Madras, India. Group Discussion 11th December, 1947
We were talking about evil in relation to the problem of duality and the conflict of the opposites, i.e. about what is going on in the world - left against the right, the believer against the non-believer, the communist against the capitalist, labour against capital, arrogance against humility, good against evil, etc. Now, is there such a thing as the opposites?Someone of you said that good is that which gives the greatest happiness to the largest number of people. Is this so? The fighting men are extraordinarily delighted and happy if there is war. They are relieved of their responsibilities and they are told what to do. The greatest number of people like to believe in some kind of superstition, whether it is the superstition of nationality, or of race, superstition of a scientific man, or religious superstition. So, can we say good is what gives happiness to the most? Obviously not, nor what is harmful to the most is evil.
Is that the way of discovering the truth of anything, bringing in the utilitarian point of view? Is it not the correct way to view the thing as it is, and not be confused by its effect or action on the many or the one? Can we not think directly instead of bringing in its action, whether it is beneficial for the many or for the few? After all, the State decides what is good for the people, whether the right or the left, passes certain regulations and laws and says that he who obeys them is the good, and the person who is disobeying it is the evil.
Now, can you be called good when you are kind, merciful and generous spontaneously? Why do we name it? If a good action is said to be an example for others to follow, is it good? It ceases to be mercy when somebody imitates mercy. Why do we create these words, good and evil?
Let us consider the left and the right. Is the left different from the right? The left is the idea that sensory values are the only values worth cultivating, giving happiness to man; and that, therefore, man through the control of environment can be shaped according to the edicts of society and the State; in that control there should be no values except the sensory values. The Socialist, the Fascist and the Communist believe in that; to them the individual is not at all important, because he is merely the result of sensate values, to be controlled and shaped, or to be transformed and moulded, according to the desire of the State or what the State wants.
Then, there is the so-called opposite to it, the right - the absolutest as opposed to the materialist - he has only an absolute value which is God, in which is involved the priest, the Church, the organisation. The capitalists who believe in the absolute value of God are sacrificing the individuals through exploitation, ruthless murderous exploitation, corruption and competition; during a crisis, like a war, they too adopt the same attitude towards the individual as the communist.
Similarly, the man who believes in the Church and who wants to spread religion as a means of salvation, believes in the good end and says "let us make this world as ruthlessly efficient as possible" and fights the man who is against the Church.
But are they - the Communist and the Capitalist, or the Materialist and the Absolutist - the opposites? Is there the dual, the sensory and the non-sensory, as two in opposite? This is a problem confronting the people all over the world, the religious person who wants to spread religion and the other wanting to spread his external, materialistic, dialectic conclusions.
We are trying to find out whether the left is an opposite to the right, or is merely the extension of the right.
After all, without understanding the centre, the left or the right are the same. It is only when one understands the centre which is the individual from which the left and the right come into being, there can be true revolution, not revolution to the left or to the right. but, as long as you are thinking in terms of the left or the right, you cannot understand the centre.
The problem now is not whether the left is right or the right is wrong, but whether opposites exist, i.e. the problem of thesis and antithesis, "this" opposed to "that". Is there such a problem, the capitalist opposed to the communist, the communist opposed to the religious, that which is in contradiction to that which is not?
You are this and you want to be that; you are ignorant and you want to be enlightened; you are arrogant and you want to be humble. Or you are ambitious and ruthless, and you carry on. Thus your whole existence is a conflict of opposites. All your religious books and edicts are based on 'You are this and you must become that.' Are you satisfied with this struggle of opposites? The clerk becoming the manager and the manager becoming the executive, is our whole everyday struggle. Should you not question it to find out the reason for this conflict, this ceaseless battle till you die and to be still wanting to continue after death?
The conflict of the opposites exists in all the different layers of our existence - social, economic, political, inward, psychological, spiritual and so on. This is a constant battle between 'what you are' and 'what you would like to become'. As an example covering the whole of life - i.e. the Clerk becoming the Manager, the Priest becoming the Bishop, the Collector becoming the Governor, the ignorant becoming the enlightened, evil becoming the good and so on - let us consider 'arrogance'. I am arrogant and I spend my energy in becoming humble, adopting meditations, beliefs and ceremonies as helps to keep me on in this conflict of 'becoming' the opposite of 'what I am'. I have accepted this process of 'becoming' as the way of life, thoughtlessly and without any investigation, thinking it to be inevitable because all the religious people have told me like that. Is that the way to live? In order to understand the truth about this, I should not accept any contradiction, though I am caught in contradiction; but I must put it aside.
Someone says that, in order to bring abut peace, you must go to war, if necessary, with the anti-social people. He believes, therefore, that war is a means to peace. In order to fight the communist or the capitalist, you must be as clever as he and should employ all his methods, his ways, his propaganda, and his ways of telling lies, i.e. you have to become himself. England has fought for years for the freedom of labour and now directs it. Our whole existence is this, fighting evil by evil means, but saying, 'Well, I am not evil,' as though we are extraordinarily righteous. Wrong means will surely produce a wrong end.
In our everyday life, we have thoughtlessly accepted as inevitable this struggle of opposites - I am this and I want to become that - without knowing the whole significance of 'what I am'; so, the end also is bound to be thoughtless.
It is thoughtless on the part of an arrogant man to struggle to become humble; he will never become humble. What does 'to become' mean? 'I am this' and 'I want to become that.' 'I am arrogant' is a fact and I know it. But 'humility' I do not know; it is an objective which I would like to be. Humility, therefore, is not the actual; but the ideal. That is one part of the problem. The other part of the problem is the idea of becoming.
Is there a becoming at all? I know the acorn becomes the oak; this is not a becoming; it is what it is all the time and it has its own becoming. There is no becoming of an acorn into the rose or the pine tree. If you can understand the problem of becoming, then perhaps you will discover the truth about duality.
You are 'A', and you want to become 'B'. Now, what is 'B'? Is it not a negative response to what is 'A'? You are arrogant and the negative response is humility and you must become that. That is, you are arrogant; and negatively you are going to become that which is humble. You find arrogance not so pleasurable as you thought it was, because there is pain involved and arrogance does not pay you; perhaps becoming humble will pay you. Thus, 'becoming' implies a profit motive.
You say that you, being arrogant, want to become humble because then only can you get to God. This means that you want a result which is more beneficial, less harmful, and happier than arrogance. The real motive for a 'becoming' is for a profit, not only physiologically, but psychologically. You are 'arrogant,' the 'A'; and you want to get away from that. You begin to say that arrogance does not pay and therefore you create humility, the 'B'; you try to become that which is non-existent, as 'B' is non-existent but theoretical and ideological. You have created the opposite 'B' which is non-existent and yet you are trying to become that. 'A' alone, arrogance, is existent. Because it is not profitable you want to become the opposite which is humility. When you examine the opposite and you see what is involved in it, you see that you have created it as a negative response. Therefore, in creating the opposite,the opposite has the seed of arrogance. 'B' has the seed of 'A' because 'B' has been brought into being through 'A'. It is only an ideological thing which is to be got and it is not existent apart from A. So, you have found out that the conflict between 'A' and 'B' is fallacious and does not lead you anywhere.
As another illustration of this conflict of opposites, let us take 'fear' and 'bravery'. You are afraid and you want to become brave, because fear does not pay in the world and everybody says you must be brave; which means, you want to become brave because you are afraid. The motive is still fear. Though you have taken the cloak of bravery, there is still fear. The intention in becoming brave is still fear. Therefore, bravery, as the opposite of fear, has the seed of fear.
Similarly about anger. We are not discussing how to get rid of anger. First, we must know what we are doing before we get rid of anger. You are angry and what is your response? You said to another something sharp and you regret; and you say 'I wish I did not get angry'. Again, you are angry and again you say "Awful, what is the matter?" and you create the opposite which is non-anger, because anger is very disturbing. If you can understand the conflict of the opposites, you may be able to deal with anger quite differently.
You are in a state which is very disturbing and you do not like that state. You like the state which is quite peaceful and more profitable. Therefore, you are moving from 'what you are' to 'what you want to be' as the opposite of 'what you are', with a motive for profit. The opposite is created on account of your desire for profit or benefit, for a result; it is non-existent. Therefore, the fight between the so-called opposites is between 'what is' and 'what is not'. How can there be a fight between one which is existent and some- thing which in non-existent apart from it? It is only on the verbal level. Therefore, the fight is an illusion, a stupid and thoughtless action.
Conflict between the opposites - whether it is the left or the right, between capital and labour, between God and Devil, is non-existent: because, there is only one thing, 'what is': and any movement away from 'what is' is stupidity. Therefore, the conflict has no significance.
To understand the disturbing state in which you find yourself, you must first stop the fighting with the opposite which is non-existent, i.e. you must give up the struggle to become the opposite. Do not condemn that state nor identify yourself with it. Then, watch it with your whole being and be aware of it.
Whenever we have a feeling, we generally name it so that we may recognise it and also communicate it, if necessary, to others. Investigation into and understanding of the feeling itself, which is changing and in movement, demands freedom from terminology, as the term is not the thing that it is supposed to denote.
If a feeling is investigated through a term, the term becomes important and not the feeling. When communicated to another, that other interprets the term or the word according to his own feeling. Thus, the term influences, modifies, and shapes the feeling. For the same reasons, the word 'God' is not 'God' and yet it has become an extraordinarily important word. We shall discuss further this question of terminology in relation to feelings, at our next meeting.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 12th December, 1947
The purpose you have in view in naming a feeling or applying a term to it, is (i) to convey that feeling to others and (ii) to place it or to pin it up and to recognize it.When applied to objective things, the words are quite apart from the things and you don't interpret those things through the words as you can contact those things directly. In the case of feelings and thoughts, their effect on the body of the person concerned can be seen and felt by others. In order however to convey those feelings to others, the person concerned has to use the words to denote them. When a feeling arises, he names it in order to evaluate according to the frame of references already established in his memory; he thus absorbs it into himself and strengthens the memory, the 'me'. Therefore the naming of a feeling converts it to 'Time', - i.e. continuance - and leads either to the condemnation of a painful feeling or to the identification with a pleasurable feeling. If the feeling is not named, it is not absorbed, therefore it runs its course and then ceases without in any way strengthened the 'me'.
In actual life, we always name the pleasurable feelings thus giving them continuance, and we always avoid painful feelings. A man seeking God by avoiding sensate values in still pursuing sensate values, i.e. pleasure on a higher level - just like a drunkard who seeks pleasure in a crude manner and on a lower level. By avoiding painful feelings and pursuing pleasurable feelings he wreaks havoc to society and causes a great deal of harm to others. Similarly, the man who seeks pleasure only in ideation, also causes great mischief to others.
You have to understand the implications of this and seriously experiment with yourself by not naming the feelings as they arise in you.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 13th December, 1947
Before we begin with our discussion where we left off, it is very important to bear in mind why we meet as, otherwise, these discussions will deteriorate into mere intellection without any significance. I think one should distinguish between hearing inside oneself and listening. Listening is surely something outside. Hearing is much more subjective. Let us hear each other rather than listen to each other. These discussions are really meant to reveal the way of our own thinking, feeling and acting. Right thinking begins only in discovering what is exactly taking place in each one of us - the illusions, the vicious motives, the intentions; being aware of all these leads to right thinking - i.e., through self-knowledge only can right thinking come into being and not through any book, not through any listening to a talk but by being aware of every movement of thought and feeling in ourselves.We were discussing, when we last met, about the problem of duality, whether this conflict was inevitable - this conflict between ignorance and knowledge, between arrogance and humility, anger and peace, capitalism and communism, the left and the right, and so on. This conflict between the opposites has apparently been accepted by us as an inevitable fact in our life.
Is life meant to be a series of conflicts in the corridor of opposites or is our approach to the problem of the opposites wrong? If the opposites are inevitable, then the end of life is also a battle because an opposite always creates its opposite. I am something and I want to become something else. I am arrogant and I strive to become humble; I am violent, and I want to become non-violent; I am greedy and I strive to become non-greedy. That is what we have been doing in our meditations and in our daily existence.
Now, is the opposite a fact? Does the opposite exist apart from its opposite, as humility, as non-greed, as non-violence and so on? Is not every opposite a reaction to and result of its own opposite? As humility is a result of arrogance, humility contains the germ of arrogance. You find arrogance is not profitable and is a disturbing factor; and you have been told that arrogance is taboo socially, morally, and religiously; and therefore you strive to become humble which is more profitable. So your motive is still the desire to gain, the desire to become something. So humility contains the seed of arrogance.
Now, the fact is that arrogance is existent, but the 'being non-arrogant or humble' is not a fact. Humility is existent only in theory but actually is not. The 'A' being arrogance creates 'B' which is humility; but the 'B' in itself is non-existent apart from 'A'. 'B' cannot exist apart from 'A'. So the conflict to become 'B' is illusory and fallacious. If you recognise the conflict to be non-essential and false, then the conflict ceases.
If good is the opposite of bad, goodness contains the bad because goodness is the result of its opposite, the bad. I am bad and I want to become good. The becoming good is the outcome of being bad. Therefore, it is still bad though I call it good. I accept this becoming good as long as it is profitable, as long as there is no suffering in it. The moment I suffer and the moment I realise that being bad is forbidden socially and religiously, then I try to become good. So, behind that becoming there is still the motive to gain a more profitable quality. Therefore, the good, which is the opposite of bad, is no longer good. If love is the opposite of hate, surely it is not love. If peace is the opposite of violence, then it is no longer peace because my trying to become peaceful is due to my finding that violence does not pay any more; the motive is still the same. If love is the opposite of hate, then it is the result of hate. Therefore, the conflict between the opposites is really a fallacious conflict; though we indulge in that, it does not lead us anywhere. If this is realised and understood, the conflict ceases.
Why do we name any quality? Perhaps, if we do not name it or term it, it may have a different significance. A quality arises in me, which I term as arrogance; and I either approve of it or condemn it. If I do not term it and if I do not specify the quality, what would happen?
Is the feeling different from the term, or does the term give significance to the feeling? That is, is the feeling apart from the term, or do I look at the feeling through the term?
The word is not the thing. the word 'God' is not God, and therefore the term is independent of God though you may call it God. The term has nothing to do with Reality. If the feeling and the term are two separate things, then in observing the term and understanding the process of how the term comes into being, perhaps we shall not confuse it with the feeling; then the feeling will have a different meaning, a different significance.
You have accepted the term God as God through temples, priests and sacred books; and so they have become important to you. If somebody says that what you have accepted for years as God is not God, it gives you a shock, the shock being the nervous response, a sense of nervous apprehension. But when you see that the term is not the thing, you are free of the shock. If you understand and realise that the term God is not God it has an extraordinary nervous and verbal response in you; you are free of all the implications of the word God being accepted as God. Then the temples will have no meaning, whether we go to it or do not go, because the term is not the God; therefore we are at once free from all priests, temples, churches and so on. There is no conflict of any going and worshipping in a temple, because the image is not the Real and if you really worship, the image disappears. This can have action only when the response is nervous as well as verbal. But, unfortunately, your understanding is only verbal because if you say the word is not the thing and carry it out, you will have to go into conflict with your family and with society.
The term is not the feeling though it is made to represent the feeling.
Why is a quality or feeling named? The naming is done with a view (i) to convey or communicate the quality to others and (ii) to pin down or to evaluate the quality. In pinning down the new quality, the quality is recognised and evaluated in terms of the old frame of references based on memory. As the feeling itself is in the present and therefore new, whereas the references into which it is fitted by naming it relate to the past,the new is interpreted and modified in terms of the old, thus strengthening memory, i.e. the 'me'. The quality or feeling is thus absorbed into the 'me' and is given continuance in time as memory.
Without memory, there cannot be evaluation. The frame of references is the result of evaluation which is based on memory; so, it is the old. The feeling, when it arises, is new and in the present; when that feeling is termed, it is translated or modified so as to fit it into the old framework of references, memory, thus strengthening memory. So, in giving a term to the feeling, the 'me' is strengthened; and the person concerned feels stronger psychologically; when he says "this is my property", he feels already more powerful.
What would happen to a feeling if you did not judge it by the frame of reference - i.e. if you do not name verbally that feeling or quality? When there is response to a challenge, if you name the response, you give it continuance because it is absorbed into the frame of references. Consciousness in all its different layers is memory, whether it is the memory of the Paramatman or of anything else; and all such memory is the result of your parents and grandparents and so on, or the result of books; consciousness is still in the field of memory, you cannot think of Paramatman without memory.
Now, suppose a reaction arises and you do not name it. Then, you do not absorb it into consciousness, but you are merely aware of it; the feeling and the response or reactions would cease after running their course; the feeling is not judged or evaluated and it is not absorbed into memory.
We are all accustomed to name every reaction and refer it to the frame of references, memory, almost instinctively. But if you experiment with it and refuse to name a feeling when it arises in you, you will see that there is a time-lag, between the feeling and the naming. For instance, if a man treads on your feet, you have the reaction of pain, which is inevitable and cannot be helped; but you do not hit back the man who has trodden on your feet. When you refuse to name it, though the reaction is there, it is not put into the frame of references. The pain has now a different significance. Next time you will be more careful where you put your feet. Thus, by understanding the reaction, you would be observant and alert and be aware of what is actually taking place without the framework of references. This is intelligence.
We have now discovered that we are always fighting reactions without understanding their significance; and if we do not name them, i.e. if we do not refer them to the framework of references, they wither away. This happens whether the qualities are pleasurable or painful.
Generally you accept the pleasurable and deny the non-pleasurable. When you deny the non-pleasurable, you are really strengthening yourself. The man who says he is seeking spiritual things, God, is also denying and pursuing the pleasurable.
There is very little difference between him and the ordinary man who is seeking pleasure. They are both seeking pleasure though in different planes of consciousness; the one seeks gratification through God and the other seeks pleasure through drink.
