that compassion has nothing to do with the field of the known.

K: She meant something else, sir. What does it mean to listen with your heart? That was what she meant. I introduced the word `compassion'. Perhaps we can leave that out for the moment.

P: Krishnaji spoke of a listening with the heart, and I am interested in going into that. K: So let us keep to those two: listening, and listening with one's heart, what does it mean?

R: We have said that the response with thought is fragmentary. Whether we call that response observation or listening or whatever it is, it is the same thing. Isn't it? So is the heart the non-fragmentary? Is that what we mean?

K: Now wait a minute. To listen with the total flowering of all senses is one thing; listening partially with a particular sense is fragmentary.

R: Yes.

K: That is, if I listen with all my senses, then there is no problem of negation of what is listening or not listening. But we do not listen.

S: Sir, when you talk of listening with the heart, my response is I do not know it. But there is a movement, a feeling, a listening in which consciousness is not thought. I see that there is a movement of feeling when I listen to Radhaji or someone; there is a certain feeling with which one listens to another. There is a different kind of communication when that feeling is there.

K: Is feeling different from thought?

S: That is what I am coming to.

P: It is different from thought.

S: If feeling is not different from thought, we do not know any movement apart from that of thought. To accept that statement is very difficult because we have also experienced tenderness, affection. If everything is put in the category of thought, if it is the totality of consciousness then...

K: We must be clear. Do not categorize it. Let us go slowly. Do I listen with thought or do I not listen with thought? That is the problem.

S: Both are... K: Go slowly Sunanda. Do you listen with the movement of thought or do you listen without the movement of thought? I am asking you.

P: Can we listen without thought?

K: Yes.

P: Sometimes, once in a lifetime may be, one gets the total feeling of the heart and the mind and consciousness being one.

K: I understand that.

P: When we ask if there is a listening without thought, we can say, `Yes, it is so; but if I may say so, there is something still lacking.

K: We will come to that. Let us go slowly into this.

A: At a lower voltage of sensitivity there may be no articulated thought, but there is listening. That listening is lacking in sensitivity. So it is not alive.

K: I think we have to begin with what it means to communicate. I want to tell you something which I am deeply concerned with. You must be prepared to enter into the problem, or into the question, or into the statement which one is proposing; which means you must have the same interest as the speaker or the same intensity, and also meet him at the same level. All this is implied in communication. Otherwise there is no communication.

S: Interest one can understand, but level is very difficult to know.

P: May I say something? In introducing the word `communication', you are introducing the two. In listening from the heart there may not be the two.

K: Yes. We will come to that. What is listening with one's heart? I want to tell you something which I feel profoundly. How do you listen to it? I want you to share it with me, I want you to feel it with me, I want you to be involved with me. Otherwise how can there be communication?

S: How does one know the level? K: The moment it is not intellectual, verbal, but an intense problem, a burning problem, a deep, human problem that I want to convey to you, to share with you. Then we must be on the same level, otherwise you cannot listen.

S: If there is deep seriousness, will the right level be there?

K: You are not listening now. That is my problem. I want to tell you something which is profoundly important. I want you to listen to it because you are a human being and it is your problem. It may be you have not really delved into it. So, in sharing it with me you are exposing your own intensity to it. Therefore listening implies a sharing, a non-verbal communication. There must be a listening, there must be a sharing, which implies an absence of verbal distortion.

P: Obviously you can only communicate if there is a certain level.

K: That is what I am saying. Now Sunanda how will you listen to me? Will you listen like that?

S: It seems that one does not listen like that to everyone.

K: I am talking now, I am asking you, will you listen to me in that manner?

P: To you we listen.

K: Because you have built an image about me and that image you give importance to, and therefore you listen.

S: Not to the image alone.

K: You are missing my point. Can you not only listen to this man who is speaking at the moment, but also listen to Radha when she talks about it, or when Parchure or you or somebody says something? Can you listen? He may convey something to you which he may not be capable of putting into words? So will you, in the same manner, listen to all of us?

S: We listen to some and we do not listen to all.

K: Why? P: Because of prejudice.

K: Of course. There, there is no communication.

P: You mean to say, sir, listening to the voice which is established in truth and which speaks out of silence, the receiving of that, can it be the same as listening to the voice which speaks out of thought? Please answer that question.

K: You are too definite.

P: No, it is not too definite. When you speak, your voice is different.

