'THE ART OF LISTENING'
A: Mr Krishnamurti, last time we were speaking together, we were going into
beauty, and just as we came to the end of our conversation the question of
seeing and its relation to the transformation of man which is not dependent on
knowledge or time, was something we promised ourselves we would take up next
time we could come together.
K: Sir, what is seeing, and what is listening, and what is learning? I
think the three are related to each other: learning, hearing and seeing. What
is seeing, perceiving? Do we actually see, or do we see through a screen
darkly? A screen of prejudice, a screen of our idiosyncracies, experiences, our
wishes, pleasures, fears, and obviously our images about that which we see and
about ourselves? So we have this screen after screen between us and the object
of perception. So do we ever see the thing at all? Or is it the seeing is
coloured by our knowledge, mechanical, experience, and so on and so on, or our
images which we have about that thing, or the beliefs in which the mind is
conditioned, and therefore prevents the seeing, or the memories which the mind
has cultivated prevents the seeing? So seeing may not take place at all. And is
it possible for the mind not to have these images, conclusions, beliefs,
memories, prejudices, fears, and without having those screens
just to look? I think this becomes very important because when there is a
seeing of the thing which I am talking about, when there is a seeing you can't
help but acting. There is no question of postponement.
A: Or succession.
K: Succession.
A: Or interval.
K: Because when action is based on a belief, a conclusion, an idea, then
that action is time-binding. And that action will inevitably bring conflict and
so on, regrets and all the rest of it. So it becomes very important to find out
what it is to see, to perceive. What it is to hear. Do I ever hear? When one is
married, as a wife or a husband, or a girl or a boy, do I ever hear her or him?
Or I hear her, him, through the image I have built about her or him? Through
the screen of irritations, screen of annoyance, domination, you know all that,
the dreadful things that come in relationship. So do I ever hear directly what
you say, without translating, without transforming it, without twisting it? Do
I ever hear a bird cry, or a child weep, or a man crying in pain? You follow,
sir? Do I ever hear anything?
A: In a conversation we had about a year ago, I was very struck by
something you said which I regard, for myself, personally, immensely valuable.
You said that hearing was doing nothing to stop, or interfere with seeing.
Hearing is doing nothing to stop seeing. That is very remarkable because in
conversation the notion of hearing is regarded an intimately associated with
command. We will say, won't we, now hear me, hear me out. And the person thinks
that they have to lean forward in the sense of do something voluntarily.
K: Quite, quite.
A: It's as though they have to screw themselves up into some sort of
agonized twist here. Not only to please the one who is insisting that they are
not hearing, but to get up some hearing on their own.
K: Quite. So does a human being, Y or X, listen at all? And what takes
place when I do listen? Listen in the sense without any interference, without
any interpretation, conclusion, like and dislike, you know all that takes
place, what happens when I actually listen? Sir, look, we said just now, we
cannot possibly understand what beauty is if we don't understand suffering,
passion. You hear that statement, what does the mind do? It draws a conclusion.
It has formed an idea, verbal idea, hears the words, draws a conclusion, and an
idea. A statement of that kind has become an idea. Then the may says, how am I
to carry out that idea? And that becomes a problem.
A: Yes, of course it does. Because the idea doesn't conform to nature and
other people have other ideas and they want to get theirs embodied. Now we are
up against a clash.
K: Yes. So can I listen to that, can the mind listen to that statement
without any forming an abstraction. Just listen. I neither agree nor disagree,
just actually listen completely to that statement.
A: If I am following you, what you are saying is that were I to listen
adequately, or just let's say listen - because it's not a question of more or
less - I am absolutely listening or I am absolutely not listening.
K: That's right, sir.
A: Yes. I would not have to contrive an answer.
K: No. You are in it.
A: Yes. So like the cat, the action and the seeing are one.
K: Yes.
A: They are one act.
K: That's right.
A: They are one act.
K: That's right. So can I listen to a statement and see the truth of the
statement or the falseness of the statement, not in comparison but in the very
statement that you are making. I don't know if I am making myself clear.
A: Yes, you are making yourself very clear.