At present there is an increase, all over the world, in sensate values - more theatres, more cinemas, more drinks, more clothes, more and more. The so-called spiritual man, seeing this, says 'I do not like it', and follows his ideation; that is, he denies the sensate and goes after the ideation, as the ideation gives him pleasure. Thus, the spiritual man is also following the pleasurable, like the man of the sensate.
The man who is pursuing sensate values is destroying the world; he is saying that there is nothing more than the sensate and therefore is indulging in the sensate in the most irresponsible manner regardless of the consequences on others. This has been shown over and over again by wars after wars. We say that such a man is a stupid man, materialistic, communistic and so on; and we try to get rid of him and to pursue our ideations.
The man of the sensate and the man of the ideational are meeting at the same point, both their values are based on the senses, though the man who says he is following the ideation may do less harm in society. Obviously the sensate man does harm to the society; and the man of ideation is also creating harm, only on a different level because he has confused the term with Reality and the term becomes very important - your God and my God, your ceremonies and my ceremonies, or I am Brahmin and you are an Untouchable, which are the results of ideation.
So, just as the sensate man creates havoc in the world, the man of ideation with a framework of references also creates mischief; in fact, the latter does more harm. We can deal with a sensate man, because he is pursuing his pleasure through things; most of such men are poor and have very little means. The man who is pursuing ideation is much more dangerous, as he is pursuing pleasure through his ideas and as ideas divide man more than things. The Left and the Right are pursuing ideas and not things. If they were pursuing things, they would give us things.
Because the ideational man is pursuing the idea, he creates division between belief and belief, man and man; if he really gives his concern to men and to things, he would organize society on a different basis; there would not be your belief as something superior to mine. But he would not do that because his ideas are more important. The system becomes more important than distribution and there is wrangling. It is not the things that are dividing man, but ideas. If that is understood, life would become very simple.
There is scientific skill in the world to produce things for everybody. There is knowledge at the disposal of man to produce enough food, clothing and shelter; but the ideas of nationalities such as the Americans, the English, the Germans, the Russians and so on, are preventing man from making it effective. Therefore there is this mess and misery in the world.
If I say "I will begin to understand the sensate", I can proceed step by step into the deeper things. Then, I can find out whether there is Reality or not. But to assume Reality is an idea which leads to illusion.
Just as the word, 'God' is not God, so the term for a feeling is not the feeling. When we do not put a feeling in the framework of references, the feeling comes to an end, withers away. When we do not term our feelings at all, both the painful feelings as well as the pleasurable feelings, the mind will be still and there would be no reference to the framework of memory and the feelings wither away.
Thus, the conflict of duality exists only when there is the naming of the feelings, and if we do not term the feelings, there is freedom from the conflict. What is then important for you is to find out, in our daily life, the truth of this, and then you will be content with a more peaceful and serene and intelligent life. When you come to that point you can find out the significance of life, what it really means to love, and not its dictionary meaning, not a philosophical meaning for you to follow. When we come to that point, we can talk of other subjects like dreams, whether the Communist is right or the Rightist is right, and so on.
The understanding of Truth gives freedom and therefore happiness.
Madras, India. Public Talk 14th December, 1947
It is always difficult to communicate because the verbal expression and understanding are on different levels, are they not? We listen to words but the understanding comes only when we hear within ourselves what is being said. So, I think there is a difference between listening and hearing. Those of us who are accustomed to listening, really hardly ever understand because our understanding then is merely verbal, on the verbal level. But hearing I think is different. Hearing is more subjective, not as an opposite but in itself. Hearing is more what is taking place, you are hearing what is taking place in yourself rather than listening to some one outside. So, as I have been suggesting in all these talks and discussions, it would be a waste of time if you merely listen to words and do not hear in yourself their significance, it would be gathering from outside rather than hearing your own process of thinking and feeling.As I have said over and over again, communication can only exist, on the same level, at the same time. If you are merely listening to the words of someone else and not to their different significance and meaning, then the words become a barrier. And communion between you and me can exist only when there is pliability, a pliability of mind and heart which is love, which is affection. After all when two people love, not merely seek gratification in each other, but really love, there is communion, instantaneous, on the same level and at the same time. And that is the beauty of love when there is instantaneous comprehension in words. I feel that real understanding comes only when there is such communion between people, between you and myself, not in you listening to a talk or in my giving a talk, which as a matter of fact I am not, for I am just thinking aloud with you, and therefore I am not teaching you and you are not my pupil, but we both think aloud together so that we both might comprehend the extraordinary significance of living and suffering. So, I am not giving a discourse nor are you listening to one, but as we are trying together to find out what is true, it requires a different kind of understanding rather than merely listening to words. It demands a certain letting down of verbal barriers, a certain freedom from our usual, everyday prejudices, because we must go beyond. But, if we can, at least temporarily, put away our screen, our prejudices, our frame of references, our demands and feelings as though we were really enjoying, hearing things which we really love, which we want to inquire about and discover, then perhaps we will be able to go beyond the verbal level and therefore bring understanding into our daily life and action. If we do not do this I do not see the point of listening to any talk. If there is no integration between thinking, feeling and action, we cease to be really intelligent human beings. We merely live in compartments and compartmental living is really very destructive and distracting and that is what has happened in the world, and what is happening at the present time. We have developed the intellect so abnormally that we have lost all sense of proportion and sensitivity to existence.
As I have been taking different subjects at different talks, I want to take this evening briefly and naturally, the problem of suffering. Happiness is not the denial of sorrow, but the understanding of sorrow. Most of us think that suffering will make us intelligent. At least we have been told that through suffering you will awaken understanding and intelligence, that through suffering you store up knowledge, through suffering you acquire comprehension. Whereas, if you examine a little more closely you will find that suffering like pain and conflict really dulls what is and to regard suffering as a means to understanding or intelligence is really fallacious. That is what we have been accustomed to think. Does suffering bring understanding? To find out what actually takes place we must examine, must we not, what happens to us when we suffer? What do we mean by suffering? A sense of disturbance, is it not? An inward, psychological disturbance. I am not for the moment dealing with the outward suffering, diseases and so on, but inward suffering, psychological suffering as when you lose somebody, when you feel frustrated, when your existence has no meaning, when the future becomes all important, or when you regard with yearning the past as more beautiful, more happy than the present, and so on. That implies a contradiction, a dissatisfaction with the present, pain and responsibility, the sense of emptiness, the utter emptiness of relationship which has no meaning except the merely physical, the sense of void that can never be filled.
So, to understand suffering we must not take anything for granted, it seems to me, but really examine what is actually taking place in us when we suffer, what is our natural and instinctive response. Generally is it not to run away from it? To escape through explanations, through beliefs, through theories, through the priest, through the image; we know the various systems of escapes, the radio, the newspaper, the movie, drugs, gurus. We try anything to get away from the constant ache, pain and suffering. Even the very inquiry into the cause of suffering, is that not also an escape? If we examine it with a little care, we know very well what is the cause of suffering. We need not spend hours, days, we need not go to a guru to find out what is the cause of suffering. We know it. I do not think we need to be told what the cause of suffering is; it is obvious, is it not? But what happens when we inquire into the reason for suffering? We are really escaping intellectually into the cause or into the search for the cause. So, what generally happens is that we become very skilful, very clever in our escapes, but suffering continues and this becoming intelligent in escapes is called intelligent living. That is, you progress - it is called progress through the change of objects of escape, but suffering, in some way or other, continues.
So, how is suffering to be understood? Merely to inquire into the cause is stupid, for obviously we know what it is; our everyday stupid existence, our prejudices, our greeds, our pettiness, our desire to continue. So, it is merely information and it is of no significance when we begin to understand what suffering is. You do not have to run away from it. The more you are familiar with it, the more you are acquainted with it, the more you love it, the more you invite it, talk with it, sleep with it, the more it gives off its perfume, its significance. But the moment you run away from it, whether through your intellect or through superstition, science or romance, suffering continues.
So, suffering is really to be understood and not overcome, because any form of overcoming can be conquered again; suffering can only be understood through self-knowledge, which is right thinking. And right thinking is not possible when you condemn suffering or become identified, push away, that with which you identify, you accept, but to understand suffering you have to live with it, take it as it is. You do not deny beauty, but you accept it. Similarly if we deny suffering we also deny beauty, happiness; because happiness is not the opposite of suffering and beauty is not the denial of the ugly. When you deny the one you deny the other. Only right thinking which comes through awareness of every day feeling and action, can dissolve the cause that brings about pain and suffering.
Question: I heard your last Sunday talk about duality and the pain of it, but as you did not explain how to overcome the opposite, will you please go further into it?
Krishnamurti: Let us go into it very delicately. Let us find out its enormous significance. We know the conflict of the opposites. We are caught in that long corridor of pain, always overcoming the one and trying to become the other. That is our existence. I am this and I want to become that; I am not this and I would like to be that; that is the constant struggle of everyone; of the bank-clerk, the manager, the seeker after truth. Our everyday struggle in life is based on a constant battle of becoming, of transforming this into that. So, I needn't go into more details concerning the conflict and the pain of the opposites.
Now, does the opposite exist? We know that what exists is only the actual. But the opposite is only the negative response to what is, is it not? It has no existence apart from `what is.' That is : I am arrogant and that is a fact and the negative response to that is humility and I accept humility as an opposite because I have been told that arrogance is wrong; or I have found it to be painful; or religiously, morally, and ethically it is taboo. So, I want to get rid of arrogance, it no longer pays me to be arrogant. So, I would like to become humble, the opposite. What actually happens is that I am arrogant and I would like to become humble. Humility is an idea, not an actuality. The actual is the arrogance, the other is not, but I would like to become that other. Therefore the desire to become what I am not creates the opposite but the opposite is non-existent, it is only an ideal which I would like to realize. So, it seems to me an utter waste of time to meditate or try in some other way to become the opposite. Love is not the opposite of hate. If it is, it would not be love, because after all, an opposite has within it the seed of its own opposite; as humility is the outcome of arrogance, therefore it has the seed of arrogance. Whereas if we understood the whole significance of arrogance, then its opposite also would cease. What exists is arrogance and if I can understand that, I need not go into the battle of becoming something.
To put it differently, the present is the result of the past and whatever the present is, it must create the future which is its opposite, yet still caught in the net of time. So, if I can understand the whole significance of the present, I see the present as the passage of the past into the future. As long as thought is caught in the conflict of the opposites, it cannot understand what is. If I want to understand what is, I must give my whole attention, my whole being to it and not be distracted by the opposites. The opposite is merely the ideal, that which is not, that which I would like to become. Therefore it is non-existent, it is merely the negative wish of what is.
So, that is one point. The second is: why do we name a feeling? Why do we name a reaction as anger, as jealousy, as envy, as hate, and so on? Why do we term it? Do you term it in order to understand it or do you term it as a means of recognizing it? Is the feeling independent of the term? Or do you understand the feeling through the term? If you understand the feeling through the term, through the word, through the name, then the name becomes important and not the feeling and would it be possible not to name the feeling at all? Would it be possible not to term it but when you do term it, what happens? You bring a framework of references to a living feeling and thereby absorb the living feeling into time, which only strengthens memory, which is the I. And what happens, if you do not name a feeling, give it a term? If you do not give that feeling, that reaction, that response a name, a term, what would happen to that feeling? Does it not come to an end? You try it and you will see what happens. You have a feeling arising or a reaction, a response to a challenge and instinctively you name it, you term it, and then what do you do? The living response is put into a frame of past references which only strengthens your memory and therefore gives continuity to the I. But if you do not give it a name, what would happen? If you experiment you will see the reaction. The feeling soon withers away. Experiment with it and try it out for yourself.
So, any response to a challenge comes to an end when you do not name it and put it in the frame of references. Now we have only learned that a painful reaction can be got rid of that way: don't name it, it will vanish. But, will you do the same thing with pleasurable feelings? That is, if you have a pleasure and if you do not name it, it will also wither away, will it not? It will, if you have experimented with what I have been talking about and discussing in the mornings. So, pleasurable reactions and painful reactions wither away when you do not term them, when they are not absorbed into the framework of references. You will see if you experiment with it that it is a fact.
But, is love also a response, a reaction not to be named and so left to wither? It will wither if it is an opposite of hate, because then it is merely a response to a challenge; but surely it is not a response to a challenge. It is a state of being. It is its own eternity but with most of us it has an opposite. I am brutal and I must cultivate kindliness, I must become merciful, I must become generous. The becoming creates the opposite either positively or negatively. But you cannot try to cultivate love, surely. If you try to cultivate mercy, it being an opposite ceases to be mercy, also mercy contains its own opposite, hate. Love can be known surely only when the sense of becoming which creates the opposite ceases.
So, the problem of duality, which your sacred books have said you must transcend, which all your life you have struggled to transcend but in which you are still caught, seems to me, fallacious. But in the understanding of what the opposite is, duality ceases to exist. Opposite exists only when you try to avoid what is, in order to become something which is not; but in understanding what is, which for instance is arrogance with all its implications, not only at a particular level but through all the layers of one's consciousness - not only the petty official arrogance of a bureaucracy, but the whole arrogance of achievement - in understanding arrogance not as an opposite, because as I have explained, arrogance when it becomes humility, is still arrogance; in understanding arrogance in all its significance and without naming the feeling, you will see it wither away. And as love is not the opposite of hate, you cannot approach it through the process of cultivation or becoming. That process of becoming must entirely cease before love can be.
Question: Gandhiji says in a recent article that religion and nationalism are both equally dear to man and one cannot be bartered away in favour of the other. What do you say?
Krishnamurti: I wonder what you will say. I wonder what is your response to this. Will you question your so-called leaders? Must you not criticize, question, inquire to find out the truth and not merely accept? Will you dare to criticize? Because if you dared you would lose your job, would you not? In this question is implied the acceptance of authority; some one tells and you accept. In acceptance there is blindness and total lack of thought. It does not matter who it is that speaks. If you have lost the critical ability to inquire, to find out, you will never discover what truth is. And that is the tragedy of leaders, political or religious, because you create them, and thus there is mutual exploitation. And in India, as elsewhere, it is extraordinary to watch the growth of leaders, of tyrants, in the name of religion or in the name of politics; and the more power they have the more evil they become.
One of the points we have to bear in mind is, not to accept but to inquire, to find out what truth is; and to find out what truth is you must have an open heart and open mind and not be guided by any teacher or any politician. But you see, that means you have to think for yourself. You have to venture out into the open, uncharted seas; but we would rather be told what to think.
I am not criticizing any individual, I am not talking about any specific leader, but about the whole idea of authority. Surely, Sirs, you cannot create in the bonds of authority. Where there is authority, creation ceases. You may invent mechanical things but creation as reality, ceases, and I think that is one of the curses of this country and other countries. When you have given yourself to somebody, whether it is your priest or a political leader or the man who says he is the Messiah or a messenger of God, you cease to feel, to think and as human beings you are non-existent. Surely that is no solution to our problems, to our catastrophes, to our miseries.
Now, it is said that religion and nationalism are both dear to man and we cannot barter away one in favour of the other. Now, let us find out the truth of this, not by opposing or defending, but really find out the truth of this matter because it is truth that is going to liberate us, give us happiness, not the assertion of any one.
What do you mean by religion? Surely, it is not going to church or going to the temple and worshipping images, reading the sacred books, or belonging to any religious sect or body. Surely that is not religion. Is it? And religion is not belief. Religion implies, does it not, the search for God, for Truth, or whatever name you give it. Therefore if that is so, then organized religions are an impediment because they constrict thought and feeling by their beliefs, by their images made either by the hand or the mind, by their ruthless ceremonies and all the rest of it. So, religion is the search after Reality and not the performance of ceremonies, the reading of sacred books and so on. So, that means that religion as an organized form of belief, ceases to be religion. In the inquiry after Truth, the approach must be negative and not positive because positive action always leads to a positive end which can only be that which you know. And Reality is the unknowable and you cannot imagine it or put it into words. It is the unknown. Therefore any positive approach to the unknown will make the unknown knowable and therefore that is not the Truth. Truth is when the known ceases to be. The Eternal is approached not through time. The Eternal is when time ceases, that is when thought which is the result of time comes to an end. So, religion is not the positive; it is not dogmatic, assertive or convertive; it is not the worship of images.
And what is nationalism? The feeling, is it not, of belonging to a group of people or to a country? When you call yourself a Hindu, a Mussalman or a Christian, what do you do? Does it not give you a sense of well-being, to feel that you are united with something you consider greater than yourself. When I say I am an Indian there is a sense of belonging to a whole group of people, to an ancient land with all the vanity implied in it. Is it not so? I belong to my family and it also gives me a sense of continuity; property, ownership gives me a sense of continuity. The idea gives me a sense of continuity. Therefore through nationalism I continue, the `mine' continues, therefore I identify myself with what is considered the larger, the whole, the country called India. In myself I am empty, shallow, poor, I am nothing; but if I identify myself with something called India, an idea, then I am well placed, I have happiness and through that idea I can be exploited, I can butcher other countries with immunity. That is what has been happening in the world; the Germans fighting the French, Hindus fighting the Muslims and so on, all in the name of nationalism, in the name of country, in the name of God, in the name of Peace. Because I like to be identified with something which I call India, which is really myself enlarged, and when you attack that I am ready to kill you because without it I am not. Therefore I invest in nationalism all my feelings, it takes the place of religion, and that is what is happening now; Gods are disappearing and the States are taking their places. Both are ideas and therefore you have nothing to lose; that you barter one for the other is of very little importance, because you are really, fundamentally seeking continuance through a concept, and whether it is India or God or Germany or something else does not matter as long as you, as an entity, can continue in some form.
