Rabu, 26 April 2017

sex and desire



krishnamurti in dialoguewith dr. allan w. anderson j. krishnamurti wasborn in south india and educated in england. for the past 40 years he has been speakingin the united states,



sex and desire

europe, india, australia,and other parts of the world. from the outset of his life's work he repudiated all connections with organisedreligions and ideologies


and said that his only concern was to set man absolutelyunconditionally free. he is the author of many books, among them the awakeningof intelligence, the urgency of change,freedom from the known, and the flight of the eagle. this is one of a seriesof dialogues between krishnamurti and dr.allan w. anderson, who is professorof religious studies


at san diego state university where he teaches indianand chinese scriptures and the oracular tradition. dr. anderson, a published poet, received his degreefrom columbia university and the union theological seminary. he has been honoured withthe distinguished teaching award from the californiastate university. a: mr. krishnamurti, in ourlast conversation we were


talking about religionas a phenomenon in relation toour concern for enquiring into the transformation ofeach individual human being, a transformation that is not dependent on knowledge or time, and during ourdiscussion of religion you were speaking about what you regarded to bereligion in the true sense, its relationto the act of attention


and how, when the wholepersonal history of hurt is a reference, this act of attentionsimply is vitiated, it cannot come to pass. and through the discussionof hurt that we had we touched towards the endof the discussion on love, and if it's agreeable with you, perhaps we could explorethis question of love now. k: sir, when you usethe word 'explore',


are we using that wordintellectually, exploring with the intellect, or exploringin relation to the word and seeing in that wordthe mirror, which will reveal ourselvesin that mirror? a: i hope the latter.k: yes. that is, the word is the mirror, in which i, as a human being,am observing. so the word 'explore'really means observing myself


in the mirror of the wordwhich you have used. so the word thenbecomes the thing, not just a word by itself.a: right. k: and thereforeit is not intellectual exploration, a theoretical explanation. a: it could bethe beginning of a meditation. k: that's what i wantto make quite clear. a: yes. well, that is wherei would want to be in relationship to the subject.k: yes.


and exploring also means:the mind must be very serious, not caught up in the mere desireto achieve something, to know how to love, how to acquirethe neighbour's love. you follow, sir?a: yes. become a successful lover. k: successful lover, yes. so, i think- when we explore that word, and the meaning,the significance of it -


one has to be very, very seriousabout this matter, because they are usingthis word so loosely, it has become so corrupt - love of god, love of my wife, love of my property,love of my country, i love to read, i love to goto the cinema - you follow? and one of our difficulties is modern educationis not making us serious. we are becoming specialists:


i am a first class doctor,first class surgeon, first class physician,and so on, so on. but the specialistbecomes a menace that way. a: a learned ignoramus.k: yes. and education,as we were saying previously, is to encourage, to see thatthe human mind is serious. serious to find outwhat it means to live, not just become a specialist. so, if that is all understood,


and much more, what is love? is love pleasure? is love the expression of desire? is love sexual appetite fulfilled? is love the pursuitof a desired end? the identification with afamily, with a woman, with a man? is love a thingthat can be cultivated? that can be made to growwhen i have no love, i think about it,i do all kinds of things to it,


so that i will knowhow to love my neighbour? a: we sometimes hear the admonition that one has to work at it. yes. in terms of ourconversations up to now that would be a denial of it. k: so, is love pleasure? and apparently it is, now. a: it seems to havebeen debased to that. k: i mean, actually it is,that is what we call love.


love of god. i don't know what god is and yet i am supposed to love him. and thereforei transfer my pleasures - of the world,of things, of sex - to a higher level which i call god.it is still pleasure! so what is pleasurein relation to love? what is enjoymentin relation to love? what is joy,the unconscious feeling of joy?


the moment i recognise joyit is gone. and what isthe relationship of joy, enjoyment and pleasurewith love? unless we understand that we shan't understandwhat love is. a: yes, yes, i have followed you. k: and take what is happening. love has been identifiedwith sex, love-making, love sexually- you follow, sir?


