When I have dropped my individuality I haven’t lost my arm, I haven’t lost my face, but the quality of separateness has come to an end. That has come to an end through immediate perception. And that perception and immediate action brings about a quality of intelligence, which is not thought.
A quality of intelligence that is not the product of environment, education, all the rest of it, but it is intelligence that has the quality of compassion, love, and the enormous responsibility involved in that compassion. Responsibility. PW: I think responsibility does introduce difficulties because it invloves the idea of one individual having a.
. . K: No, no!
The feeling of being responsible, not for one individual, or for a group or for some idea or some cause, but the feeling of total responsibility. Otherwise I wouldn’t talk here. I wouldn’t open my mouth, if there was not the feeling of immense responsibility, not to a cause, to some divine purpose, all that nonsense.
PW: An intense involvement. K: Not quite – I am not involved. Again that is a dangerous word.
Wait. So, intelligence has taken place when there was an insight into the individual, and his organisation – there is intelligence. Now, that intelligence is love, compassion.
Without intelligence there is no love, no compassion, they all go together. Now, what is the action of that intelligence – that’s right – what is the action of that intelligence when surrounded by a million people who are not – forgive me – intelligent, in that sense. They are all clever, they all have super knowledge, they have got immense power, position, prestige, all that.
What is the responsibility of that intelligence and its action? Q: It can only be love. K: No, I have said that, madame.
Without intelligence there is no love. The individuality says, ‘I love you’ and it is full of jealousies, anxieties, ugliness, and that is not intelligence. So what is the action of that intelligence surrounded by people who are completely indifferent?
IP: Is there any action, Krishnaji? Surely it just is. K: Therefore what does that mean?
Go into it. That is what I am coming to. If you are that in a world.
. . what will you do, what is your movement?
Q: If you are not separate from the world, then the world need must be the trigger to. . .
K: Sir, you are the world, just now, and ‘X’ happens to have this intelligence, compassion, really I mean it, he has got it in his blood – and feels utterly responsible for everything that is happening, responsible without guilt, without cause, the feeling of. . .
you love somebody. . .
no. When there is love, you care! There is care, there is attention, there is everything involved in it, which is – if I can use the word ‘responsible’, that is implied in that.
You are the world. What is this ‘X’ to do with you? JMM: You have just replied there.
You have just given the reply: care. Q: He is saying that you care is the answer to what you are asking. K: No, you are missing something.
I have to go through it. It's hot, isn’t it? You are the world, you, and the ‘X’ here sitting in this chair says, ‘What is my responsibility towards you?
’ He cares, he has love, compassion and intelligence, those three go together absolutely. And you won’t even listen, you won’t even care. Then what is he to do?
He feels responsible, you understand, sir? Q: Doesn’t he somehow touch. .
. K: Don’t you feel responsible, don’t you feel all this? Q: What is this person to do, what is he to do?
K: I am asking you, sir. Q: I have no idea, I am not that person. K: Why aren’t you?
Q: I would like to be. . .
K: Because you haven’t given time, you haven’t given your energy, you haven’t listened. Q: That is perhaps the case. K: Therefore you are like the rest of them, so what will you do with ‘X’, sitting in this chair, throw mud at him?
You will, of course. Q: I am not. K: Of course you are throwing mud at him, obviously, because you don’t care!
You don’t face facts. Now, ‘X’ says, am I talking to you at the conscious level? You understand my question?
Please follow this, sir. You go to a class, physics or learning a new language, there, you are learning, listening at the conscious level to acquire a new language, learn all about science, physics or mathematics, it is all at the conscious level. Right, sir?
Now are we talking to each other at the conscious level? Q: No sir. K: Before you answer ‘No sir’, find out.
Q: That was the problem before with the wife, wasn’t it? The problem before with the wife. K: I wasn’t talking about.
. . I left my wife long ago.
Sorry, poor lady – I haven’t got a wife, so anyhow. So I am asking a different question, totally different question. When the speaker is talking, is he communicating at the conscious level, as when you go to a school or to a college, university, you are learning various subjects which are at the conscious level, mathematics, history, whatever it is.
So that conscious level has acquired knowledge. Knowledge can never be complete, therefore knowledge always goes with ignorance. I wonder if the scientists will agree.
PW: Yes, but there is also a lot of unconscious conditioning during the learning of science. K: Yes, I am coming to that. So are we merely listening at the conscious level, or partly at the deeper level – partly?
You understand my question? Which is it we are doing? Or is there a listening with all your consciousness – the part, the deeper, and the superficial, the whole of it listening?
You understand my question? AM: This is the problem because to have this kind of listening it seems that we have to have left our personality already. K: No, just to listen, sir.
I am not talking of leaving your wife, husband, daughters, etc. , individuality – nothing. I have moved away from that for the moment.
We are asking each other, are we listening with the hearing of the ears, or listening with all your consciousness, with all your being, so that there is no part of you asleep, there is no part of you withholding – just listening? Now, if you so listened, that listening is complete attention, isn’t it? Complete attention.
Professor Wilkins says something to me, and I am listening entirely, there are no barriers, there is no effort, there is no sense of ‘Why, what do you mean by it? ’, none of that – I am just listening to everything that he has said. That is, I have given complete attention, right?
Now, in that attention there is no ‘me’. I wonder if you see. There is no centre from which I am listening.
Do you understand what I am saying? Explaining, rather. So, if one listens in the same way, without the ‘me’, to the nature of the individual, the nature of his activities and his organisations, then there is no problem, you have got it, because you are listening entirely without the centre.
Q: Action without will. K: No, I am not talking about action without will. I am just listening.
Now in the same way, can I listen to something that I have not even thought about, that isn’t even anywhere near my consciousness, which is, is there an action without the actor, without the self-centred entity who has always acted, acted, acted?