So, nationalism like organized religion has brought division between man and man. Through nationalism you can never find brotherhood. If you are a nationalist and try to become brotherly you are living in deceit because you cannot be identified with one and deny the rest. The moment you identify yourself either with a belief or with a country you are the creator of wars. You may speak of brotherhood but you live in a state of suppression, therefore you are causing wars. I do not see much difference between nationalism and organized religion. Both have brought misery to man, both have created division, both have spread destruction, conflict; because through beliefs and through patriotism they separate man from man. Surely, you must go beyond these petty images created by the mind or by the hand, to find Truth, must you not? You must cease to be nationalistic however thrilling it may be, however stimulating and you must cease to belong to any particular religion in order to find Reality, must you not? As both nationalism and organized religion are inventions of the mind, of time, to understand the timeless, you must be free of time. This is extremely difficult in the modern world as the modern world is geared for war, total war, total destruction which nationalism or organized religion render inevitable; therefore a man who desires to find Truth must leave these two behind, for Truth is to be found not in an image made by the hand or by the mind, but when thought ceases; the ending of thought is the ending of time. Truth can only be understood through self - knowledge, and not by following the assertion of any leader.
Question: You have talked of exploitation as being evil. Do you not also exploit?
Krishnamurti: I am glad that you have still the capacity to criticize. It is through that we will find Truth and not by hiding behind the defence of words. Yet, most of us have erected walls of words which it is very difficult to penetrate. I am quite willing to expose myself, and I will, and you can have a great deal of fun.
What do you mean by exploitation? Have you thought about it, I wonder, or merely read about it in books and so are able to repeat to me or to yourself assertions of the left or of the right. What does exploitation mean? Does it not mean using another for your own profit either socially or psychologically? Society, as it is established at present, makes it inevitable, unfortunately, to use others; the shirt which I put on and the kurtha I am wearing are the result of exploitation and how can anyone, in a society which is constructed in this manner, cease to exploit? You understand what I mean by exploitation; using another for your own personal benefit, personal gain, personal achievement. All that I can do is to say to myself that I will have a minimum, and I have decided what my minimum shall be. It is of very little importance to me whether I have much or little. To have much is a bothersome thing, as people who have much will tell you. The limiting of the needs can only come about when the needs are not used for psychological purposes, that is, when I do not use the essentials of life as a means to psychological contentment, or psychological gratification. The use of property as a means of self-aggrandizement, I call exploitation. But exploitation ceases when I use the essentials as essentials and no more; I hope you understand that point.
Exploitation begins when needs become greed, when needs become psychological necessities. The needs which are food, clothing and shelter have very little significance in themselves except to feed one, to clothe one and shelter one. Surely exploitation ceases when the needs do not go over into the psychological field because, after all, when you examine the needs they are food, clothing and shelter and a happy man is not bothered by these, because he has other riches, he has other treasures. The man who has no other treasures, makes the sensate values predominant and this creates such havoc in the world. So, if I may be personal, as I do not use the essentials of life for psychological aggrandizement I am really not exploiting anyone. You may call me an exploiter, but in my heart I know I am not.
The problem of psychological exploitation is much more difficult. Psychologically, we depend on things, on beliefs or on ideas. That is, psychologically, things, relationship and ideas become important as long as things, relationship and ideas fill our psychological emptiness; that is, being inwardly poor, insufficient, fearful, uncertain, we seek security in things, or in relationship, or in ideas. That search for security in things, in beliefs, in ideas is the beginning of real exploitation. We know the result of seeking psychological security in things; it leads to war, to destruction, to such social chaos and degradation as exist in India and elsewhere at the present time. Things have become extraordinarily important to you, because they fill your psychological emptiness. You are the things, take away the things, where are you? So, you must have a bank account, it is your bank account, you are the owner. And in relationship too, what happens? Being psychologically empty you depend on your husband, on your wife, on your friends. So, dependence becomes very important, therefore there is jealousy, fear, possessiveness and all the bother of trying to overcome possessiveness. Similarly when you are inwardly empty, ideas and beliefs become extraordinarily important, the leader, the messenger, the saviour become important.
So, exploitation begins fundamentally, deeply, profoundly, only when you, the individual, the society, have that painful, psychological emptiness of which we are aware sometimes, but which generally is very carefully concealed. Such exploitation, psychological exploitation is far worse, because then the name matters, because then things matter, ideas matter, the thought as knowledge matters. Surely through knowledge you cannot find the Real. Only when knowledge ceases the Real is, for knowledge is merely the product of thought and thought is the result of time and that which is the product of time can never find the timeless. So, things, names and ideas become extraordinarily significant when through them you are expanding. And that expansive process is the beginning of real exploitation. You cease to exploit when you recognize the significance of property for what it is, for what it gives you, which is very little. When you see the significance of relationship for what it is and not for the gratification it gives you, and when you see the idea not as self-protection, as security, but as merely an idea, then they have their own significance and very little else because, after all, if in relationship, you seek self-expansion through gratification, relationship ceases, relationship becomes very painful. Relationship is a process of self-revelation, a means of discovering your own way of thinking, of feeling. If you use property as a means of self-expansion, then it leads to chaos, to an utterly sensate existence which is what the world leads at the present time. Trying to solve the problem of existence on its own level brings destruction and the same is true of ideation. When you use knowledge, idea, to gain psychological gratification you set man against man which again produces hatred, envy and misery. So, really exploitation takes place when there is self-expansion whether it is in the name of God or in the name of anything else. Exploitation is not swept away through legislation. You may establish a physically non-exploited world, but it will lead to exploitation on another level where the boss will still be all important. So, exploitation can be understood and really brought to an end only when you understand your own way of thinking, feeling and acting, that is, through self-knowledge you begin to perceive the utter emptiness of your own existence, which is a fact that has been covered over by ideation, by relationship, by things. When you realize that emptiness and do not try to escape from it through any means, then that which is, is transformed.
Question: What is the difference between surrendering to the will of God and what you are saying about the acceptance of what is?
Krishnamurti: Surely there is a vast difference, is there not? Surrendering to the will of God implies that you already know the will of God. You are not surrendering to something you do not know. If you know Reality, you cannot surrender to it. You cease to exist. There is no surrendering to a higher will. If you are surrendering to a higher will then that higher will is the projection of yourself, for the Real cannot be known through the known. It comes into being only when the known ceases to be. The known is a creation of the mind because thought is the result of the known, of the past and thought can only create what it knows and therefore what it knows is not the eternal. That is why when you surrender to the will of God you are surrendering to your own projection; it may be gratifying, comforting, but it is not the Real. To understand what is, demands a different process, perhaps the word process is not right but what I mean is this: to understand what is, is much more difficult, it requires greater intelligence, greater awareness, than merely to accept or give yourself over to an idea. To understand what is does not demand effort and as I pointed out in my earlier talks, effort is a distraction. To understand something, to understand what is, you cannot be distracted, can you? If I want to understand what you are saying, I cannot listen to music, to the noise of people outside, I must give my whole attention to it. So, it is extraordinarily difficult and arduous to be aware of what is, because our very thinking has become a distraction. We do not want to understand what is. We look at what is, through the spectacles of prejudices, of condemnation or of identification, and it is very arduous to remove these spectacles and to look at what is. Surely, what is, is a fact, is the Truth and all else is an escape, is not the Truth, as we said earlier this evening. To understand what is, the conflict of duality must cease, because the negative response of becoming something other than what is, is the denial of the understanding of what is. If I want to understand arrogance, I must not go into the opposite, I must not be distracted by the effort of becoming, or even by the effort of trying to understand what is. If I am arrogant, what happens? If I do not name arrogance, it ceases, which means that in the problem itself is the answer and not away from it. So, it is not a question of accepting what is, you do not accept what is, you do not accept that you are brown, because it is a fact; only when you are trying to become something else you have to accept. The moment you recognize a fact, it ceases to have any significance; but a mind that is trained to think of the past or of the future, trained to run away in multifarious directions, such a mind is incapable of understanding what is. But without understanding what is, surely you cannot find what is Real and without that understanding, life has no significance, life is a constant battle wherein pain and suffering continue. The Real can only be understood by thinking, by understanding what is. It cannot be understood if there is any condemnation or identification; the mind that is always condemning or identifying cannot understand. It can only understand that within which it is caught. The understanding of what is, being aware of what is, reveals extraordinary depths is which is Reality, happiness and joy.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 15th December, 1947
What is thinking? You realise that it is entirely a new question and your memory does not furnish any framework of reference with which you could answer this question. There is, therefore, hesitancy or silence on the part of the mind. To the challenge involved in the question, what is thinking, there is no ready response from you because the question is absolutely new. There is therefore a gap between the challenge and the corresponding response. What is the state of mind during this gap? In this state, the mind does not refer to any framework of reference but at the same time it is extremely alert though passive. Therefore, intelligence comes into being; the state of a 'new' mind facing a new challenge can be known by you, though it cannot be verbalised.Madras, India. Group Discussion 16th December, 1947
I wonder how far you have been experimenting with what we have been discussing, namely, the problem of conflict and effort which brings about duality, the opposite, and the problem of terming a feeling. I wonder what has been the result of it and whether it has any fundamental effect on your daily activities. Do you translate into action anything that you hear or do you just let it pass by?Today, let us try and find out the meaning or the significance of 'not terming a feeling' in relationship, whether with your family, your boss, or your clerk - in your daily life.
Can you live in relationship with another without naming a feeling? Let us suppose that you are really serious in experimenting with this in your relationship, for instance, with your wife. What will this lead to? You are irritated with your wife when she says something which you do not like. You retaliate. A few minutes later, you say to yourself, "Well, what about the discussions I had in regard to 'not naming a feeling'? I will not name the feeling in future." Similar occasions arise again. Then, if you experiment with this earnestly, you will find that the time-interval between the instinctive responses and your thoughtful responses gradually gets less and less, and that, in the end, you do not instinctively respond, but you watch yourself and do not name the feeling that arises in you, with the result that you do not get cross with your wife. You are now calm and quiet whatever your wife may say or do. Your wife will probably get more and more irritated with you on this account; she is not thinking along the same lines as yourself. At this stage you may turn away from sensate values, but your wife may be caught only in sensate values. She feels miserable; she feels thwarted because she does not get the things she wants. She has children; yet she does find love in them and therefore seeks an expression of love in things - car, house and other things of life. You try to talk over matters with her but she refuses to listen to you and becomes firm in her stand for things. What do you do?
A friend advises you to effect a compromise with her by handing over your cheque-book to her. You try this method. She does not want your cheque-book because what she wants is your heart which you are not giving her. You find that compromise is only an intellectual and verbal balance between two people who do not understand each other but who are tied by social conventions, and that, therefore, compromise is slow death.
You get exasperated and begin to talk over the matter with her seriously. She retorts and says to you "I want a car, a house, and a few things of life, because I know you are slipping from me. You have not given me your love. You are now slipping away from me into a realm which I cannot possibly understand and enter. I would like to follow you but I cannot. I have a child to look after. I have no love, if I had love, it would have filled my heart. I have not got that love at all and the love of the child is very little; the child does not know of love and it only clings to me. I have not the love which replenishes and fulfils my life. So, the child, the house and the car have become enormously important to me. I am quite different physically from you because I bear children. I am therefore more conservative and I want security. Emotionally, I am not so concentrated as you are. We have not loved each other and so the child has become all important. When I grow old and the children go away, what shall I be left with? An aching memory, a drudgery kitchen, an ailing husband who does not know what it means to love; and a frustrated life. I am even now feeling frustrated. That is why I am irritable, nervous and anxious. You are going one way and I another way. Where do we meet? We have never met except in bed; now, there is not even that. You sought pleasure with me to further your name, and I became your cook and bearer of children. You are now trying to educate me, which you never did before. You are now more and more alert. So, I have become anxious. You now talk of love and all the rest of it but you have no love for me. You do not understand me at all."
Now, you realise the need for your wife and yourself to understand each other. When you sincerely begin to understand her, you will have consideration and affection for her. You will try to find out all about her, her physical condition and her nervous responses. In understanding her, you will understand her desire for things. With mutual understanding there will be love; and the problem will then cease. Thus you will find that, if you do not term the feelings, the implications are extraordinarily significant in relation to your wife or in relation to society, whether Communist, Capitalist, or something else.
What is your relationship to property or things, if you do not name or give a term to a feeling, whether pleasant or unpleasant? You all own property. You all have titles, B.A., M.A., Judge, Doctor, etc. What will happen to your feeling of ownership -'my' property, 'my' wife, 'my' son, 'my' title - if you adopt this suggestion of 'not naming the feeling' and relate it to daily actions in which there is the feeling of ownership of possession?
If you are not naming a quality or terming a feeling, then the feeling dies away. Similarly, if that quality which we call acquisitiveness is not termed, the acquisitiveness withers away. When you do not name the feeling, then life becomes very simple.
Naming a feeling is giving it continuity whether it is pleasurable or painful. How do you relate it to your property? If you change your name into "Swami something," it means only that name is more important. But, what happens when I drop my name, not literally, but when the content behind the name has completely gone out of it? I am not lost if somebody calls me by another name, but you are; because round the name there is a feeling - the ancestral, Brahmanic, etc., the feeling of property which you are going to leave your son - which is the very thing which you deny verbally, theoretically, when you want not to name a feeling. But you are attached to your name because of the content behind the name or title.
To name a feeling, whether it is pleasurable or painful, is to give it continuity, to give birth to itself repeatedly. If you are serious in the search after Truth, you are bound to drop the naming with regard to property which is bank-account, cheque-book, the stored up money, etc.
Generally you are concerned only with words and not with feelings. If I flatter you, you are pleased and if I insult you, you get annoyed. Should not a wise man be indifferent to flattery and insult?
If I am not a scoundrel and somebody calls me a scoundrel I want to find out, I want to discover whether he is correct. If I am a scoundrel and somebody calls me as such, and if I do not want to be discovered as one, I get annoyed. In other words, this irritation is a process of self-protectiveness. The proper attitude is for me to know in what way you think me a scoundrel.
Similarly, the use of titles is a form of exploitation. Mrs. Smith, if she calls herself Lady Smith, gets better treatment. She finds others snobbish and she wants to exploit their snobbishness by using titles.
How are you to deal with property? Can you give up your property by saying that you are not going to name you property? You say that you will use your property only for your needs and that you will discourage acquisitiveness.
It is a wrong question to ask where to draw the line between needs and acquisitiveness, because you will have always needs. Acquisitiveness creates needs. You can find this out for yourself when you go to a shop.
Then there is the use of property as a means of self-expansion, and the use of an organisation as a means of self-fulfilment. You belong to a certain society, a certain group because that group of people have property, shelter or an idea which is extraordinarily useful to you. So, belonging to an organisation whether it is the Hindu or the Muslim and so on, is for self-expansion. If all these things drop away, you would be happy people; you would not be merely talking about brotherhood, but you would spread kindness and would love others.
Now your love is concentrated in property and, therefore, you have little love for persons. Naming the property, ie identifying and giving continuance to the feeling of acquisitiveness, is one of the problems which is creating terrible havoc in the world. The man who uses a title, who is acquisitive, can never be happy, never be brotherly, though he may talk about brotherhood and happiness. Mere giving up of property or title, outwardly, will not solve the problem; you can give up the content of property or title only when you understand its whole significance. If you do not understand the whole significance, the remnants of acquisitiveness will still remain in the mind. This is really difficult because, psychologically, you are the property. Without it, where are you? The moment you let it go, you feel lost. To let go name, title, and property requires an extraordinary inward richness; it means freedom from outward things; you can let them go only when you have something real in yourself. You do not let them go for the simple reason that the property is you, the title is you, the name is you; this means the sensory things are you. The moment you do not identify your name, do not give a name to that feeling of being lost or being nobody, it comes to an end. Then the property will drop away and you will not care two pins.
So, the emphasis is not on property - which the Communist, the Socialist, or the Capitalist is emphasising - but it is on the significance property has for you. When you have inward riches, property does not matter; and there can only be inward riches when you do not name the feeling; through that door you find the imperishable. The man who is talking about the imperishable and is naming his feelings is a hypocrite.
It is only when you do not name your property, acquisitiveness will cease to be. Then, you will know the difference between the needs and acquisitiveness. You need food, clothing and shelter. But, when you seek psychological satisfaction through property, name or title, they are no longer needs but become potent factors in making you more and more ruthless in acquisitiveness.
From this, you will see that only when you would understand the whole significance of not naming feelings in relation to title, property and relationship with others, and when you do not name such feelings in your daily life, there will be a rich transformation within yourself whereby you will bring about a creative society.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 17th December, 1947
Let us consider the truth or the inner significance of falling in love in relation to the understanding of what thinking is in the light of our previous action.When you fall in love with a woman, it is a new experience to you. To understand the truth of it you must think rightly. First you realise how all frameworks of references imposed upon you by society (you are old, you are poor, etc), by your relations and by your friends are all hindrances; when you understand them as such, those hindrances fall away. You are free now. When the frameworks from outside of you fall away, intelligence has begun to operate. You want, however, to be sure that it is whole intelligence and not partial intelligence. When you analyse your state carefully and deeply, you find that your mind dwells upon a past occasion when you saw your love and that your mind also looks forward with the hope of meeting her at a future date - because both of these give sensuous pleasure. All memory, personal experience, gives sensuous pleasure. So you find that while you are in love, there is 'self-forgetfulness' or complete giving over of yourself to another; and also there is a continuity of the self which seeks sensuous pleasure in the past or in the future. This means that self-forgetfulness which implies the giving away even of your life for your love, is in operation with its contradiction namely 'clinging to self'. This is really an indication of lack of intelligence.