a: the very construction:love-making, making love. k: it's a horrible thing! i feel it gives me a shock: 'love-making',as though that was love. you see, sir, i thinkthis is very important, the western civilisation has put thisover the whole of the earth, through cinemas, through books,through pornography, through every kind of advertisements,stories,


this sense of love isidentification with sex, which is pleasure, basically. a: the whole glamour industryis based on that. k: on that.a: on that. k: all the cinema, you know,the whole thing. so can the mind - again, wemust come back to the point - can the mind understandthe nature of pleasure and its relationship to love? can the mindthat is pursuing pleasure,


an ambitious mind,a competitive mind, a mind that says,i must get something out of life, i must reward myself and others,i must compete. can such a mind love? it can love sexually. but is love of sex,is that the only thing? and why have we made sexsuch an enormous affair? volumes are written on it. unless really one goes into thisvery, very deeply,


the other thing is not possibleeven to understand. we can talk endlesslyabout what love is, what love is not, theoretically. but if we use the word 'love'as a mirror to seewhat is happening inwardly, and i inevitablymust ask the question whether it is pleasure- in its multiple forms. can a man who is top executive, got to that positionthrough drive,


through aggression,through deception, through ruthlessness,can he know what love is? and can the priest,who talks everlastingly of god, he is ambitiousto become a bishop, archbishop or whatever,his ambitions are to sit next to jesus. a: who will sit on the right hand.k: right hand. so can that priest who talks about itknow what love means? a: no, he thinks he can


with reference to somethingcalled a higher love, which is based on a denialof a lower one. k: yes, i mean that's just words.a: so that's conflict. in that conflictthere can be no love. k: so, then our whole social,moral structure is immoral! a: oh yes.k: i mean, sir, this is a thing that is appalling! and nobody wants to change that. on the contrary,they say, yes, let's carry on,


put on a lot of coating on it, different colours, more pleasant, and let's carry on. so,if a man is really concerned to come uponthis thing called love, he must negate this whole thing, which means he must understandthe place of pleasure, whether intellectual pleasure, acquisition of knowledgeas pleasure,


acquisition of a positionas power, you follow? the whole thing. and how is a mind thathas been trained, conditioned, sustained in this rotten...social conditioning, how can it free itselfbefore it talks about love? it must firstfree itself of that. otherwise your talk of love, it's just another word,it has no meaning! a: we do seem,in western culture particularly,


to be very sex-bound. on the one hand,we are threatened with unhappiness, if we don't succeed sexually. k: sexually, yes. that's right. a: yet on the other hand, the whole history ofclinical psychology focuses preciselyon the pathology of sexuality... k: of course.a: ...as somehow able, in itself, as a study,to free us.


the interrelationshipbetween those two activities, the desire to succeedon the one hand, and the necessity to study what's the matter with the driveon the other, brings about a paralysis. k: so you see, this thing, sex, has become, i don't know, of such enormous importanceright through the world now. in asia they cover it up.


they don't talk about it there. if you talk about sex,it is something wrong. hereyou talk endlessly about it. but there you don't, certain thingsyou don't talk about - you talk about itin the bedroom, or perhapsnot even in the bedroom. but you never, i mean,it's not done. and when i talk in india,i bring it out.


they are a little bit shocked,because a religious manis not supposed to dealwith all that kind of stuff. a: he is supposed to bebeyond that. k: he is supposed to be,but he mustn't talk about it. that's one of the things, sir, why has sex become so important? you see, love is, after all, a sense oftotal absence of the 'me',


total absence of the me - my ego, my ambitions,my greed - all that, which is me,total negation of all that. negation, not brutal denialor surgical operation, butthe understanding of all that. when the 'me' is not,the other is. obviously. it's so simple! you know, sir,the christian sign, the cross, - i was told -is a very ancient symbol,


previous to christianacceptance of that symbol. a: yes. k: it meant, wipe out the 'i'. a: i had never heard of that. wipe out.k: wipe out the 'i', the me. the 'i', wipe it out. you understand, sir?a: yes. in a non-canonical statementof jesus it's written that he remarked that unlessyou make your up down