R: I think the point is whether there is a receiving at all, listening at all. If one is receiving, then the question of whether it is the voice of truth or something else does not arise.

P: It does not happen with us.

Raj: We listen with motive. The motive may be very subtle or very obvious. When we listen to another we think we will not get anything out of it. That is why, when we listen to K there is much more attention.

K: So how do we alter all that and listen to each other?

FW: Is it that we interpret?

K: No, don't interpret what I am saying, for God's sake, listen. I go to Kata and tell him I know nothing about Karate. I watch it on the films but I don't know Karate. So I go to him now, not knowing. Therefore I am listening. But we know - and that is your difficulty. You say this should be this way, this should be that way - all conjectures, opinions. The moment I use a word, you are fully alive. But the first thing is the art of listening. Art means to put everything in its right place. You may have your prejudices, you may have your conclusions, but when you are listening put them away - the interpreting, comparing, judging, evaluating, put all that away. Then communication takes place. When somebody says `I love you,' you don't say, `Let me think about it' R: That is, putting away everything is the same as having the same intensity and being at the same level.

K: Otherwise what is the point of it?

R: I have seen this but I am not doing it.

K: Do it now.

S: It seems to me, you are saying the act of listening wipes away, swallows up the whole thing for the time being.

K: When I say, `I love you,' what happens?

S: But no one says that to us.

K: But I am saying it to you.

S: No, sir, in normal life it does not often happen like that.

K: So what is the art of listening, what does it mean to listen with one's heart? If you do not listen with the heart, there is no meaning to it. If you listen with a sense of care, attention, affection, a deep sense of communion with each other, it means, you listen with all your senses, does it not?

P: With fullness.

K: Will you listen that way? Can we listen to somebody whom we don`t like, who we think is stupid? Can you listen with your heart to that man or to that woman? I don't think when you have that feeling, words don't matter any more.

Let us proceed. Then what? Suppose I listen and I have done it often in my life. I listen very carefully, I have no prejudices, I have no pictures, I have no conclusions, I am not a politician, I am a human being listening to somebody. I just listen, because he wants to tell me something about himself. Because he has got an image, a picture of me, he generally comes to see me with a mask. If he wants to talk seriously with me, I say `Remove the mask, let us look at it together.' I don't want to look behind the mask unless he invites me. If he says `All right, sir, let us talk about it,' I listen; and in listening he tells me something which is so utterly, completely common to all human beings. He may put it wrongly, he may put it foolishly, but it is something which every man or woman suffers, and he is telling me about it and I listen. Therefore he is telling me the history of mankind. So I am listening not only to the words, the superficial feeling of his, but also to the profound depth of what he is saying. If it is superficial, then we discuss superficially and push it till he feels this thing profoundly. You follow? It may be that he is expressing a feeling which is very superficial and if it is superficial, I say let us go a little deeper. So in going deeper and deeper, he is expressing something which is totally common to all of us. He is expressing something which so completely belongs to all human beings. You understand? So there is no division between him and me.

P: What is the source of that listening?

K: Compassion. So, what is compassion? As Fritz says, it is unknown to us. So how am I to have that extraordinary intelligence which is compassion? I would like to have that flower in my heart. Now what is one to do?

FW: Compassion is not in the field of thought. Therefore I can never have the feeling that I have it.

K: No, you won't find it - it is like a drill, like a screwdriver, you have to push, push.

P: There must be a perfume to it.

K: Of course. You cannot talk about compassion without perfume, without honey.

P: It is either there or not there. Why is it then, sir, that when we are in communication with you we have this feeling, why is it that you have this tremendous impact which knocks away all prejudices, all obstacles and this immediately makes the mind silent?

K: It is like going to the well with a small bucket or with an enormous bucket which one can hardly carry. Most of us go with a small bucket and pull out of the well insufficient water. It is like having a fountain in your yard, flowing, flowing. I would like to watch it, see it out there and inside. So what am I to do?

FW: I will find out what prevents me from having that.

K: That is analysis. I won't analyse, because it is a waste of time. I have understood that, not because I have said it and you have accepted it, but I see the reason, the logic, the significance and therefore the truth of it. Therefore analysis is out.

S: Not only that, sir, I also see that sitting in meditation regularly, being in silence, none of these things have any relationship to that. Duality and every kind of experience that one has gone through, has also nothing to do with it.