When you think over this, you realise that society in condemning your state is hindering you at every stage in your search for Truth; you are mis-informed and forced to adopt frameworks ever since your childhood, and none can help you to find Truth. You then realise that you are alone and you have to be alone if you seek Truth. In the history of the world every seeker after Truth has found himself alone as explained above. This has been mistaken as a need to run away from the world in order to seek God, Truth.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 18th December, 1947
On the last occasion, we found that the conflict of the opposites is really fallacious, because the opposite is the non-existent, which has been created from 'what is'; and that the becoming into something other than 'what is' is the oppo- site; we also discussed the whole significance of terming a feeling, the reaction to a challenge, and that from that naming there are a series of reactions and in these reactions we get lost. So, the becoming is the conflict. Then the naming of the feeling is perhaps wrong because the feeling is new but it is put in the framework of references, thereby interpreting the new feeling through the framework of old references and therefore misinterpreting the feeling. If I had not termed it perhaps I would have a different reaction to the feeling, and the feeling may then subside. A feeling which is termed, whether unpleasant or pleasant, can come to an end if you do not name it, then you will see that it withers away. But, is love a feeling which, when not named, will come to an end? We have discussed further about terming a feeling and what effect it has in our daily life. We also discussed about property and what happens if we do not name it.(Then the discussion went back to the question of belief, ceremonies, etc., which had already been discussed in detail, as these questions were brought up again by someone present.)
Madras, India. Group Discussion 19th December, 1947
In your search to understand the inner significance of falling in love, you came to the point when you knew that you were in love and that your mind was wandering backwards and forwards - to the past and to the future - seeking pleasure in thinking of the past actions when you met the object of your love, or of the future when you would next meet her. At this stage, most of you want to get a result or condemn the sensuous pleasure which you get out of the memory of your company with your object of love. You have to understand the truth of this.All existence is sensory. Pleasure and pain are also sensory. If you exclude any pleasure you must exclude all. If you exclude all, you will cease to live. Therefore, you realise that in life there are three important inescapable principles, Love, Pleasure and Pain of which pleasure and pain are sensory.
We have to understand the significance of pleasure and pain. We generally deny pain and pursue pleasure. Our daily life is one continual pursuing and denying. The 'I' is the result of this pursuing and denying, and it is therefore a contradiction. That which is in contradiction, cannot understand Truth. You, therefore, realise that you who are in contradiction, cannot understand the truth of these three principles. When you realise this, you are against a blank wall. At this stage, what happens to your seeking pleasure in a memory of your object of love back to the past or forward to the future?
Madras, India. Group Discussion 20th December, 1947
You have suggested that, today, we should discuss together the practical steps to be taken by us in our daily life to give expression to the ideas we have hitherto considered, especially in relation to property.Property implies continuity, acquisitiveness, possessiveness, domination, suppression, economic relation between man and man, ill-will, nationalism, war and peace and all the rest of it.
We consider practical steps in order to achieve an ideal, to achieve something, to achieve a result. This suggestion implies that what we have been discussing is impractical and that, being only theoretical, they need translation in our daily life through a certain set of regulations or practical ideas. It also implies that we do not understand the implications of that idea in regard to our daily activities now, and that by doing certain practices leading to a particular way of living, you will, in course of time, understand the implications.
Let us take, for instance, nationalism. How can you be practical about nationalism? If you understand it and its results in daily life, it drops away from you. You do not become international; you cease to be national and therefore you are a human being. How can you have a practical step to cease to be national?
Either we understand nationalism and its implications immediately and it drops away; or we do not understand and we think that, by doing certain actions, we will understand later. We know that nationalism causes separatism, exclusiveness, friction, ill-will and enmity. It acts as a barrier between people and prevents sane living. If I have more than I need of property, names, titles, etc, then they will cause envy. Similarly, if I say I am an Indian, I am a Hindu, and my whole patriotism is given to India, I am exclusive. It is the process of exclusiveness which ultimately leads to war.
Or you say that you must go through separation, through nationalism, in order to become international. That is, you must first be a Hindu and yet become brotherly with other people who call themselves by different names. Is that possible? If you call yourself a Hindu and I call myself a German, can we two meet as brothers? You keep your nationality and I keep my nationality; and can we two meet? Obviously we cannot, because we are more concerned with our names than with being really human. So you see the fallacy of saying that through nationalism we can become international though lots of people talk of it.
Nationalism in itself is an exclusive process and it is of recent growth caused by competition, economic frontiers, etc. It is not conducive to peace. The more you are national, the more you are identifying yourself with what you call your country in order to be something. If you are nobody you feel rather frustrated. One of the effects of industrialisation is to make you more and more mechanical and less and less important.
How can you be more practical if you do not see the significance of nationalism in all its different layers so that it may drop away of its own accord? If you have the intelligence to see that it is a cobra, you do not have to take practical steps to fight it. You just leave it alone. You want to have open relationship with others; you also see that nationalism is a poison which has degenerating effects in human relationship. Therefore nationalism drops away. You may have a little reaction when you hear that India beat Australia in cricket, but it does not become a problem.
So, your difficulty lies in seeing the thing clearly without any prejudice. The prejudice has been created by outside agencies as well as yourself. With regard to every subject, you are misinformed, you are badly educated and badly conditioned; and you try to interpret life through this misinformation. When you realize that your information is wrong you immediately put it aside.
You like to identify yourself with your country because it gives you a sense of warm feeling which can be whipped up to kill somebody. You become national and you like it because it gives you a warm sense of feeling that you are achieving something. So there are more soldiers, more armies, more dreadfulness. That is what we are achieving and that is not progress. Progress does not obviously lie through bloodshed.
There are only six countries, I believe, that can feed themselves; every other country is dependent on somebody else. Therefore, why not destroy all the frontiers and come together as human beings to meet our necessities of food, clothing and shelter? You want to know who is to do this. You and I have to do this. Who else is going to do it? Certainly not the capitalists, certainly not the political party - either the Left or the right - because they are committed. So, who is to do it except those people who see the thing clearly?
Nationalism is a modern invention, and it is really non-conducive to peace; it acts as a barrier between people. There is no practical step regarding it; either you see the thing or you do not. Your prejudices stand in the way of your finding it out.
You must see the whole significance of the idea of acquisitiveness which is expressed through property, through relationship and through ideation. I am not talking about merely the ethical, the moral or the religious, but the actual process of acquisition and what is implied in it. What are the effects of acquisitiveness? One is nationalism and another is the competition between you and me; another is the moral and social degradation in which is involved the whole idea of division of the high and the low.
Psychologically, it is very gratifying to own something; it feeds your vanity, you are somebody then. The effect of acquisition gives you a sense of life, a sense of struggle, a sense of existence. If you do not acquire what are you? You are nobody if you have no title, no property, or no name; and therefore things become important. Because inwardly you are nothing, you wish to acquire, which implies power, prestige, title and all the rest of it.
Then, mentally, you want to acquire knowledge. You are anchored to acquisition and you become a mental addict who always reads. A mind that is merely acquiring, ceases to function as an instrument of thought, it inevitably becomes dull without any pliability, it is slavish, it is uncreative, it is repetitive because it is merely acquiring what it calls knowledge. So, acquisition through experience, through memory or through knowledge and all the rest of it, is really a factor that dulls the mind and cripples thinking. To think, you must be free and not be anchored to acquisition, to property or to belief.
You may have no property, but mentally you may be anchored to acquisition, a mental addict who reads and reads. You should understand the significance of acquisition which is expressed in property, which does not mean that you must not have a little money, especially as the society around you is based on money. Some property, i.e. food, clothes, and shelter, is necessary for you and you must have it; but it should not become a psychological need.
When you understand the significance of acquisitiveness, it is very simple to deal with property. You may prevent, by legislation, the acquisition of property; but people may still be acquisitive in some other direction, which may be equally disastrous, like knowledge which gives one an extraordinary sense of superiority. What is the practicability wanted here? The problem is how to give up the property or how to arrange the property to suit your convenience. You can only deal with it when you understand the full significance of it. What is your attitude to property? Are you depending on legislation with regard to your conduct toward property? The world is confused; and the more it is confused, the more the individual wants security, i.e. you want to be secure. This leads to conflict in you as well as outside you. This conflict will cease only when you understand and are aware of the significance of acquiring property; then there will not arise the question of how you will escape from the conflict.
There are various forms of relationship - such as relationship with things which are considered to be property, relationship to the bank account, relationship to law which sustains the property; and the relationship to human beings. The relationship to human beings is more difficult and more subtle; and the difficulty arises when there is no love. Love cannot be learned through Pelmanism, through practice, or through following some steps. If there is love, you will understand relationship; love will then show the way out of this horrible mess of husband and wife and relationship between man and man. Why don't we love? What is preventing us from loving? If you can find out the cause, perhaps you may know how to love. Love is not something abstract, but it is an extraordinary sense of intelligence, a heightened form of intelligence. If you are intelligent then perhaps there will be love.
Why is it that the relationship between man and man has become so difficult? It may be because they are not dealing with it intelligently and they do not know what intelligence is. Perhaps you can find out what intelligence is, negatively.
My relation with you is society. The society is non-existent without you and me. The group is you and me; you and I create the whole structure of society. When we examine the relationship between one another now, we find there is conflict. Average existence is a conflict. To deal with this conflict intelligently, I must examine the relationship as it is and not as I would like it to be.
I notice conflict in my relationship with my wife. To understand this, I must, first of all, know if I am related at all. If I am related, there should be communion, exchange of feeling and thinking out of the problem together. To be is to be related. I have taken it for granted that I am related to my wife; perhaps I am not. There is no real contact with her so I remain isolated. Yet, I think I am in relationship with her; and so, 'relationship' may be merely an expression or a term without any meaning because if I am related to her, it will have a different meaning.
Can two entities in isolation live together? If my whole motive is to be self-protected, is there any relationship? So, the problem is not that I do not love her or she does not love me, or she dominates over me; but perhaps she and I are not related for the very simple reason that she is exclusive in herself and I am exclusive in myself. That is our daily activity - I with my interests and my purposes and she with hers. We say we are related, but we two are working exclusively in ourselves. Therefore the next question is: why am I doing it?
It is suggested that common interest brings about communion. Is it so? You and I are interested in education, we both have common interests and we belong to the same society. We meet in the temple; but, in the market, we cut each other's throat.
Why does each one of us, in our relationship with one another, try to isolate oneself? Is this inevitable in the sense of a rose becoming a rose? Is this process natural? If it is natural or inevitable, then there is nothing more to be said about it, and there will be constant conflict between you and me; there will be no peace between you and society, between you and myself. If it is inevitable, there can never be love, not a moment of complete quietness between us. We know of moments when there is creation, though such moments are rare. Creation takes place not in conflict but only when the conflict ceases, when there is silence, when there is a sense of fullness. So, we find that the conflict is not inevitable. We have now to understand why we isolate ourselves in relationship.
It is said in all religious literature that, to find God, you must withdraw and be alone. When you seek God, Reality, Truth, you are alone not because you want to be alone but because a lot of stupid people around you force you to be alone. You say nationalism is wrong, Brahmanism is wrong, etc.; but society will not accept all this because it does not like to change. So, though you do not push yourself away from it, the society pushes you out and then says that you must be alone to find out Truth.
Nobody can be alone; he is always in relationship with the person who gives him food. He is alone only in repudiating the faiths and refusing the things which society accepts. So, it is a wrong conclusion leading to illusion, that you must be alone to find God. I now see that I would be acting falsely if I am isolating myself because society has been telling me that I should be alone to find Reality.
On examining further, we find that one of the reasons for exclusion is labour, functional existence. We are isolating ourselves according to function. Functions have become very important in our life for the very simple reason that our life is based on sensate values. Through functions, I am isolating myself because I have divided life into categories of functions, higher and lower, like minister and scavenger, etc.
Why are we isolating psychologically? I am living in isolation and my whole struggle is to live in more and more isolation. I live with my neighbour and he is also doing exactly the same as I am doing. I know that isolation is not an inevitable process. Then why do I psychologically isolate myself? My strife is to protect myself. Similarly you are protecting yourself. This means mutual self-protection for avoiding a conflict.
But, we have not understood self-protection. After all, any enclosure, psychological or physical, is self-protection, is isolation. I put a wall around myself, psychologically, for the obvious reason to protect myself. The more I try to protect myself, the greater the isolation, the greater is the conflict. Protecting myself by putting a wall psychologically around me creates a barrier. You have a wall around you and I have a wall around me and we keep on strengthening our respective walls. When you and I thus come in contact, what will be our relationship? The more I am enclosed in myself the more violent I become, the more aggressive I am; similarly you.
To have right relationship, this barrier of psychological enclosure around each one of us has to be pulled down. Obviously, as I cannot do anything with others, I must first start with myself and set about to pull down the enclosure which I am putting up around me for self-protection.
Madras, India. Public Talk 21st December, 1947
There are so many problems, and especially at this time when there is so much confusion, when each one, each society, each group of people or nation, is seeking security at the expense of others, it seems to me very important to find out how to think rightly as a problem arises, how to confront the problem rightly; what is important is not what we should think about the problem, nor what our attitude should be towards the problem, but how to think about it. We are accustomed to being told what to think, in what manner to approach a problem but we do not know what thinking is. So, it seems to me very important to find out what is right thinking because the various problems that arise, the problems which confront us constantly, demand right thinking.There is a right solution for each problem but it requires right thinking and not the mere desire to solve the problem. The point is not what to think, but how to think rightly. I would like to discuss this with you if I may, this evening, for there can be right action only if there is right thinking. If we do not know how to think we do not know how to act.
So, what is thinking? I wonder if you have ever asked yourself that question. What is thinking? As I have often said, you don't have to wait for an answer from me but let us think over the problem together because I do not consider this to be a lecture or a talk or a discourse in which you are merely listeners; you are participants in this discussion; let us therefore think together about each problem. So, don't merely wait to hear an answer from me.
What is thinking, what is the process of thinking? As we know it, it is a response to memory, is it not? You have certain memories and they leave certain marks and to this residue you respond. Memory thus is accumulation of the residue of experience. So, thinking, which is the response to memory, is always conditioned and as we know, that is the actual fact, our daily existence. That is, you have an experience and you translate that experience according to previous memories and so the experience, which has been translated, is gathered as memory and according to that memory you respond and this is called thinking. Surely such thinking only strengthens conditioning, which only produces more conflict, more pain and more sorrow.
That is, memory is constantly responding to the residue of experience which we call memory. It is responding to a challenge and this challenge and response to memory we call thinking, because life is a series of challenges and responses and the response is always conditioned by memory and that response to memory we call thinking. But the challenge is always new, it is never the old and our thinking is always old because it is the response of the past. So, believing is not thinking, believing is only conditioned thinking and conditioned experience - I am using the ordinary word conditioning and not the technical one. If you believe in something, you experience it and your experience is conditioned because it is based on a belief which is also conditioned. So belief is not thinking at all, it is only a response to a memory. So, that is what we are doing in our daily life if we examine ourselves. You have the experience which leaves a residue which is memory and according to that memory you think, and that response which we call thinking is always conditioned because belief is always conditioned memory.
So, our thinking, which is the response to a challenge which is ever new, is always conditioned and therefore produces further conflict, further suffering and further pain. This is a fact, this is our daily existence. When we say we are thinking, that is what we mean. But, is that thinking? What then is thinking? When we use the word thinking in our daily life it is thinking based on memory, thinking which is a response and a reaction to memory and that response to memory comes from a challenge. You see a picture, you criticize it according to the background you have. You listen to music and you interpret it according to the traditions and according to the frame of reference you have. If you have had western training in music you will not respond to Indian music.
So, this is what we call thinking, a series of responses to memory and therefore thinking is always conditioned and that is a fact. Now, I ask myself, and I hope you are doing it too, is that thinking? These responses to memory, is that thinking? So, thinking, as we know it, is it really thinking or merely responding to memory and therefore not thinking? What then is thinking? Don't tell me it is response to memory, but what is thinking? Have you ever thought about it? Have you ever sat down and said to yourself what is thinking, what do you mean by thinking? You say ordinarily it is a response to memory. But is that thinking? Surely that is not thinking. So what is thinking?
Now, as it is a new problem, when you are asked a question what is thinking what do you do? It is a new question, a new problem presented to you and how do you respond to it? When you are asked what is thinking, what is your response? You have never thought about it. So, what happens? You are silent, aren't you? Please follow this very carefully. There is a new problem presented to you: what is thinking; and as you have never thought about it and since it is new there is naturally a hesitancy, a sense of quietness and a stillness of observation. Is there not? You are watching, you are not translating, you are very alert and your mind is extremely concentrated if the question is vital and interesting, which it is. If you observe yourself when this question is asked you, you will see that your mind is not asleep, but very alert and very conscious, yet passive. It is waiting to find an answer. Now, that alert yet passive state is surely thinking because that is not conditioned thinking. There is passive, alert awareness, isn't there? Because your mind is very quiet and because it is confronted with a new problem, it is not asleep, but very alert and aware yet passive; it is not active because it does not know the answer, it is not even seeking an answer because it does not know. So that state of awareness, passive awareness is really thinking, is it not? It is the highest form of thinking because there is no positive comprehension, there is no conditioned response, it is a state of negation. Would it not be possible to meet every problem in this way, anew, because then the problem gives its significance; then you meet a problem, as sorrow, for instance and it will give its significance and therefore the problem ceases. But when you try to solve the problem by what you call thinking which is only response to memory, then because memory is conditioned, you further complicate the problem.
You can experiment with this for yourself very simply and you will see how remarkably it works. For instance, you are in front of a modern painting. Your instinctive response is that you don't understand it and you push it aside, or else you ask who painted it, and if it is some big name you say it is very good; or again according to your training, you translate the picture. You respond according to your background or your conditioning. But suppose you put aside, if you can, the training, the classical training you have had and remain very quiet, very passive but alert in front of the picture. Does not the picture then tell you, give you its significance? So, passive awareness is surely the highest form of thinking because you are so receptive, so alert that the picture conveys its meaning to you. So, similarly if we could meet each problem with this alert, passive awareness which you experience now, when I ask you what is thinking, you are puzzled, you are bewildered and if you can go beyond that bewilderment, that puzzle, you say, `I do not know.' That unknowingness is not a sleepy condition; on the contrary it is a very alert passive state of the mind in which there is deep silence waiting for the right significance.