and your down up,your right left, left right, the complete total turningof something upside down that one has been accustomed to do- a 180 degree turn - then one doesn't cometo the kingdom of heaven, which, of course, in his language,is not over here to be expected. he said precisely,it doesn't come by observations, it's not here, it's not there,it's within one - in the greekit doesn't mean 'in'


as a locus,but it is a presence. k: it is a presence.a: yes. k: so when we are enquiringinto this question of love, we must enquire into pleasure, pleasure in all its varieties, and its relationship to love,enjoyment to love, real joy, this thingwhich can never be invited, and its relation to love. so we had better beginwith pleasure.


that is, the world has made sexinto an immense thing. and the priests, right throughthe world, have denied it. they won't look at a woman, though they are burning inside with lustand all kinds of things. they shut their eyes. they say, only a man who is a celibatecan go to god. think of the absurdityof such a statement!


so anybody who has sexis damned forever. a: then you have to invent some story as to how it was, we so-called,fell into it. k: fell into it, or the virgin mary - you follow? -the whole idea. a: yes, the whole thing.k: which is a farce! so why have we made itsuch a fantastic romantic, sentimental affair- sex? is it because intellectuallywe are crippled?


we are second-hand people.you follow, sir? i repeat what plato, aristotle,buddha, somebody said, and therefore my mind,intellectually, is third rate! a: exactly.k: so it is never free. so intellectually i am a slave. emotionally i become romantic. i become sentimental. and the only escape is sex,where i am free, if the woman or the man agrees,


if they are compatible,then it is the only road, only door, through which i say,for god's sake, at least i am free here. in the office i am bullied- you follow, sir? - in the factoryi just turn the wheels. so this isthe only escape for me. the peasant in india, the poorvillager in town or in villages, look at them, that isthe only thing they have. and religion is something else:


i agree, we should be celibate, we should be - all the rest of it,but for god's sake, leave us alonewith our pleasures, with our sex. so if that is so,and it looks like that, that we are intellectually,morally, spirituallycrippled human beings, degenerate,and this is the only thing that gives us some release,some freedom. in other fieldsi have no freedom.


i have to go to the officeevery day. i have to go to the factoryevery day. i have to - you follow? -cinema once, three times a week, or whatever it is you do,you've got... and here, at last,i am a man, woman. so i have made this thinginto an enormous affair. and, if i am not sexual, i haveto find out why i am not sexual, i spend years to find out! you follow, sir? books are written.


it has become a nauseating thing,a stupid thing. and we have to, also,in relation to that, find out what is celibacy? becausethey have all talked about it. every religion has talked about it:that you must be celibate. and they said, christian religion said:jesus was born immaculate. you follow it? and the buddhists,


i don't know if youever heard of the story that the buddha's motherconceived because she... not out of human relationship,but out of... - the same thing! they don't want sex to beassociated with a religion. and yet every priestis burning with it! and they said,you must be celibate. they take a vow of celibacy. i told you the story of thatpoor monk. a: oh yes, yes. a deeply moving story.k: and what is celibacy?


is it in there, in your heartand your mind? or just the act? a: if i have beenfollowing you correctly, it seems to me that you pointed to sex hereas undergone in a utilitarian way. it's a means toand therefore since... k: a routine, an insistence,encouragement, you follow? a: yes. always a goalthat lies outside the activity. therefore it can never becaught up to. k: quite right. therefore conflict.


a: therefore conflictand repetition. k: and therefore,what is celibacy? is it the act or the mindthat is chaste? you follow, sir? a: it must be the mind.k: chaste - chaste mind. which meansa tremendously austere mind. not the austerity of severity and ruthless acceptanceof a principle, and all the rest of it.