K: That is, I listen to the statement: beauty can never exist without
passion, and passion comes from sorrow. I listen to that statement. I don't
abstract an idea from it, or make an idea from it. I just listen. What takes
place? You may be telling the truth, or you may be making a false statement. I
don't know because I am not going to compare.
A: No. You are going to see.
K: I just listen. Which means I am giving my total attention - just listen
to this, sir, you will see what is going to happen - I give my total attention
to what you are saying. Then it doesn't matter what you say, or don't say. You
see this thing?
A: Of course, of course.
K: What is important is my act of listening. And that act of listening has
brought about a miracle of complete freedom from all your statements - whether
true, false, real - my mind is completely attentive. Attention means no border.
The moment I have a border I begin to fight you - agree, disagree. The moment
attention has a frontier then concepts arise. But if I listen to you completely
without a single interference of thought or ideation or mentation, just listen
to that, the miracle has taken place. Which is my total attention absolves me,
my mind, from all the statement. Therefore my mind is extraordinarily free to
act.
A: This has happened for me on this series of our conversations. With each
one of these conversations, since this is being video-taped, one begins when
one is given the sign and we're told when the time has elapsed; and one
ordinarily, in terms of activity of this sort, is thinking about the production
as such.
K: Of course.
A: But one of the things that I have learned is in our conversations, I've
been listening very intensely, and yet I've not had to divide my mind.
K: No, sir, that's the...
A: And yet this is, if I'm responding correctly to what you have been
teaching - well I know you don't like that word, but to what you have been
saying, and I understand why teaching was the wrong word here - there is that
very first encounter that the mind engages itself in.
K: Yes.
A: How can I afford not to make the distinction between paying attention
to the aspects of the programme, on the production aspect of it, and still
engage our discussion?
K: Quite.
A: But the more intensely the discussion is engaged...
K: You can do it.
A: ...the more efficiently all the mechanism is accomplished.
K: Yes.
A: We don't believe that, in the sense that not only to start with we will
not believe but we won't even try it out. There is no guarantee from anybody in
advance. What we are told rather is this, well you get used to it. And yet
performers have stage fright all their lives, so clearly they don't get used to
it.
K: No, sir, it is because, sir, don't you think it is our minds are so
commercial, unless I get a reward from it I won't do a thing. And my mind lives
in the market place - one's mind: I give you this, you give me that.
A: And there's an interval in between.
K: You follow?
A: Right.
K: We are so used to commercialism, both spiritually and physically that
we don't do anything without a reward, without gaining something, without a
purpose. It all must be exchange, not a gift, but exchange: I give you this and
you give me that; I torture myself religiously and God must come to me. It's
all a matter of commerce.
A: Fundamentalists have a phrase that comes to mind with respect to their
devotional life. They say, I am claiming the promises of God. And this phrase
in the context of what you are saying is, my goodness, what that couldn't lead
to in the mind.
K: Oh yes. So you see when one goes very deeply into this: when action is
not based on an idea, formula, belief, then seeing is the doing. Then what is
seeing and hearing, which we went into? Then the seeing is complete attention,
and the doing is in that attention. And the difficulty is people will ask, how
will you maintain that attention?
A: Yes, and they haven't even started.
K: No, how will you maintain it. Which means they are looking for a
reward.
A: Exactly.
K: I practise it, I will do everything to maintain that attention in order
to get something in return. Attention is not a result, attention has no cause.
What has cause has an effect and the effect becomes the cause. It's a circle.
But attention isn't that. Attention doesn't give you a reward. Attention, on
the contrary, there is no reward or punishment because it has no frontier.
A: Yes, this calls up an earlier conversation we had when you mentioned
the word virtue, and we explored it in relation to power.
K: Yes, exactly.
A: And we are told what is difficult for a thinking child to believe,
given the way a child is brought up, but he's required somehow to make his way
through it, that virtue is its own reward.
K: Oh, that.
A: And, of course, it is impossible to see what is sound about that
under...
K: Yes, quite.
A: ...under the conditioned situation in which he lives.
K: That's just an idea, sir.
A: So now we cut that back and then later when we need to remind somebody
that they are asking too much of a reward for something good that they did, we
tell them, have you forgotten that virtue is its own reward. Yes, yes. It
becomes a form of puni
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.