But, what we call thinking is generally understood as a response of memory and when you meet a problem with the response of memory the problem is not understood and therefore there's still more confusion. But, if you are able to meet each problem, with this passive awareness, which is choiceless, then the problem yields its significance and therefore the problem is transcended.
Question: I dream a great deal. Have dreams any significance?
Krishnamurti: This is really an extremely important and very difficult problem because many things are implied. First of all, are we awake or partly awake, or are we asleep most of the time? When are you awake? When there is a tremendous crisis, when there is interest, when there is a problem. But when there is a problem our desire is to escape from it through different ways and thereby we put ourselves to sleep. When there is a crisis what do you do? You try to solve the crisis according to the framework of references, according to religious literature or according to a guru and that again puts you to sleep. So when there is a challenge of life, if it is pleasurable you pursue it, which is also a way of putting oneself to sleep, because the more pleasure you have the more dull you become. When the challenge of life is painful what happens? You avoid it, which again dulls the mind; you avoid it through various channels. So, constantly, when there is a challenge which demands earnest attention, clear perception, a challenge which may entail pain or pleasure, either we refuse it or identify ourselves with it to such an extent that we put ourselves to sleep. That is the ordinary process and it is only at very, very rare moments that we are awake. It is in those moments that there is no dream. In those moments when you are fully awake there is neither experience nor accumulation of experience. You are just awake and therefore the dreamer is not dreaming.
Now, what is the significance of dreams? Surely, it is this, is it not? The conscious mind, during the day, is actively engaged in either earning money, doing routine work, learning, or is occupied with some technical job. So, the conscious mind during the day, is actively busy with superficial things such as going to the temple, going to the office, having a quarrel with the wife or husband, thinking, reading, avoiding, enjoying; it is constantly active. When the mind goes to sleep what happens? The superficial mind is fairly quiet. But consciousness is not just the superficial layer. Consciousness has many, many layers, you don't have to be told what they are: hidden motives, pursuits, anxieties, fears, frustrations and so on. And these layers of consciousness can and do project themselves into the conscious mind and when it wakes up it says: `I have had a dream.' In others words, the conscious mind is so occupied with daily activities, daily anxieties, daily fears that it is incapable of receiving intimations and hints during the day. Each of the many layers has its own consciousness and when the superficial mind becomes quiet the layers project themselves on the superficial mind and then you dream.
There are of course superficial dreams and dreams which have real significance. The superficial dreams are the dreams created by the bodily response; indigestion, overeating etc. So, we need not consider those. Other dreams are the intimations of the deeper layers of consciousness. Now, when you dream, what happens? It often happens that as you dream interpretation is taking place. I do not know if you have noticed it. That is, dreams are really, are they not, symbols, images, pictures which the conscious mind translates and says `I have dreamt this or that.' Sym- bols and hidden motives which when projected into the conscious are translated into symbols which convey a significance to you when you wake up. And when you dream, when you say on waking `I have had a dream,' immediately you want to interpret it. If you are at all aware you want to know what it means. Now there is the luxury of going to a psychoanalyst, the dream expert and he will translate your dream for you after a very difficult process taking many months and costing a great deal of money. But most of us have not the money, fortunately, and we are not near any psychoanalyst. Psychoanalysts are the new priests in the modern world. They have also their own jargon and they exploit you and you exploit them.
But, surely there is a different way of understanding. When you yourself interpret the dream, who is the interpreter? You have had a dream during the night, it has some significance, it is not just a superficial dream, it is a dream which has some worth, some meaning. Now, you want to understand it, which means you want to translate it, you want to go into it. Now, how do you understand a dream? You try to pursue it and find out its significance and what happens? You try to interpret it. You are interpreting it and therefore you, being the conditioned, active superficial mind, are not able to pursue it, understand it. You can only translate it, interpret it according to your like and dislike. But the dream gives you very little of its significance, its meaning. If you pursue your dream you will see what I mean, because you, the interpreter, are very anxious to find out what it means; therefore you are agitated; therefore you cannot understand it. But if the interpreter is fully alert yet passive, then the dream reveals its significance. That is the only way of dealing with dreams. The conscious mind wants to understand the significance of the dream which is the intimation of the many layers of consciousness; so if the dreamer is passively alert, quiet, then the dream begins to yield its significance. But if you pursue it and say, `I must understand it', the conscious mind becomes agitated and translates the dream according to its conditioning. Therefore it can never understand it. So, how the dreamer, the interpreter, regards the dream is of the highest importance.
Then there is another problem. The other problem is, as the interpreter, the dreamer is constantly unaware, how can it be possible to free thought from all dreams, so that there will be no interpreter. That is, why should the mind, the conscious mind, always be dreaming? Why should you have to go through these dreams and all the bother of interpretation, and the anxiety on the part of the interpreter? Is there any way of not dreaming at all? Because the moment the interpreter, the dreamer, intervenes in the understanding of the significance of the dream, he is bound to misinterpret it. He can only translate according to his own conditioning which is always pleasurable and therefore he avoids anything that is painful. Is there not a way of transcending all dreams, because dreams, as I said, are intimations given by the many, many layers of consciousness to the superficial layer, of what they want, what they desire, what their intentions are.
So, the problem is then, how to transcend, how to understand fully, deeply, all the intimations of the various layers of consciousness so that you don't have to wait for the night to have a dream and then translate it and all the rest of it. Is it possible to understand the whole content of consciousness, to free it so that it need not project itself upon the superficial mind when asleep? Is it possible to empty the whole of consciousness so that the conscious mind understands fully? The superficial then is the profound. There are many layers of consciousness and when one of these layers projects upon the conscious, superficial layer, its intimations, which the conscious mind calls dreams, then the conscious mind tries to interpret them and suffers all the anxiety of interpretation. I do not know if you have gone through that.
Now, my question is: is it possible for the conscious mind to be so alert, so passively aware during the day that all the intimations are translated as they arise? In other words, can you be so consciously, so choicelessly aware - the moment you choose, you become the interpreter - can you be so passively aware that all the layers of consciousness are giving you their intimations all the time, so that all of consciousness is one whole without layers? This is possible only when the conscious mind is not battling with problems, when the conscious mind is not made still, but is still. If you will experiment you will see how extraordinarily interesting this is. When the conscious mind is quiet it may be doing superficial things but its quietness is not disturbed by the superficial activities. Then you will see that the more you are aware, the more you are passively observant, negatively watchful, choicelessly alert, the more the contents of the unconscious, of the many layers, comes to the surface. You don't have to interpret them because the moment they arise they are being understood. If you experiment, you will feel an extraordinary freedom because your whole being, your consciousness, which now is broken up, becomes integrated. There is no longer any struggle in your consciousness, it is therefore love, it is completely whole, unbroken. Surely, that is freedom, and all those deep hidden layers of consciousness are out, open, free and therefore there is no necessity for dreams.
When therefore there are no dreams, consciousness can penetrate deeper and deeper into itself, for dreams are an indication of disturbance. But when there is no disturbance and the body is very quiet during sleep, when the mind is still, when the conscious mind is comparatively still, you will find upon waking, you had not dreamt, but that a renewal has taken place, a renewal which is constantly going on because there is always an ending.
The farmer, the toiler, tills the field in the spring time. Then he sows, then he harvests and allows the field to lie fallow during the winter months. That fallowness of the soil is regeneration because it is exposed to the sun, the snow, the storm. It renews itself. So, similarly when the conscious mind has struggled, sown, harvested, it must lie fallow. Such fallowness is its own creativeness. It renews itself and this can be done every day, not only at the end of the season.
Now, when you have a problem you struggle with it and you don't end it, you carry it over to the next day. But if you end it then, that is, if you live the four seasons in one day, then when you wake up you find there has been a renewal, a freshness, a newness which you have never felt before. It is not the renewal of desire, the renewal of your problems, of property, marriage and all that kind of thing, but the renewal to face things anew. So, dreams have an extraordinary significance. But their significance is not understood if there is the interpreter and as there is the interpreter he is always translating the dream according to his conditioning. So, is it possible to remove the interpreter? It is possible only when the conscious mind is active, yet passive, when it is passively aware. Then, in that new awareness, in that passive, choiceless state, the whole content of the many layers of consciousness is understood, because that consciousness is no longer broken up but is whole and integrated; it is free; and it can renew itself constantly and face anew everything that confronts it.
Question: We see the significance of what you say, but there are many important problems which demand immediate attention, such as the struggle between capital and labour.
Krishnamurti: We all know that there are immediate problems which need immediate solutions and answers. That is obvious, especially in a society which is chaotic, confused, which is the result of industrialization and so on. Those problems demand immediate attention; capital, labour, transportation and all the rest of it. Now what is it that we are saying that is so impracticable, that cannot deal with the immediate problems? That is the implication in this question. That is, the questioner says `yes', I agree with what you say but how am I to solve the `immediate problems'. The implication is that he has not found in what we have been saying any application to the immediate problems. He does not know how to deal with the problems which demand immediate attention.
Now, either we deal with the problems from the point of view of reform or from the point of view of right thinking. If I am dealing with problems merely from the point of view of reforming, those reforms need further reforming, but if I am dealing with problems from the point of view of right thinking, then I shall be able to deal with them directly. So, we are not concerned with reforms, are we? It is very important to decide this for yourself because you want reform, there is an urgency to remedy the lack of food, to abolish child-marriage, to permit widow remarriage; you know all the immediate problems. Are you dealing with them with the mentality of the reformer, whose attitude is entirely different from that of the man who wants to deal with the entire problem of human existence? To be concerned merely with reform, is one way of dealing with problems. Then you are not concerned with the purpose of man, you are merely concerned with the immediate problem of man, and that is all you care about. That is the attitude of the politician. So, such an attitude only leads to confusion, more confusion, more struggle, more misery which is evident in society at the present time. Or, are you looking at problems like starvation, nationalism, economic frontiers, and at our daily existence which creates innumerable problems, from the point of view of a man who is seeking for the whole meaning of existence? These two points of view are diametrically opposed.
So, from which point of view did you put this question? Please don't answer, there are too many people. If you are dealing from the point of view of the reformer then there is no answer because you have to reform, you have to compromise with the left and with the right, and with corruption, which means that you are also partly corrupted and so on and so on. It is like a man who says: If I do not have an army my country will be overrun by the enemy; but I also believe in pacifism, I believe in brotherhood. He is really a reformer. He has compromised because he says, if I don't have an army somebody will come and conquer me'. So, he creates an army, he participates in war because the very existence of an army is an indication of preparation for war and all the problems connected with the results of war and so on.
Now, similarly when you deal with the problem of labour and capital what is involved in it? The capitalist is a thoroughgoing exploiter. He will pay the least to get the most, which we all know, but if the labourer can get to the top, he will do exactly the same, for everything is controlled by the State and you are directed to work whether you like it or not. So, the struggle between capital and labour is a problem of power. The capitalist seeks his own security, his own safety, you know the whole business of his exploitation, and the labourer has to organize to protect himself from the ruthlessness of the man above. Therefore there are strikes, unions and so on.
So, are you approaching life from the point of view of the reformer, that is doing patch work, or are you approaching it from a revolutionary point of view, which means that you have an idea you want to carry through? Then you are not concerned with human struggle, human existence, but only with the system and therefore you believe the system will benefit man. So, you are more interested in the system than in man. Or, are you approaching the whole problem of human existence, and not merely the struggle between capital and labour, which is the struggle between man and man, between wife and husband, between neighbour and neighbour, between group and group, between one organization and another organization? Are you approaching the problem in order to understand the true meaning of conflict, pain and suffering in man? If your approach is comprehensive, integrated, whole, then you will have an answer which is real. But if you are merely approaching the problem from the point of view of a theoretical revolutionary with a system and according to a pattern, then surely you will not solve the human ailment, nor will the reformer, the socially active person who wants to alter things to fit them into his pattern, into his framework. His reforms will have to be reformed because the reformer is not tackling the fundamental issues of the mind.
The immediate can only be understood, if we understand the timeless. The man who is concerned with the immediate can never understand the profound, for man is not merely the immediate. If he is seeking an answer to his problems in terms of time - the question implies that the problem must be settled the day after tomorrow - then such a man is not concerned with the real issues and problems, the psychological issues and problems of man; he will say: I am not concerned with your psychological problems. All I want is to feed the millions and therefore I am going to pursue ruthlessly the feeding of the millions even if I should fail to feed any. Surely there is a different approach to this problem, - the problem of necessities which are food, clothing and shelter and other psychological factors, - one which does not relate it to any particular group or system. Taking man as a whole is what very few people want to do, because they are all concerned with the immediate: immediate desires, immediate fulfillments, immediate passions. So, most of us are really concerned with the immediate. Most of us are politicians and not real seekers wishing to find out the truth of existence. Most of us want to compromise, most of us want easy settlements. But those people are not going to be the saviours of man. The man who will save humanity is he who profoundly understands himself in relation to society, in relation to his wife, to the nation, to the group and who by transforming himself in relationship brings a new understanding which helps to clarify the significance of society and its struggles.
Question: Are we not shaped by circumstances? Are we not really the creatures of our senses?
Krishnamurti: Again this is an enormous problem because the implications are enormous in a question of this kind. One implication is that matter is in movement within itself and therefore control of circumstances is essential, is all important. The other conception is that idea moves upon matter and therefore shapes matter. It is the religious conception. The materialistic conception is that matter is in movement within itself and produces the idea and therefore one must control circumstances, therefore the individual is not important. Whereas according to the other, the religious conception, idea shapes matter, that is God, or what you will, controls and shapes matter and therefore there is absolute value, absolute virtue, and it is the reality. The materialist, the socialist, the extreme leftist say that there is no such thing as absolute value; man is merely the product of environment and he changes his values according to environment and therefore environment controls and shapes him according to a system. These theorists force him, put him into a straight jacket of thought so that he would function effectively as a citizen in a mechanized society and so the individual is not at all important because he is merely matter to be shaped.
Don't take sides. I am not taking sides. To the rightist the individual is important only so long as there is no crisis. When there is a war, the individual is no longer important. He is brought into the war and shot. So, both the left and the right meet in moments of crisis, and the individual is sacrificed. This is what is happening in the world today. Though we believe in absolute value and that man, the individual is the sacred expression of that value, he is nevertheless sacrificed, he is regimented, he is directed in moments of crisis as a war or other national disaster. To the leftist, man is not important, the individual is not important, he may eventually become an important entity, but in the meantime he must be controlled, shaped. Now, the leftist starts with his theory, his system; and the rightist denies all that the leftist says, and believes that God has created him. He has his bible and the leftist has his bible. So, both are approaching the problem with a conditioned mind, conditioned by Marx or by the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, or what you will.
If I want to find out where the truth is, how do I start? It is a fact that I am the result of my environment as you also are, obviously. You are the creature of your senses because after all you are a Hindu or a Christian or a Mussalman, you are the result of your environment. You have been told to believe in God and you be- lieve in God. You go to the temple or not according to your conditioning. Whether left or right you are conditioned, which implies environment has shaped your mind. So you are partly, not wholly, a result of your environment; and in order to find out what is true you must go deeper and deeper into the whole problem of the senses and not categorically stop at a certain point.
So, you have to experiment with yourself to find out how far your thinking, your feeling is merely sensory, your values sensate, and not accept, as the rightists do, that God is absolute, and then try to find the absolute. If you do merely accept, you are exactly like the leftist who denies, because you are then merely experiencing, living, according to your conditioning. You will not find the truth, because you have arbitrarily decided in advance that there is or there is not. Whereas if you want to find the truth you must obviously begin with the senses because that is all you know. You can speculate on all the rest but in understanding the sensate values you can go deeper and deeper into the whole problem of consciousness. You don't take anything for granted, nor accept anything in order to believe. You begin experimenting and then you will find for yourself whether you are merely the result of the environmental influences or if you are the idea moving upon matter. You will find that it is neither, but that it is something else. When you put it as matter moving upon idea or idea moving upon matter, then they are put as opposites, as antithetical. As I said before, if you approach a problem from the point of view of the opposite, then the opposite contains its own opposite. After all when the left and the right are treated as opposites the left is the continuation of the right; it is the denial of the right only at certain points but it is nevertheless the continuation of the right.
So, in order to understand this problem you cannot approach it either from the left or from the right; acceptance of the left or of the right is a denial of truth. Food, clothing and shelter are sensate values; and your thinking is obviously sensate and so are your feelings. From there you can proceed and then going deeper into the psychological process you will find there comes a silence, there comes an absolute, not a relative tranquillity. It is not sensory, not sensate, it is not self-induced. In that silence you will find truth when the mind is really still, - not only when the superficial layer of consciousness, but the whole consciousness is still, when it is not inquiring, when it is not seeking, - when it is not urged by desires. Then in that real tranquillity, which is not induced, which is not invited, you will find the Truth, but when you accept either the left or the right surely you cannot find the Truth of anything. Acceptance is the very denial of Truth.
Madras, India. Afternoon Discussion
21st December, 1947
[ When the question was raised of understanding pleasure involved in
connection with love as discussed at the last meeting, a friend
suggested that we should discuss the subject of fear. ]Fear exists not by itself but only in relationship to something either external or inside oneself. You are always afraid of something. Fear is the result of (i) doing something which you would not like others to know or (ii) your being uncertain. Thus, fear will cease only when you face 'what is'.
Some say that fear can be got rid of by making an effort or by having the strength or the courage to overcome fear. All effort, will-power, struggle means conflict and conflict cannot lead to cessation of fear.
Why do you not face 'what is'? It is because of the tendency in you to 'become' the ideal, You don't know 'what is' and yet you don't like it, and you would like to become something else which is your ideal, which is naturally intensifying the conflict and the fear. The ideal does not exist nor is it understood. When you understand this and when you don't pursue this 'becoming', then fear ceases and you face 'what is'.