a: this goes back to the earlierconversation when we were talking about hurt.k: that's right. a: the chaste mind wouldnever be hurt. k: never. and therefore an innocent mind. which has no picture of the woman,or the man, or the act, none of that imagination. a: this is very, very fundamental. i know in our conversations that


i keep bringing up thingsthat i've read and studied, because that has largely beenthe occupation of my life. and the thing that moves meso deeply in listening to you is that so many of thethings that have been said over the centuries,and written over the centuries, ought to have been understood in the way that you've beenpresenting them. we even have a tradition for instancein christian theology that


what is called the fall of man began at the point of imagination. k: right. a: and yet that hasn'tbeen properly understood, it seems to me. otherwise had it beenproperly understood, we would not be in thisimmense conflict that we are in. k: christians havefirst invented the sin and then all the rest of it.


a: it has been the cartbefore the horse. yes,i do see what you are saying. k: so, can the mind be chaste? not - can the mind take avow of celibacy and have burning desires- you follow? and we talked the other dayabout desire. we are burning with desire. all our glands are full of it. so, chastity means a mind


that has no hurt, no image, no sense of pictures of itself,its appetites, all that. can such a mind existin this world? otherwise love is not. i can talk endlesslyabout love of jesus, love of this, love of that,but it becomes so shoddy. a: because it's love of. k: yes.a: yes. love as an activityis not the same as


love undertaken as a means.k: yes, sir. so is love pleasure? i can only answer:it is not, when i have understood pleasure. and understand not verbally,but deeply, inwardly, see the nature of it,the brutality of it, the divisive process of it. because pleasureis always divisive. enjoyment is never divisive.


joy is never dividing. it is only pleasurethat is dividing. when you listen to an arababout the oil, the energy, it is his pride- you follow? you see it is... and you see it in the ministers,in the politicians, this whole sense of arrogance,of power. and at the same timethey talk about love. a: but it's always love of.


k: of course, love of, or... i don't know what they meananyhow. it has no meaning. they say, love of my country, and my love is going to killyou! a: yes, yes. k: so, you see, sir, we haveto understand this killing too. the western civilisationhas made killing a perfect art. the war, science of war. they have taughtthe whole world this.


and probably the christiansare the greatest killers after muslims, and, i believe,the real religious, the original buddhistswere really non-killers. a: yes. k: the only religion that said,don't kill, and keep it! i must tell youthis lovely story. i was several years agoin ceylon, and a buddhist couplecame to see me.


they said, we have gotone major problem. we are buddhist by practice. and they said, we don't kill,but we eat meat. i said, what do you mean? he said,we change our butchers. we change our butchers,therefore we are not responsible. a: amazing.k: and we like meat. i said, is that the problem?he said, no, not at all. our problem is:


should we eat a fertilised eggbecause that contains life? a: oh, dear me.k: just, sir... when we talk about love, we must also talk aboutviolence and killing. we kill,we have destroyed the earth - you understand, sir?-polluted the earth. we have wiped awayspecies of animals and birds, we are killing baby seals, you've seen them on television?a: oh, i have. yes.


k: how a human beingcan do such a thing... a: it's deeply shocking. k: ...for some womanto put on that fur. and he will go back and say,'i love my wife'. and we are trained to kill. all the generals,they are preparing endlessly means of killing others. that's our civilisation,you follow, sir? so, can a man who is ambitiouslove?


a: no.k: no. therefore finish with ambition! they won't, they want both. therefore that means: don't kill under any circumstances,don't kill an animal! to eat... i have never eaten meatin my life, never. i don't knowwhat it tastes like even. not that i am proudthat i am vegetarian or anything, but i couldn't do it.


and killing has becomean industry, killing animals to feedhuman beings. you follow, sir? a: yes. it has, right. i was thinking as you were speaking,about chastity, and it came to me that the chaste mind would haveto be an undivided mind. k: yes, sir. killing and loving. a: and tryingto get them together. and then takingall manner of means


to palliate my obvious failure to get them together. k: of course. a: the enormity of whatyou have brought out is truly staggering, and this i would like to stay withfor a second, if you don't mind. i've been listeningvery intently. it's that your radical counsel


to make this stop in oneself is so radical that it requiresa kind of seriousness that is not a quantitativerelationship to seriousness. in fact, we don't really understandwhat that word means. the relationship betweenseriousness and love has been coming into my awareness here. k: yes, sir, if i am serious,then i will never kill, and love thenhas become... is something...