K: Listen Sunanda, Radha and Pupul have got this thing in their backyard. They don't talk about it because it is there, flowering, flowing, murmuring, all kinds of things happen. And I say, Why is it not in my backyard? I want to find out. Not that I want to imitate. But it must happen. I won't analyse what prevents me, what blocks me, I won't ask, should I be silent, should I not be silent? That is the analytical process. I don't know if you understand this?

S: That is clear, sir.

K: Do you really understand what it means?

S: What does it mean, `to really understand'?

K: Look, they have got it, I haven't got it. I would like to have it. I would like to look at it like at a precious jewel. How is it to happen to me? That is my enquiry. He suggested that I look at what is blocking me. He said that is an analytical process and analysis is a waste of time. I don't know if you see that actually. Analysis and the analyser are both the same. Don't take time over it, don't meditate about it, sit cross-legged and all that. You have no time. Now, can you stop analysis? Totally? Can you do it? You do it when there is a tremendous crisis. You have no time then to analyse, you are in it. Are you in this? Do you understand my question? That is, she has got that extraordinary perfume which is so natural to her. She doesn't say, `How did I get it, what am I to do with it?' She has got it somehow, and I would like to have it. I am a human being and without it nothing matters. So it must be there. And I see the truth about analysis, therefore I will never analyse. Because I am in the middle of this question, I am soaked, burning with the question. The house is on fire and I am caught in that fire.

R: Sir, the moment the beauty of the thing exists somewhere, the question does not arise, How am I to have it?

K: I want it, how am I to have it? I do not care,I am hungry. You do not analyse hunger.

R: I am not saying that.

K: Sorry, what were you saying?

R: I am saying that when at a certain moment one is filled with this, `I want it' does not arise. I do not know to what extent one is filled with the perfume, but this feeling, `I want it' does not exist there.

K: You may be filled by my words, by my intensity, and then say you have got it.

R: I do not say I have got it, but...

K: Be simple, Radha. You have something in your backyard, a fountain which very few people have, very very few. They may talk about the water, they may talk about the beauty of the fountain, the song and the water, but that is not it. But you have got it. And as a human being, I see how marvellous that is and I go towards it, not that I want it; I go towards it, I don't have it. What am I do to?

FW: Is there anything I can do?

K: May be or may be not. May be the demand is so great I put everything aside. The demand itself puts everything aside. You understand? The house is burning. There is no argument, there is no weighing which bucket to use, which pump to use.

P: Is it not very closely linked up with the volume of energy? K: All right. She says it is linked up with the flame of energy. No, Pupul, when you want something you burn like hell. Doesn't one? When you want that girl or that man, you are at it.

FW: That makes the difference.

K: I want to create a crisis. Then there is action. Do you understand what I am saying? Either you avoid the crisis or you act. Pupul, is the crisis taking place? Because it is a very important question. I come to you and talk about all this. You listen as far as you can listen, as far as you can go, but nothing happens. You hear it year after year, you take a little step each time,and by the end you are dead. What he wants to do is to bring about an action which is born out of tremendous crisis. He wants to break it up because then there is no argument, there is no analysis. He has created a crisis. Is that crisis the result of his influence, his words, his feeling, his urgency or is it a crisis which you have got to break through? That is his intention. He says that is the only thing that matters.

A: The crisis is an external challenge to which I am unable to find an adequate internal response, and because I cannot find an adequate internal response, there is this crisis. The other crisis which I understood you to speak of is not at all triggered by any external fact but it is a projection from within.

K: His intention is to create a crisis, not superficial, not external but inside.

A: Are not these two channels distinct? When the mind is seeking an external crisis and seeking an adequate response from within, that is one type of crisis; and the other type of crisis is that within you there is the deep sense of inadequacy which says that this cannot be put away because it is a heavy responsibility.

K: He has created that crisis in you, he is talking of truth. Is there a crisis when you talk to him? His demand is that there should be a crisis in you, not a superficial crisis. I think that is listening with the heart. He has turned you inwards so deeply, or he has taken away all anchorage. I think that is listening with the heart. The monsoon says to you: `Please collect all the water you can, next year there will be no monsoon.' You understand? That makes you build every kind of hold to collect water. So where are we at the end of it?

P: In a strange way it also implies lifting your hands off everything.

K: It may not. It may mean that an action which you have not premeditated may take place. If there is crisis, then it will happen.