From this it is clear that your ideas about ideals and methods to achieve your ideals are all wrong and should be thrown overboard. This gives you release from a really great burden.
[ A friend suggested that he had the fear of death especially because he is getting old and that his son had not yet been employed. This problem was analysed in the light of the point discussed above. ]
Madras, India. Group Discussion 23rd December, 1947
Relationship, as it exists now, is one series of conflicts, giving in at one time and getting upset at another time and so on. It is a constant battle between yourself and your wife, between yourself and society, a constant friction, maladjustment, struggle and contradiction between two people.We are not discussing what should be the ideal form of relationship. The ideal is a real curse because it really prevents you from understanding what is; if you accept and work towards an idea, you merely conform, without understanding the significance of relationship; you do not understand what your relationship actually is and what it means. Are you at all "related", you and your wife, or your neighbour and yourself? Though you live together and have children though you wrangle and fight, is there any "relationship" between you and your wife? If you examine yourself, you will see that your whole intention,your whole pursuit, is an isolating process. Each one is isolating himself or herself, in possession, in name, in power, in money; each one builds a wall around oneself and says "I am related". We look over the enclosing walls occasionally when it is suitable and convenient; but, most of the time, we lurk behind the walls. This process of isolation is considered "relationship"!
In daily life, we are isolating ourselves by our activities; we are separating ourselves through function - the bank clerk and the manager, the labourer and the executive, the priest and the bishop, the man in the street and the rich man, the ignorant and the learned, and so on. We are constantly erecting enclosing walls around ourselves, and yet we try to be "related". When there is this constant erection of walls and isolation, conflict is inevitable. The more one is enclosing, the more the struggle and the violence.
Is this isolation by the erection of the enclosing wall a natural process like the fall of an apple from the tree, or is it the result of influence by society? You are now aware that you are building the wall. Having built and being caught in the process of building the wall, your intelligence says that you should be rid of this wall. To get rid of this wall, you must first find out why you are building the wall. If you understand the truth of this, you do not have to 'struggle not to build' and you will never build the wall again. Is this isolation a form of self-protection? Is self-protection natural? Obviously it is. If you do not protect yourself in regard to food, clothing and shelter, there may be no existence at all. Physically and biologically, there must be self-protection against rain, against sunshine, etc. But, when that self-protection becomes a psychological necessity, then it becomes exploitation and all the rest of it.
When your neighbour and yourself are each behind his own wall, how can you understand each other? Why do you erect these separating walls psychologically? How will you get rid of these walls?
First of all, you are aware that you are building walls, psychologically, around yourself. Then, you enquire if such building is natural, instinctive and therefore inevitable. You do not protect yourself psychologically to be safe outwardly - name, property, bank account, etc.- but in order to be safe inwardly, in order to give you an assurance of self-protection inside.
Some protection of you outwardly, in the form of food, clothing and shelter, is necessary; but you increase the protection of yourself outwardly in things in order to be secure inwardly. Because you are inwardly incapable of protecting yourself and therefore inwardly uncertain, you depend on outward things. You can only protect yourself inwardly with ideas, values which the mind gives with regard to things made by the hand or made by the mind. Also, you can only protect yourself in relation to an outside object. You have no inward actions or perceptions which are apart from outward things and which would render outward things as of no significance. There is no inward protection by itself.
What is the nature of the enclosing wall around you, which gives you psychological protection in relation to your neighbour, your wife and your society? The wall you build around yourself psychologically consists of the values you give to things made either by the hand or by the mind, i.e. of your ideation. These values are merely the outcome of the pleasure or the pain felt by you through your senses, i.e. the outcome of sensory values. They have no substance behind them except the significance or value you give them. In protecting yourself outwardly, you say you can use the outward things to protect you inwardly. You can use property as a means of psychological protection. Property in itself is just a piece of land which can give you food; you give that property a significance which it has not, and with that significance you protect yourself.
So, the trouble does not lie in outward things which are all made by the hand or by the mind. The trouble is because you use those things as a means of self-protection; and therefore, you give to them values which they do not possess and, with those values, you are inwardly protecting yourself. The fact is that those values in themselves are non-existent but are merely created by your mind. Therefore, the outward things made by the hand and the beliefs made by the mind become extraordinarily important and you cling to them both because, with the values you give them, you protect yourself psychologically. What an extraordinary transformation you have made in yourself! Things made by the mind are illusory because they, beliefs, can project themselves into visions and experiences - you believe or you like to believe in the Master, and you can experience the Master. It is very simple; you want to see a vision and you see a vision, pleasant or unpleasant. It is all the projection of the mind.
So, you have discovered from this process that, through sensory perceptions, you are protecting something which is not sensory, something which you do not know.
What are you protecting behind your enclosing wall? Protecting implies that there is something which can be protected. In other words, what is that something which you are trying to protect by your values with regard to things made by the hand or by the mind? Is there anything behind the wall? You are building and erection of valuations; what is behind that wall of valuations?
To enquire if there is anything behind the wall, what is the instrument with which you are enquiring? The instrument is the outcome of the things made by the hand or by the mind, which is the wall. To find out what is behind the wall, you have to climb over the wall or go through the wall.
What are you protecting with extraordinary care everyday, struggling, cheating ruthlessly, brutally, violently, deceitfully and cunningly? When you say you are protecting your- self, you are merely protecting the wall which you have built up. So your consideration is how to strengthen the wall and not to protect something. To find out what is behind the wall, the wall must cease. You do not know what is behind the wall and therefore you are not protecting the thing behind the wall, but only the wall which you know, which is your valuation. The positive value is the wall; you do not like that and you would like to be something else.
When you are talking about protecting you do not know what you are protecting. But, you do know that the wall exists. So, perhaps you are protecting the wall, because the value is the wall, either positive value or negative value. So, you are keeping a wall, positively or negatively, as a means of protecting; and on enquiring what you are protecting, you do not know. You see the wall only and not the something behind it. Perhaps if you know what is inside the enclosure, it may not be necessary to protect at all; or perhaps there is nothing to protect.
Without knowing what is behind the wall, it is absurd your protecting or building a wall. you only know the wall. You do not know anything about protection. Therefore, the word 'protection' has gone out of your thought, and all that remains is the wall, not the idea to protect something. You are not using the word 'protection' any more because 'to protect' means 'to protect something'; and as you do not know that something you are not going to protect. All that you are now left with is the wall and not 'protection'. But the wall is made of the valuation by the valuer. So, the wall is the valuer and the valuation.
You are protecting something which you do not know. If you know what you are protecting, that may not need any protection,. So it is a foolish action that you are doing. Therefore, you will neither protect nor destroy; and you are only left with the wall and not with the idea of protection. The wall was created out of things made by the mind; therefore, the mind is the wall. The wall is made out of the mind's tricks and valuations. As the mind is the creator of the values, the values are the mind.
What is 'me'? 'Me" is the product of desire in relation to the object of desire. A challenge and the response to the challenge constitute an experience. When the response is con- ditioned, the experience leaves a residue which is memory. 'Me' is 'memories', the accumulated residue of experiences, with which evaluation is made, the sum total of the qualities. So, the 'me' which is protecting the wall, is the wall, i.e. the qualifier evaluating things is the wall. Therefore, the wall is the 'me', the thinker, the thought, the valuation.
The 'me', the accumulated residue of experience, is pleasurable in part and painful. The thinker wants to avoid the painful; he finds the thoughts can be changed. So, hoping to be permanent and unchanging, he separates himself from the thoughts and talks of "I change my thoughts", thus playing a trick on himself, because the separation is not real but only fictitious. When attacked, the thinker tries to seek identification with "higher self", and when that is attacked, he identifies himself with Atman, with Paramatman, then with... ... ...
Madras, India. Group Discussion 24th December, 1947
Whenever you meet with a challenge there is a response. The challenge and the response constitute an experience. Generally such experience leaves a residue - which is what you have learned from that experience; this is memory. When there is a similar challenge again, the response is by the already existing residue. The residue itself is old and it translates the new challenge according to itself and the result is added to the residue. Thus, the residue gets thicker and thicker. Though the accumulation is undergoing modification, it is still old in relation to any new challenge.You are changing. So also is your neighbour. Yet when you meet your neighbour, you have your old picture of that person.
This residue is a problem only when it is pleasurable or painful. If pleasurable, you leave it as it is; if painful, you do something about it. This is how you have marvellous recollections of pleasure and horrible recollections of pain. Why do you fight pain or suffering? Is not suffering only a symptom of your avoiding to face 'what is'?
Madras, India. Group Discussion 25th December, 1947
We have been discussing the practical ways of dealing with some of the topics which we had considered already. We tried to analyse what we mean by practical steps. Is it a matter of practice, or a matter of understanding? If you understand something, there is no need for practice. If you understand and study the nature and the implications of nationalism, not bringing your prejudice and your defence mechanism against it, that very understanding would dissolve the poison of nationalism.We also discussed the practical steps with regard to our relationship with property - not only land but name, title, degrees, alphabetical letters before and after one's name - and how property becomes of enormous significance, when inwardly, psychologically, there is poverty of being.
Then we discussed relationship with persons - between you and me, you and your wife or husband - whether you are 'related' or whether merely 'relationship' is a term without much significance. We started with the examination of "relationship" as it is now and not of what is should be. We found that relationship is conflict though that conflict is neither necessary nor inevitable. We also found that this conflict in relationship was due to each one striving for isolation; though you may live with your wife, with your neighbour and with the society, you are really building psychological walls of isolation between yourself and society, between yourself and your family. Though you say you are "related" to your wife and your children what is actually taking place in "relationship" is that you are seeking self-protection by building up walls of resistance, and so is your wife and others. You occasionally look over the walls and call it relationship; but, the isolating walls keep you separate. Is the building of the wall an inevitable law like gravitation? You build the wall to protect yourself, On enquiry, you found that though, physically and biologically, some property - food, clothes and shelter - is essential for your existence, it is not necessary to protect yourself psychologically. Yet you are protecting yourself inwardly by the values which you have given to the things made by the hand (property) or by the mind (beliefs), thus using for your psychological protection only values based on sensory perception. Because of this, things assume an importance or significance which they do not inherently possess, and you, therefore, cling tenaciously to property and belief, even to the extent of dying for them, if necessary. The walls which you protect yourself with are built up of the value which you yourself have given to things.
Are you aware that you are creating this wall of detachment around you? You have a certain attitude and I may or may not have that attitude; the very attitude of the teacher and the disciple builds a wall. Similarly, a man of property, a man of possession, or a man of greed, creates a barrier between himself and his servant, between himself and the man who has no title; the man who has title, talks about brotherhood and about avoiding distinctions and so on; yet, he creates a barrier between himself and others. The building of these psychological walls is the very impediment to relationship and is one of the fundamental disintegrating factors in society. One of these isolating walls around you is caste. Your father or his forbears created caste to separate themselves from the rest; probably, biologically, they thought they were superior and did not want to mix up with the rest. We can understand this tendency, because each one of us wants to feel superior. You put degrees after your name to show that you are different from another. You have the desire to be separate, to be superior to others, to be something in words and in name; that is why you are attached to your titles, your property, your name, etc. If all these are taken away from you, you are absolutely nothing. Similarly, your national prejudice is another such wall. As you are inwardly poor, shallow and empty, you seek gratification through things by giving them your own extraordinary values and you therefore cling to them with great tenacity; you therefore build the wall around you and within the enclosure you admit none, not even your son, your neighbour, or the society. In understanding this, you understand that the search for sensory gratification is the cause of creating the enclosing wall.
Desire is the builder of the wall - desire for title, for bank account, for property, for family, for beliefs. The 'I' is the product of the desire in relation to an object. How does desire come into being? Perception, contact, sensation and desire. There is a car, then perception of it, then contact with it, then a sensation caused by it, and then the desire which says "How lovely it is! I would like to have it", comes. Desire or craving comes through seeing, touching and feeling. It is the outcome of sensate values, the identification through the senses with the object of the senses. Desire with regard to ideas also follows the same process. You like or you do not like a particular idea. When you like an idea, that idea is pleasing and gratifying to you. The acceptance of an idea or the rejection of an idea is based merely on gratification which is sensate. So, the sensory values dominate and the sensory value is the 'me' dominating the whole - 'I and my property', 'I and my relationship', or 'I and my belief'. Belief is the outcome of the projection of the mind, whether it is the belief in the ultimate Paramatman or Brahman, or in the Higher Self and the Lower Self. When you think about the Atman, it is still thought. The Brahman is still thought. As your belief in Reality, God, Atman, etc. is self-projected, it is sensory. Therefore, 'your God' is also sensate; 'your God' is created by you. The implications are tremendous if you admit this; it will mean, as far as you are concerned, the whole collapse of the so-called religious society.
So, you see that desire is the outcome of the sensate value; 'me' is the result of desire; 'me' creates, formulates, and fabricates values etc.; the wall that 'me' builds is also of sensate values created by the builder and that whatever the thinker, the actor, the builder, does is always sensory and, therefore, transitory.
You now understand how, because your values with regard to property, to relationship and to ideation are all sensory, there is conflict within yourself and chaos in the society around you which is an expression of your inner conflict. You see that your neighbour is like you in many ways and both of you have only sensate values, though you may talk of the Absolute, the Supreme, the Ideal, etc. The result is conflict between you and your neighbour which is society. That is the building of the walls that separate you and your neighbour, your sensory values and your neighbour's sensory values. So, there is no relationship between you and your neighbour; and therefore there is no relationship between you and society. The society is not responsible for you, It passes laws but you are out of it. You fit in when it suits you; and when it does not suit you, you are out of it. Similarly, society uses you as a part of itself when it suits it; it absorbs you as a soldier when there is a war, and thrusts you into it, and you accept it. Thus, there is mutual exploitation.
You know now how conflict arises by your building your wall of sensate values. You also know that the builder of the wall is the 'I' which is itself the outcome of desire. As long as the 'I' is satisfied with the wall, there is nothing and the 'I' feels absolutely safe inside the wall. Most of you are in this state and you crave to remain undisturbed, each behind his own wall. Therefore, in your present state of psychological enclosure behind the wall of your sensate values, your talk of brotherhood has no meaning whatsoever.
Your cravings, your desires, inevitably cause you suffering. When you suffer, you feel disturbed. There is a breach in the wall, there is an enquiry, there is a storm. When you suffer, you try to forget and to avoid that very suffering by building another wall, a wall of belief, or the religious book or the temple, or the Master or some other means of escape. What happens when the 'thinker' is avoiding pain? The 'thinker' does not want to feel pain or to be disturbed. He hopes to be the permanent and enduring entity behind the wall; and, therefore, he separates himself from the wall, i.e. from the thought, i.e. from the desire. He then attempts to change his desires and his thoughts; he desires a house, he desires a quality, and ultimately he desires God. Objects of desire can be changed and the thinker is behind the wall feeling he is always permanent. The 'thinker' and the 'thought' are now two different things because the 'me', i.e. the thinker, is the permanent entity, the other is impermanent; the 'me' is secure, the other is insecure; and the 'me' can play with the secure as much as it likes. If the thinker identifies himself with the 'thought', then, in changing the thought, he becomes impermanent - which he does not like. Therefore, the 'thought' is considered as separate from the 'I'; when the 'I' is attacked a little more, the 'I' divides itself into the higher and lower; and when the higher is attacked, the 'I' retreats further high, and becomes the Paramatman. There is always in the 'thinker' a sense of permanency, a sense of continuity.
This is what is happening in daily life. When your property is taken away, you retreat to some other permanency, to relationship; and when that goes, you turn to something else, a little higher; and so on, you always remaining, and the objects being higher and higher - which is your relationship to God or 'I am God'. The discussion which we have had so far, has revealed to you the process of your thinking so that, without deception, you can see what you think and how you act in relation to property, in relation to your wife and in relation to society. All these three are sought by you in order to safeguard yourself. Because you think you are separate from your thoughts and desires, you are all the time seeking permanency by changing your thoughts and your desires through legislation, through practices, through discipline, through systems and so on. But as has been stated already, whatever you 'the thinker' may do, it is always sensory and therefore impermanent.
You now realise that neither legislation nor belief nor discipline will alter the 'me'. According to environmental influences the 'me' can change the thought, can become a communist when it suits 'me', or a capitalist, or a socialist, or a religious person. Thus, unless the 'me' who is the mischief-maker is tackled and transformed, the 'me' will always create havoc in relationship with property, with family, and with ideas. The transformation of the 'thinker' will be radical, and not merely superficial, only when the separation of the thinker from the thought ceases.
You suggest that the thinker and the thought are now separate and they should be brought together. This suggestion is wrong because it is based on a non-reality. The 'I' is not actually separate from the thought. It was a clever trick on the part of the 'I' to separate from the thought which is impermanent, assuming its own permanency. This is fictitious. The moment the 'I' realises that it has played the trick on itself, the trick is gone and the thinker is the thought.
To sum up, the 'I' is made up of many memories. The memories are the result of desire; the desire is the result of perception, contact, sensation, identification, which is the 'me'. So, the 'I' which is the product of desire, cleverly separates himself from the desire and does something about it, because, he can always change desires, and yet he can remain permanent. That is a clever trick that he is playing upon himself with a view to entrenching himself in continuity. This is the cause of the inner conflict in each individual and of the chaos which exists in the world at present; this state of affairs will continue till the trick is gone. The 'I' does not see the falseness of the trick which he has played upon himself, because when he realises the falseness of the trick, he will come into conflict with everybody.