it is really compassion. passion for all,compassion means passion for all. a: when you say one will never killif he loves, you mean within the contextof this image-making activity where one kills by design. k: yes, not only... sir, suppose, my sister - i have no sister, but -my sister is attacked, a man comes to rape her. i will act at that moment.a: precisely.


k: my intelligence,because i love, have compassion, that compassion createsthat intelligence, that intelligence will operateat that moment. if you tell me, what will you do if your sister is attacked, i will say, i don't know.i will know then! a: yes, i quite follow that,i quite follow that. but we have made anindustry of designing. k: designed killing.


a: on all levels, not only ourselves.k: i don't know. i saw the other dayon the television, in the red squarethere was an enormous intercontinental missile, shot off to kill god knows,blind killing. and the americans have it,the indians have it, the french have it,you follow? a: have to have it.k: of course, we must exist. so, can the mind be freeof this urge to kill?


which means: can the mindbe free of being hurt? so, when there is hurt, it does all kindsof neurotic things. is pleasure love? is desire love? but we have made pleasure, desire,into love. i desire god - you follow, sir?i must learn about god - you follow?the whole thing.


god is my invention, my image, out of my thoughti have made that image, and so i go around in circles. so i must knowwhat enjoyment is. is enjoyment pleasure? when i enjoy a good meal,or a good sunset, or see a beautiful tree,or woman, whatever it is, at that moment, if it doesn't end,it becomes pleasure. you understand?


if the mind, thought,carries over that enjoyment and wants it to be repeatedthe next day, it has become pleasure,it is no longer enjoyment. i enjoy,and that's the end of it! a: william blake hasvery, very beautifully, it seems to me, pointed to this. and, of course, he wasregarded as a madman, as you know. i might not rememberthe words precisely,


but i think, part ofhis little stanza goes: 'he who kisses a joyas it flies, lives to see eternity's sunrise'.k: yes, yes. a: it's the joythat he kisses as it flies, not the pleasure. k: no, no.a: and it's as it flies. and what you said is, that if he won't let it fly, holds it, then we have fallen out ofthe act of joy into this...


k: ...pursuit of pleasure.a: ...endless, repetitive, in the endmournfully boring thing. k: and i think, sir, that is what is happeningin this country as well as in europe and india,primarily in this country: the desire to fulfill instantly, the pleasure-seeking principle. be entertained, football- you follow? - be entertained. a: this goes back to whatyou were pointing out earlier


in the last conversation we had; here somebody is,feels empty, needs to be filled. k: lonely.a: lonely, filled, looking for what we callfulfilment, filling up full. k: filling up full.a: filling up full. and yet, if one undertakesto make this act of attention that you referred toin our discussion about religion, in order to fill up the hole,then we've had it.


we're not going to do that. there has been an endlesshistory of that attempt under the name of control of thought.k: of course. a: it would seem that,if one doesn't begin in love, he will not make this act of attentionin a non-utilitarian way. he simply will make itin a utilitarian way, if he doesn't begin in love. k: it's not the market place,quite.


a: and that's why in one of the very early conversations we hadyou said the start is the end. k: yes. the beginning is the end.a: the beginning is the end. k: the first step is the last step. a: the first step is the last step. k: quite right.a: what i've been thinking about all through our conversationsso far what is involved - 'involved' i don't like -


what must one do- that's no good either - there is something... we are speaking about anact that is a radical end to all this nonsensethat's been going on, which is terrifyingly destructive nonsense.k: i know, sir. a: there isthe doing of something. k: that is the seeing of all this! a: and you saidthe seeing is the doing, is the act. k: as i see danger, i act.