Most of you agree with what we have discussed so far in regard to the falseness of the trick played by the mind on itself; yet you have not seen the real depth of this problem and, therefore, it has not brought about clarification and transformation in you. You accept this in your superficial consciousness but the deeper layers of consciousness are putting up a tremendous inward resistance to this acceptance. Is this because you are isolated or sleepy? You are not isolated and sleepy but very awake with regard to things that matter - money, passion, enjoyment and so on. You have deliberately become sleepy to things which are disturbing to you, or which you do not want. This means that you are awake in one part to things you like and asleep in another part to things you do not like. All the present conflict is the result of this partial awakening. Because one part of you is isolated and the other part is active, there is chaos created in yourself and this chaos is projected outside. This is the major portion of your existence. Nothing distracts you from the pursuit of pleasure; but whenever you apprehend any shock or suffering you promptly try your best deliberately to shut it off from you and to avoid it. That is why you do not look at this problem seriously though you verbally agree. Who is going to make you look? Can legislation, government, education, the ideal or any other outside agency make you look? Therefore, suffering comes to you as a warning. But every time you have suffering and sorrow, you look on it as a disturbance and try to avoid it so as to continue in the same old state; this sort of action on the part of the mind has made your life one series of conflicts to avoid "what is". To be aware of how the mind is playing the trick upon itself, is the beginning of understanding. The moment you are aware of it, you invite trouble - and there is joy.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 26th December, 1947
Suffering is the state of disturbance. Either you try to avoid it through some system or escape, or you understand its true significance.Whenever there is a problem, it ceased to be so if there is an answer for it. It is really a problem to you only when it demands a solution and you are unable to find it. It will then be necessary for you to study it for itself.
Craving is the cause of suffering. Without understanding this, your attempt merely to get rid of suffering is bound to be futile.
Supposing you meet with a domestic calamity, like the death of your relative, you feel lonely an you suffer as you would like to retain continuously the state of peace in which you were, prior to his death, and which was agreeable to you.
Is suffering merely a state of disturbance? Is it not a warning that you should wake up and not sleep?
You feel disturbed only when you are asleep or when you hold on to something. Therefore any attempt on your part to get rid of that disturbance or suffering means that you wish to continue in a state of sleep and you feel lost because you sought fulfilment of yourself in your relative. You are seeking continuity in a state of sleep to get a permanent security to which you could attach yourself. Therefore this suffering has nothing to do with your relative's death, and you have never treated suffering as an indication to you of your being asleep.
If this is realised by you, then you will be interested only in what you actually are - i.e. in 'what is' - and your desire to get rid of suffering would then be only a distraction.
Because suffering is a disturbance of continuity, you wish to seek ways and means of entrenching yourself in permanency or in continuity, economic, social etc. You will not be disturbed psychologically either (i) by going insane or (ii) by seeking self-protection through belief and by giving yourself over completely to that belief. As you don't want to be disturbed, you can always find some explanation or other for suffering and you seek a way of not being disturbed psychologically. You then try to shut off everything that disturbs you and to improve in all things that are pleasurable to you. You choose the field agreeable to you and any factor that prevents your choice is a disturbance to you. You therefore adopt a permanent set of choice undisturbed by other things. Naturally you choose the field which gives you satisfaction and you don't want a disturbance in that field except towards improvement. The problem is whether you can improve in the field of your choice without any disturbance, especially when you are trying to shut off the factor that makes for improvement. Improvement can only be known in relationship. Improvement is only by comparison - i.e. by reference to the framework of values, viz., memory which is the residue of experience in relationship with others. This framework is the product of disturbances and you are attempting to use it to ward off disturbance. This attempt, therefore, leads to a perpetual state of contradiction in which there is suffering. In other words, when you attempt to avoid disturbance you don't want memory; but when you want to improve in the field of your choice you really want memory; thus there is contradiction. If you don't want any improvement at all but only continue to shut off every disturbance, then it really means, 'sleep' equal to 'death'. You feel disturbed because you are sensitive. Therefore when you attempt to cut off anything that causes disturbance to you, it means you want to be 'insensitive' or 'dull'. If there is complete cutting off of disturbances, you will be in a sleepy state. Then, the result of all your further activities in the same direction will be either (i) to put you to sleep or (ii) to enable you to realise that cutting-off is a wrong process as it has led you to this sate of insensitivity. If there is understanding, there is realisation; and your intention to continue undisturbed changes; you don't then make any attempt to cut yourself off inwardly from anything that was considered to be a disturbance previously; and every such 'disturbance' is no longer suffering because you are now awake and therefore you are able to understand 'what is'.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 27th December, 1947
These discussions are really meant to be a means of self-knowledge, to discover ourselves are we are talking - not afterwards but as we go along step by step -and to experience directly what is being said, so that we could relate what we are talking to our daily life.We were discussing the idea of separating ourselves in our relationship, how we are building walls of isolation and thinking we are "related" to each other; how the sensate values become predominant when money, property, things are used as a means of isolation; how in relationship between you and another - which relationship creates the society - there is conflict ; that this constant battle between you and me and between you and society is due to our merely looking at each other over the walls of isolation, which we have deliberately built in order to isolate ourselves as much as we can; that this isolation is a form of self-protection, and that these walls are built by the 'me', the thinker who is not really different from the thought, though we have taken it for granted that thought is separate and that the thinker remains aloof and transforms thought.
We also discussed why we do not see the depth of such a serious problem as the thinker and the thought are one, whether it is because we are asleep, or because we don't want to go deeply into the matter, as, if we do it will mean a revolution in thinking and therefore in action. If the thinker and the thought are one, the thinker has to alter himself fundamentally, and not merely the frame of his picture which is thinking. So, the thinker plays an insidious and clever trick on himself and separates himself from the thought and then does something about thought.
To discuss this, you must find out what desire is and how desire or craving arises. Desire comes through perception, contact, sensation and identification. So there is the 'me', the person who chooses. The 'me', the thinker, is born our of desire, and he does not exist previous to desire. In your everyday experience, the thinker is separate from the thought, i.e. the thought is outside you as it were, and you can do something about it, you can modify it and recondition it. Is the thinker really separate from the thought?
How does the 'thinker' come into being? You are the result of your father and mother. How did you begin to think and feel as a child? You wanted milk, there was a sensation of hunger; then the contact with the bottle or the breast, and the struggle to feed, to grow, and then the toy, the impingement of society on the mind, and gradually, the 'I' comes out. Therefore, it is perception, sensation, contact and the desire from which is 'my mother,' 'my toy,' which grows to 'my bank account', 'my house', and so on. So the thinker, the 'me' comes through perception, contact, sensation and desire from which arises consciousness; the thinker then separates himself, for his own further security, as the high and the low, the high becoming the Paramatman and the low becoming this existence. When this existence is threatened, the thinker can always retire into the more permanent.
You are the sum total of all the human existence. As you are a Hindu, you are the result of all Hindus; you are the result of your father, not only biologically, but in thought, in your beliefs, and so on. The 'I' comes into being through desire; then the 'I' feels established and creates the desire which is outward, the desire and 'I' thus becoming two separate entities, which means that the thinker and the thought are separate. Craving continuity, the thinker separates himself from the thought, and thinks that thought is changeable, modifiable, can be destroyed and replaced. If the thinker is the thought, then the thinker also can be changed, which means he has to admit his impermanency - which he does not like. All our actions in society are based on the idea that the 'I' is the permanent and the thought is the impermanent. We know very well the impermanency of matter. Property can be taken away from you when Communism comes, or when you lose it by speculation. Because thought is seeking permanency, it says "I will go to a higher level of consciousness or a deep level which is my belief, which is my God", and goes higher and higher to be more and more permanent. When this trick is understood, it is gone, and the thinker and the thought are one. Then, there will be a revolution in our daily life.
You admit that the thinker and the thought are one and yet there is no change in your way of living. Why? Either you are asleep which means you don't want to be disturbed, or there is an inward resistance. Now, how can we dissolve the resistance? Not by overcoming it, not by disciplining it away, but by understanding it. The moment you understand it, it drops away. What do you mean by resistance? You accept the idea on the superficial layer of your consciousness and the rest of your consciousness is resisting it. You are resisting any change. That is, you are resisting the acceptance of 'what is'; 'what is' is that the thinker and the thought are one. You superficially say "Yes", but the rest of your consciousness is resisting it, because the unconscious sees the tremendous implications in the acceptance of 'what is'. You are afraid to lose yourself - yourself meaning your property, your status now, your belief and your son. So you are resisting in order not to lose what you are protecting, in order to guard it. This means you are resisting the destruction of ideas, relationship and things made by the hand or by the mind; you are resisting the dissolution of the identification with things, with name, with property, and so on. The house, the property, is the value which the mind gives; otherwise the house has no meaning; and things made by the mind are also the values given by the mind. You are afraid that, by not identifying with the valuations of the mind, there will be an end; and so, you are resisting their end or destruction.
You are defending the valuations which you have created, lest they should be destroyed; the valuations are created through desires, which is the mind. So, you are resisting the destruction of valuations which have come into being through thought, the thought being the result of the desire - i.e. the desire creates the thinker, the thinker evaluates and then offers resistance to the destruction of those things which he has built up. So the thinker is resisting 'what is' and the impingement of new desires. The values are created by the mind whether of things or of ideas. So, it is afraid to lose the valuation which it has created and to which it is attached. You bring a new idea and the mind does not want to have it because it is disturbing the things which it has already built.
The thinker is resisting, not with things but with ideas which are transitory in themselves. So, your resistance is transitory. You are resisting the dissolution of valuations which are thoughts and thought is transitory. Things have no significance except what the mind gives; in their very nature they are transitory; and yet the mind clings to them and to the significance it gives them. In other words, the thinker creates evaluations and then, in examining them, finds that these evaluations are transitory, and that he is resisting the destruction of the transitory because he is seeking permanency in them. In other words, you recognise that they are all impermanent and yet you are seeking permanency in them because, by your valuation, you have given them permanency. When you recognise the absurdity of giving permanency to things which have no permanency, it drops away - just as when you know that all the banks are bad, you don't go to any bank. All things made by the hand or by the mind are in their very nature transitory because the mind alone gives values to them, transitory for the simple reason that thought is transitory and thought is the thinker. Now, you, the thinker, are asking,"Is there permanency?" because it is what you want. You are the result of desire which is impermanent. The impermanent is asking to find out the truth of permanency. The mind which has been seeking permanency has vested permanency in things made by the hand or by the mind, and it finds that they are impermanent; and yet it says it must have permanency.
Can the impermanent find the permanent? If I am blind can I see the light? If I am ignorant can I know enlightenment? There can only be enlightenment when ignorance ceases. The transitory cannot find the permanent; it must cease for the permanent to be. The person who is seeking permanency is obviously impermanent; you cannot say he is permanent. He is the outcome of transitory desire and therefore, in himself, he is transitory - which he does not acknowledge.
Property is impermanent. Relationship is impermanent. Belief is impermanent. Therefore, seeing everything around as impermanent and as transitory, the mind says that there must be something permanent, though there is no inherent permanency. Your permanency is born out of impermanency and is therefore the opposite of impermanency; therefore it has the seed of its opposite which is transitory. When you treat impermanency as impermanent then there is nothing; but when you are seeking permanency as an opposite to transitory, the permanency itself is transitory. So you are resisting the acknowledgment of the fact that whatever you do, think and feel is impermanent, though you know very well that they are impermanent. This is another trick of the mind. So, you recognise the trick that the mind is seeking permanency in opposition to the transitory - namely that whatever you do is impermanent; and yet you are seeking permanency. Being transitory yourself, you can never find permanency, because you will evaluate "permanency" and all your valuations are transitory. the impermanent can never find the permanent.
When you realise this, you do not seek permanency through things, through relationship and through ideas. Therefore, there is no valuation and you accept them at their level. Therefore you have no conflict with them. There is a great relief if the mind is not giving values of permanency to things which have no permanency. If you say property, family and things are necessary but not as a means for permanency, then there is no conflict. It does not matter who owns the house; you use it merely as a means of protection, not as a means of self-expansion through the search for permanency. Therefore the mind, the 'thinker' as the 'evaluator', is non-existent. When the thinker ceases to create value, perhaps something else will come into being. But, as long as the thinker exists there must be the evaluation. His values are impermanent. Therefore, if the thinker is seeking permanency, he must cease, because he is the mischief-maker and is reducing to chaos the relationship with society and with property. So your problem then is how the thinker can come to an end, how the thinking process can end.
Someone says that there will be no progress at all if the thinker ceases to exist. The word "progress" was first introduced by the industrialists in the eighteenth century in England because they wanted to make the people buy more. Progress means time. Through time, do you understand anything? You can only understand now, not tomorrow. Therefore, understanding is independent of time. So, how is the thinker to come to an end? If he does, life becomes extraordinarily marvellous and there is no conflict with things. As the thinker is the result of desire, this means that desires must come to an end. Can desire come to an end? What do you mean by desire? Perception, contact, sensation and desire. "I must have " food, "I must have" clothes, "I must have" shelter. Those are imperative 'musts'; though there are certain desires involved in them, they are necessary. But the desire or the craving for things, for family, for name, for beliefs must cease. If it ceases, what will happen to my relationship? Desire is the very expression of attachment. When I use my wife as a means of psychological necessity, then there is attachment; when she helps me to cover up my loneliness, then I am attached. Then, she is mine. Similarly, belief becomes necessary when I am attached to it, whether it is belief in religion, or belief in an economic system. So desire can come to an end only when there is no attachment. And can I live in the world without attachment? Obviously I can. The moment I am attached it is an indication of desire - desire which is impermanent and which creates the thinker who evaluates. It is only when it ends, that you can find out if there is permanency or not. Without that, any talk of belief is puerile. I have shown you how to stop thinking. If thinking ceases, then there would be a great quickening, and a revolution would take place inside you.
Madras, India. Public Talk 28th December, 1947
This will be the last Sunday talk. Though I have gone over many subjects and approached our human problem from different points of view I think it may be just as well if I made, not exactly a summary, but a general survey of what we have been discussing during the last ten weeks. Naturally I cannot do it in detail and, as time is limited, I will naturally have to be very concise but I hope that those of you who have followed these discussions and talks will understand their true significance rather than accept merely the words.We must have realized not only through newspapers but through our everyday contact with life, with our neighbours, our friends, our families, the increasing confusion and misery all around us, politically, socially, religiously; and the same confusion exists in our relationship with each other, that is, with society. So, how are we to understand this increasing confusion and misery and bring order and happiness? I think that is what every thoughtful man is concerned with; I am not talking of those people who are concerned with systems, for they are really not thoughtful people at all; they want to impress upon people a system by means of which happiness or order could be brought about, they are concerned with systems and not with human beings. So, we are not discussing systems or organizations, but how to bring about order in this mad chaotic world.
To go far you must begin very near, mustn't you? You must begin with what is very close, which is yourself. That is, we see this chaos about us, mounting disaster, mounting wars and terrible cruelties and misery; how are we to solve these? It is a vast confused puzzle and where must we begin to bring order and happiness? Surely with yourself, mustn't you? You are the focal point of all this chaos, surely; if we understand that, we will begin with ourselves, each one of us, I with myself and you with yourself. But, somehow we fail to realize this basic fact, that we are the important keystone in the whole structure of society.
What is the relationship between yourself and the misery, the confusion in and around you? Surely this confusion, this misery did not come into being by itself. You and I have created it, not a capitalist or a communist or a fascist society, but you and I have created it in our relation: ship with each other. What you are within has been projected without, onto the world; what you are, what you think and what you feel, what you do in your everyday existence, is projected outwardly and that constitutes the world. If we are miserable, confused, chaotic within, by projection that becomes the world, that becomes society, because the relationship between yourself and myself, between myself and another is society - society is the product of our relationship - and if our relationship is confused, egocentric, narrow, limited, national, we project that and bring chaos into the world.
So, what you are, the world is. So your problem is the world's problem. Surely, this is a simple and basic fact, is it not? In our relationship with the one or the many we seem somehow to overlook this point all the time. We want to bring about alteration through a system or through a revolution in ideas or values, based on a system, forgetting that it is you and I who create society, who bring about confusion or order by the way in which we live. So, we must begin near, that is, we must concern ourselves, with our daily existence, with our daily thoughts and feelings and actions which are revealed in the manner of earning our livelihood and in our relationship with ideas or beliefs. This is our daily existence, is it not? We are concerned with livelihood, getting jobs, earning money, we are concerned with the relationship with our family or with our neighbours, and we are concerned with ideas and with beliefs. Now, if you examine our occupation, it is fundamentally based on envy, it is not just a means of earning a livelihood. Society is so constructed that it is a process of constant conflict, constant becoming; it is based on greed, on envy, envy of your superior; the clerk wanting to become the manager, which shows that he is not just concerned with earning a livelihood, a means of subsistence but with acquiring position and prestige. This attitude naturally creates havoc in society, in relationship, but if you and I were only concerned with livelihood we would find out the right means of earning it, a means not based on envy. Envy is one of the most destructive factors in relationship because envy indicates the desire for power, for position and it ultimately leads to politics; both are closely related; the clerk when he seeks to become a manager, becomes a factor in the creation of power politics which produce war. So, he is directly responsible for war.
What is our relationship based on? The relationship between yourself and myself, between yourself and another - which is society - what is it based on? Surely not on love, though we talk about it. It is not based on love because if there were love there would be order, there would be peace, happiness between you and me. But in that relationship between you and me there is a great deal of ill will which assumes the form of respect. If we were both equal in thought, in feeling, there would be no respect, there would be no ill will, because we would be two individuals meeting, not as disciple and teacher, nor as the husband dominating the wife, nor as the wife dominating the husband. When there is ill will there is a desire to dominate which arouses jealousy, anger, passion, all of which in our relationship create constant conflict from which we try to escape, and this produces further chaos, further misery.
Now as regards ideas which are part of our daily existence, beliefs and formulations, are they not distorting our minds? For, what is stupidity? Stupidity is the giving of wrong values to those things which the mind creates, or to those things which the hands produce. Most of our thoughts spring from the self-protective instinct, do they not? Our ideas, oh, so many of them, do they not receive the wrong significance which they have not in themselves? And therefore, when we believe in any form, whether religious, economic or social, when we believe in God, in ideas, in a social system which separates man from man, in nationalism and so on, surely we are giving a wrong significance to belief, which indicates stupidity, for belief divides people, doesn't unite people. So we see that by the way we live, we can produce order or chaos, peace or conflict, happiness or misery. So, what we have been discussing for the past eleven weeks is directly related to our daily life, to our daily existence and is not theoretical.