i see the dangerof the continuity of thought in terms of pleasure, i see the danger,therefore i end it, instantly. if i don't see the danger,i'll carry on. if i don't see the dangerof nationality - i'm taking that as very simple - i carry on, murdering, dividing- you follow? - seeking my own safety; but if i see the danger of it,it is finished.


a: may we relate here just fora moment, love to education? k: yes. a: as a teacheri'm immensely concerned in this. k: sir, what we have beendiscussing in our dialogue this last week and nowis part of education. a: of course, it is. k: it is not education is there, it is educating the mindto a different thing. a: i'm thinking of the studentwho sometimes comes


to the teacher and says, 'i simply must changemy way of life'. that is, once in a while you will find a studentwho is up to here, really had it, as we say. the first questionthey will usually put to you is: what must i do? now, of course, that's a trap. i've been following you,i've come to see that with


much greater clarity thani observed it for myself before. simply because they are looking for a meanswhen they say that. k: what must i do. a: we are not talkingabout a means. k: no. means is the end. quite. a: i am thinking of the historyof christianity in this. you've got the question:what must i do to be saved. the answer is 'believe on'.k: yes.


a: and then the poor personis stuck with what this means and ends up believing in belief.k: yes, believing, quite. a: and that, of course,is abortive. the student comes and says,what must i do? now, in our earlierconversation together we reached the pointwhere the teacher and the student were talking together.k: yes. we are doing that now!a: we are doing this now. k: i am not your teacher,but we are doing that now.


a: well, no, i understand in our conversationsthat is not your role, but i must confess thatit has been working out in this order, becausei have learned immensely. there are two things herethat i want to get clear, and i need your help. on the one hand, to makethis pure act of attention, i need only myself. is that correct?k: no, not quite, sir.


a: not quite.k: not quite. sir,let's put the question first. the question is:what am i to do in this world? a: yes. k: that is,what is my place in this world? first of all, the world is me.i am the world. that is an absolute fact. and what am i to do? the world is this- corrupt, immoral, killing, there is no love.


there is superstition,idol worship, of the mind and the hand. there is war. that is the world. what is my relationship to it? my relationship to it only isif i am that. if i am not that,i have no relationship to it. a: i understand thatin terms of act. k: that's it.a: in terms of act. not a notion that i have.


k: for me the world is corrupt,is geared to kill. and i won't kill. what is my relationship to the man who goesand kills a baby seal? i say, my god,how can you do such a thing! you follow, sir?i want to cry about it. i do. how can you educate that man or the society which allowssuch a thing to happen? a: then perhaps i shouldrephrase the question


and say, well,when i do whatever is done in making this pureact of attention, i am not separatedfrom the world in which i am... k: i come to it from a different anglealtogether. a: exactly. fine. k: i come to it, sir, because there is somethingdifferent in me operating. compassion, love, intelligence, all that is operating in me.


a: but it seems...it seems that two possibilities are here. on the one hand,making this pure act of attention doesn't require that i be in the physical presenceof another human being, but of course, i amalways in relation whether i am there or not.k: of course. a: yes, i fully grasp that. but thenthe second possibility is


that within conversation, as we are enjoying it togethernow, something occurs,something takes place. it's not that we must be togetherfor it to take place. and it's not that we must be alonefor it to take place. therefore what we haveestablished is that something occurs,which is quite beyond all these distinctionsof inner and outer - you are over there,i'm over here.


k: see what takes place,see what takes place. first of all, we are serious,really serious. second, the killing, the corruption,we've cut it. we have finished with it. so, we stand alone, alone, not isolated. because when the mind is not that,it is alone. it hasn't withdrawn,it hasn't cut itself off,


it hasn't built anivory tower for itself, it isn't living in illusion. it says, that is false! that is corrupt, i won't touch it!- psychologically, i may put on trousers, etc., but i won't touch inwardly,psychologically, that. therefore it is completely alone. a: and it is saying thisamidst all this mournful round. k: therefore,being alone, it is pure.


a: chaste.k: therefore purity can be cutinto a million pieces and it will remain still pure. it is not my purity or your purity,it is pure. like pure water,it remains pure water. a: entirely full, too. wholly full.k: wholly. a: it takes us backto that sanskrit: this is full, that is full.


fullness is issued forthfrom fullness. it's a pity that the englishdoesn't carry this, the melodythat the sanskrit does. k: so you see,that's very interesting from this conversationwhat has come out. the thing is,we are frightened of being alone. which is, we are frightenedof being isolated. but every act a human being doesis isolating himself. that is,his ambition is isolating himself.


when he is nationalistic,he is isolating himself. when he says, it is my family- isolating himself. i want to fulfil -isolating himself. when you negate all that,not violently, but see the stupidity of all that,then you are alone. and that hastremendous beauty in it. and therefore that beauty you can spread it everywhere,but it still remains alone. so, the quality of compassionis that.


but compassion isn't a word. it happens, it comeswith intelligence. this intelligence will dictate,if my sister is attacked, at that moment. but it is not intelligence, if you say, what will you do if. such a question, and an answerto that, is unintelligent. i don't know if... a: oh yes, i am following youprecisely.


k: but it is unintelligenceto say, well, i am going to prepareto kill all those people who are my enemies- you follow? - which is the army, the navy, the whole sovereign governmentsare doing it. so, love is something,sir, that is really chaste. chastity isthe quality of aloneness and therefore never hurt. i don't know...


a: it's interestingthat in this one act one neither hurts himself,nor another. it's a total abstentionfrom hurt. k: sir, wait a minute. i have given you all my money,because i trust you. and you won't give it to me; i say, please, give me a little... you won't.what shall i do? what is the act of intelligence?you follow, sir?


act of affection,act of compassion that says, what will it do? you follow my question? a friend of mine during the second world war, he found himself in switzerland. he had quantities of money,plenty of money. and he had a great friendfrom childhood. and to that friend he said...


- he had to leavethe next minute, because something, you know, the war took place and hehad to leave the country. so he took all themoney and he said, here, my friend, keep it for me.i'll come back. i'll come backwhen the war is over. he comes back and says,please. he says, what money? a: goodness me.


k: you follow, sir?so, what should he do? not theoretically.you are put in that position. you give me something.you entrust me with something. and i say, yes, quite right, you have given me,now whistle for it. what is your responsibility? just walk away?a: no. if there were a meansto recover it, then that would be doneupon the instant.


k: intelligence.a: intelligence would take over. k: therefore that's what i am saying. love is not forgiveness - you follow? -i forgive and walk away. love is intelligence. and intelligence meanssensitivity, to be sensitiveto the situation. and the situation,if you are sensitive, will tell you what to do.


but if you are insensitive, if you are already determinedwhat to do, if you are hurtby what you have done, theninsensitive action takes place. i don't know if i...a: yes, yes, of course. yes, of course. this raises very, veryinteresting questions about what we meanabout conscience. k: yes. a: and the word 'conscience',


it seems to me, has invitedan astonishing amount of... k: ...rubbish. a: ...miscomprehensionof what's going on. k: therefore, sir,one has to investigate what is consciousness.a: yes. k: i don't know if there istime now, but that requires... we'll do it tomorrow, another day:what is consciousness, and what is conscience, and what is the thingwhich tells you to do or not to do? a: consciousness in its relationto relationship


is something that,when we have a chance, i should like to explore with you. i remember years agoin graduate school, being very arrested by comingacross the statement that was made by anamerican thinker - i think montaguewas his name - when he said consciousnesshas been very badly understood, because it has been thought that there is somethingcalled 'sciousness'.


but there is no suchthing as 'sciousness'. we've got to get the 'con'in there, the together, the relationship.


sex and desire,and without that we have had it. i do hope that next time,when we have the opportunity, in our next conversationwe could explore that. k: we have to discussthis question - living.


Tidak ada komentar:

Posting Komentar

women's sexual desires

announcer: coming up on "marriage today with jimmy & karen"... jimmy: so i start walking across the room and i'm gonna be...