To bring order out of this confusion, out of this chaos which we have projected outwardly because inwardly we are chaotic, envious and stupid, is virtue. You can only bring order and peace and happiness through self-knowledge, and not by following a particular system, either economic or religious. But to know one's self is most difficult. It is very easy to follow a system for you don't have to think very much, you give yourself over to a party, either the left or the right, and thereby close your thinking process. To be aware of the activities of your daily existence requires thoughtfulness, intelligence, awareness which very few people are willing to practice. They would rather reform society than understand their own activity, their own thought, their own feelings, yet it is they who really create misery and havoc. Self-knowledge is not the knowledge of some supreme self, which is still within the field of the mind, but the knowledge of yourself in your daily action, what you do every day, what you feel, what you think every moment. This requires extraordinary alertness, does it not? There must be constant alertness to pursue every thought, every feeling and to know all their contents. From self-knowledge comes right thinking, therefore, right action which is really extremely simple when you are aware, but extremely difficult when you talk theoretically about it. Most of us are so callous about everything, about life itself, that we would rather discuss what is self-knowledge than be aware. Yet it is only through right thinking which comes through self-knowledge, the knowledge of everything we do, think and feel, that we can bring order and peace, and not in any other way. No system of philosophy, either of the left or of the right, can bring order, peace and happiness to men because it is you and I who have created this misery, through our everyday stupidity, ill will and envy. These things cannot be eradicated until we understand them. We can only understand them as they function within us, in you and in me, and not by theoretically reading about them in any book; and through understanding them we will bring virtue into being and virtue gives freedom and that freedom is Truth.
I have many questions to answer. I have chosen seven as representing the many and I am going to try to answer these seven questions as quickly and as concisely as possible.
Question: Can an ignorant man with many responsibilities understand and so carry out your teachings without the aid of another, without resorting to books and to teachers?
Krishnamurti: Now, can understanding be given to another? Can you be taught how to love? Can you go to a guru, a teacher, or read a book and learn how to love, how to be kind, how to be generous and how to understand? Can you follow another and be free? Can you accept authority and yet be creative? Surely creativeness comes only when there is freedom, inward freedom, when there is no fear, when there is no imitation, when there is no submission to authority whether of a sacred book or of a teacher. Now, who is the ignorant man? Surely the ignorant man is the man who does not know himself, and not the man who is not learned; The learned man is really stupid in his ignorance because he relies on knowledge, books, outward authority to give him understanding, but understanding comes only through self-knowledge which is the true state of yourself, the state of your total process and not only one part of your being, either the material or the psychological for both these act and react upon each other. The study of yourself, which is self-knowledge, is extraordinarily arduous as it demands constant awareness which is not introspection because introspection is merely the improvement of the self, the self which is functioning every day. Improvement implies condemnation and depression; that is introspection, but awareness is totally different. Awareness can only come into being when you are not condemning when you are alertly passive. So, self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom.
Now, the questioner asks: Can an ignorant man, with many responsibilities, understand and carry out your teachings without the aid of a teacher? Obviously, if you accept authority there cannot be understanding, for authority is ever blinding whether it be outward authority or inward authority; and to have many responsibilities implies relationship, does it not? And relationship is a process of self-revelation. Only in relationship can you find out. There is no such thing as living in isolation. Even the man who seeks to avoid the world and run away from the world, is in relationship with others, because to exist is to be related and in the relationship between you and me, between yourself and another, the activities of the self are revealed.
Surely in order to know yourself, to know what you think, what you feel, you don't have to go to a guru. Though it is arduous no one can help you to follow out every thought, every feeling and to realize their implications and their significance. You and I can discuss it, go into it significantly, with complete concentration, with interest, but because you are not really interested, you will go to someone else to find out how to think, how to discover and that is the misfortune. The moment you are interested, the moment you recognize your responsibility in relationship then that very process begins to unwrap the ways of your own thoughts and actions. So, the problem is not whether you should read books or go to teachers but whether, very simply, you are aware of what you are doing, of what you are thinking, when you put on your sacred threads, your namams, when you talk to your servants; aware of the way you treat your wives, your children and your neighbours. Be aware every moment and see what happens. You will see that when you are aware, there will be conflict, greater conflict than before; because you then begin to see the significance of your actions, of your thoughts and feelings, and this will bring you further misery, and as we want to avoid suffering we turn to gurus, books, which are merely escapes and therefore create further misery in us and therefore in society.
So, what is important is to be creative but creativeness does not come through imitation, creativeness comes into being only when there is freedom. Surely you do have ideas and feelings at moments when you are not imitating, when you are quiet and when you are silent. There is creativeness only when there is cessation of fear, when you are not concerned about your own activities, about your miseries and misfortunes. Only in that state of freedom from your daily existence, your daily worries, is there that creativeness, and that creativeness cannot be learned, it comes into being when your daily problems are understood, but you cannot understand them through a book, through a teacher but only by coming into direct contact with them, by being aware of them every minute of the day. This is very arduous, it requires swiftness of thought. But as most of us are dull, as most of us are merely imitating, copying tradition or following a system, our minds are sluggish. To break away from those things which make us dull requires direct action; but as we have committed ourselves, it is very difficult because it means more disruption and as we are unwilling to face it we turn to books, to teachers who will gratify us, who will pacify us in our dullness. So, understanding comes only through self-knowledge and not through a book or through a teacher.
Question: What is the awareness that you speak of? Is it the awareness of the supreme universal consciousness?
Krishnamurti: Surely, Sirs, to be aware means very simply, to be aware of yourself in relation to your neighbour, to the flower, to the bird, to the tree; to be aware of your own thoughts, feelings and actions, because you must begin very near, mustn't you, to go very far. You cannot be aware of something that you don't know; you talk about universal consciousness, but you don't know it. If you do know it, surely it is not the Real. You have learned of it in a book or you have been told about it. It is still within the field of the mind, of the memory; you want to begin with the most difficult and far away and not with the near, because it is much easier to be aware of God, for you can lose yourself in an idea, in imagination. But to be aware of your own daily acts, daily feelings, daily thoughts is much more painful and so you would rather be aware of something far away than of the things very close, such as your relationship with your wife or with your neighbour. You can be aware of love ideologically for it is the farthest and the most difficult thing. But to be aware, in our relationship how cruel we are, thoughtless, callous, self-enclosed, is very painful, and being conscious of the immediate pain which direct awareness brings, we would rather think of, or be aware of the universal consciousness, whatever that may mean, which again is a form of escape from the actual, from what is.
So, the awareness I am speaking of, is the awareness of what is, what is actually, directly in front of you, because in understanding what is, which is the very nearest, you can reach great depths, great heights; then there is no deception, then there is no self-illusion, because in the understanding of what is there is transformation. You will find that awareness is not condemnation or identification but a process of understanding of what is. If you condemn, if you, identify, you stop thinking, do you not? If you want to understand your child and if you condemn him you don't understand him. Similarly if you have a feeling, which is `what is', don't condemn it, don't identify it with yourself, don't cling to it but be aware of it; and by becoming aware of it you will find that you can go deeper and deeper into it and therefore discover the whole content of what is.
Awareness of what is, must be choice: less which again is very arduous. Awareness is that state of choicelessness, because if you want to understand something you must not condemn or identify, it must tell you its story. After all, if you observe a child, if you want to understand him, if you want to study him, his ways, his mannerisms, his idiosyncrasies, his moods, you can only do that if you don't condemn him or identify yourself with him, saying: this is my child. Condemnation, justification or identification prevents understanding and to be aware of the whole total process of what is, there must be choiceless observation. You do just that when you are interested in something, when you are vitally interested in pursuing something, in understanding something; you are not criticizing, you are not condemning, you give all your mind and heart to it. But, unfortunately we are trained educationally and religiously to condemn and not to understand. After all, condemnation is very easy, but to understand is very arduous, understanding requires intelligence, condemnation does not demand any intelligence at all, condemnation is a form of self-protection just as identification is. When you condemn you protect yourself, but if you want to understand what is, condemnation is a barrier. If you want to understand the state of the world as it is now, its appalling misery, surely it is no good condemning it, you must investigate it, you must observe from different points of view, from the psychological, economic, and so on. It is a total process and to understand the total process you cannot condemn it in part. We condemn because it is so easy to condemn, while to be aware and to pursue all the implications requires a great deal of patience, a capacity to penetrate and to be still. You understand only when there is stillness, when there is silent observation, passive awareness. Then the problem yields you its significance. So, the awareness of which I am speaking is awareness of what is, and not of something which is the invention of the mind. Being aware implies awareness of the mind's activities in which are included ideas, beliefs but also the tricks which the mind plays upon itself. So, be aware of what is, without condemnation, without justification or identification, then you will see that there is a deeper understanding which resolves our problems.
Question: I am very interested in your teachings; I would like to spread them. What is the best way to do it?
Krishnamurti: Many things are involved in this question. Let us look at it. Propaganda is a lie because mere repetition is not Truth. What you can repeat is a lie. Truth cannot be repeated for Truth can only be experienced directly; mere repetition is a lie because repetition implies imitation. That which you repeat may be Truth to someone but when you repeat it, it ceases to be Truth. Propaganda is one of the terrible things in which we are caught. You know something or you don't know. Usually you have read something in some books and you have heard some talk and you want to spread it. Have words any significance besides the verbal meaning? So what you are spreading is really words and do words or terms, resolve our problems? Say, for instance, you believe in reincarnation; you don't know why you believe but you want to spread that belief. What are you spreading in fact? Your belief, terms, words, your convictions which are still within the field, within the layer of verbal expression.
We think in words, in terms, we seek explanations which are still only words and we are caught in this monstrous lie, believing that the word is the thing. Surely, the word God is not God, but you believe that the word is God and that therefore you can spread it. Please see this. To you the word has become important, and not Reality. So you are caught in the verbal level and what you want to spread is the word. That means you will catch what I am saying in the net of words and so cause a new division between man and man. Then you will create a new system based on Krishnamurti's words which you the propagandist will spread among other propagandists who are also caught in words and thereby what have you done? Whom have you helped? No, Sirs, that is not the way to spread. So don't try what is stupid, what is the height of folly - to spread someone else's experience.
If you experience something directly, it would be experience not based on belief; because what you believe you experience and therefore it is not real experience but only conditioned experience; there can be experience, the right kind of experience only when thinking ceases, but that experience cannot be spread as information to clear the mess. But, if you begin to understand simple things like nationalism, surely you can discuss it with others, in order to make it known as a poison which is destroying man. Sirs, you are not aware of the enormous calamity that lies in wait for you and for the whole world because this poison is spreading. You are nationalists, you are Hindus against pakistan, against England, against Germany, against Russia, and so on. So, nationalism is a poison, is it not? You can understand that very easily, because it divides men. You cannot be a nationalist and talk of brotherhood; these terms are contradictory. That also you can understand, that you can talk about. But you don't want to talk about that because that would mean a change of heart within yourself, which means that you must cease to be a Hindu with your beliefs, ceremonies and all the rubbish that is around you. We don't talk about nationalism because we might be asked if we are free of it ourselves. Not being free, we evade it and try to discuss something else. Surely you can talk about something which you live and which you are doing every day, and that is what I have been talking about - your daily actions, your daily thoughts and feelings. My words you cannot repeat; for, if you do, they will have no meaning; but you can talk about the way you live, the way you act, the way you think, from which alone there can be understanding; all that, you can discuss; but there is no use of groups with presidents and Secretaries and organizations which are terrible things in which you are often caught. Sirs, though you all smile, yet surely you are all caught in these.
I don't think you know how catastrophic the whole situation is in the world now. I don't have to frighten you. You have merely to pick up a newspaper and read about it. You are on the edge of a precipice and you still perform ceremonies, carry on in your stupid ways, blind to what is happening. You can only alter by transformation of yourself and not by the introduction of a new system whether of the left or of the right. In the transformation of yourself is the only hope but you cannot transform yourself, radically, profoundly, if you are above all a Hindu, if you perform ceremonies, if you are caught in the net of organizations.
As it has always been in the past, so also at the present time the salvation of man is in his being creative. You are caught inwardly in belief, in fear and in those hindrances that prevent the coming together of man and man. That is, if I don't know how to love you, how to love my neighbour, my wife, how can there be communion between us. We need communion, not communion between systems but communion between you and me without systems, without organizations and that means we must really know how to love one another, our hearts must be opened to one another, but your hearts cannot be open if you belong to an organization, if you are bound by beliefs, if you are nationalistic, if you are a brahmin or a sudra.
So, you can spread even a tiny part of what I have been talking about, only as you live it. It is by your life that you communicate profoundly, not through words. Words, Sirs, to a serious, thoughtful man have very little meaning. Terms are of very little significance when you are really seeking Truth, Truth in relationship and not an abstract Truth of valuations, of things, or of ideas. If you want to find the truth of those things verbally, it is of little importance; but words become very important when you are not seeking Truth; then the word is the thing and then the thing catches you. So, if you want to spread these teachings, live them, and by your life you will be spreading them, you will be communicating them, which is much more true and significant than verbal repetition, for repetition is imitation and imitation is not creativeness and you as an individual must awake to your own conditioning and thereby free yourself and hence give love to another.
Question: Is marriage necessary for women?
Krishnamurti: I don't know why it is necessary for women any more than it is for men. This is really an enormous problem. We will try to tackle it. First of all we are trying to understand the problem, we are not trying to condemn it or identify with it or justify it. We are trying to understand the problem of marriage, in which is implied sexual relationship, love, companionship, communion. Obviously if there is no love, marriage becomes a disgrace, does it not? Then it becomes mere gratification. To love is one of the most difficult things, is it not? Love can come into being, can exist only when the self is absent. Without love, relationship is a pain; however gratifying, or however superficial, it leads to boredom, to routine, to habit with all its implications. Then, sexual problems become all important. In considering marriage, whether it is necessary or not, one must first comprehend love. Surely, love is chaste, without love you cannot be chaste; you may be a celibate, whether a man or a woman, but that is not being chaste, that is not being pure, if there is no love. If you have an ideal of chastity, that is if you want to become chaste, there is no love in it either because it is merely the desire to become something which you think is noble, which you think will help you to find Reality; there is no love there at all. Licentiousness is not chaste, it leads only to degradation, to misery. So does the pursuit of an ideal. Both exclude love, both imply becoming something, indulging in something and therefore you become important and where you are important, love is not. So, that is one of the problems. Then, if you are not married, consider the difficulties, either for man or woman. Biologically, the woman `needs' to fulfil herself in a child. When she is deprived of that she is starved, as she is starved when she is deprived of love. And as most women are deprived of love they seek fulfillment in things or in their children. So, children and things become all important to women, whereas the man tries to fulfil himself in work and activity. But is there fulfillment? I hope you are following all this. If I try to fulfil myself through things, through family, through ideas, then family, names, things and ideas become very important. And therefore I give value to things, to relationship, to ideas. I give them a greater value than they have because they are important to me. I introduce wrong laws, wrong methods, wrong values instead of finding out if there is fulfillment.
What do we mean by fulfillment? As long as we are seeking fulfillment there is fear, is there not? I want to fulfil myself in my family, in my name, in my continuity or in things or in ideas. So, there is always a desire for fulfillment where there is frustration. I want to fulfil myself because I am aware that I am not fulfilling myself. The fact is I am not fulfilling. I am empty, I would like to fill that emptiness. So, what happens? I merely pursue fulfillment without understanding `what is'. If I understood what is, which is my emptiness, my hollowness, my shallowness, my pettiness, then I could transform that. There is a tremendous revolution in that. But, if I merely pursue fulfillment, then there is misery because I seek fulfillment in so many ways, which is merely a continuation of my own emptiness. So, that is one of the problems.
Then there is the problem of creativeness which is not merely the breeding of children. Sirs, a man who is happy inwardly, who is creative, does not bother whether he is married or unmarried, he is not seeking fulfillment, he is not escaping through passion, through lust. We cease to be creative when we are imitative, when we are merely functioning according to the response of memory. The response of memory is generally called thinking but such thinking is merely a response of the framework of references which is memory, and that is not real thinking. There is real thinking only when there is no response to memory. In that passive alert awareness, there is creativeness. When you are in that state, then life with all its passions, with all its desires, fades away which does not mean that you cease to love, on the contrary.
Sirs, in order to communicate with another there must be love. It is because we have not that love that all these problems arise: whether I should or should not marry, whom should I marry, the sexual problem, creativeness and so on. But unfortunately, love is something you cannot learn, it is something which cannot be translated. It comes into being when you have no problem. Have you not found yourselves walking along the streets sometimes, looking at the stars, looking at the sky, or the sunset and feeling happy without knowing why? At such times you want to put your arm around another, you are really in communion with man. But unfortunately, we are so occupied with our own thoughts and problems and fears and our envy, that we have no time to be in communion. You don't know your wife, you don't know your husband or your children. You may have children but there is no love, because you and your wife are isolated. You are hiding behind a wall of your own making and without breaking down that wall, there cannot be communion and to commune there must be love. Without love, mere search for chastity, celibacy, is unchaste. When there is love there is chastity, purity, there is incorruptibility.
Question: I have listened to what you have been saying and I feel that to carry out your teachings I must renounce the world I live in.
Krishnamurti: Sir, you cannot renounce the world, can you? What is the world? The world is made up of things, relationships and ideas. How can you give up things? Even if you give up your house you will still have a `kurtha'. You may renounce your wife but you will still be in relation with someone, with the milkman, for instance, or the man who gives you food. And you cannot renounce belief, can you? I wish you would. Begin there, if you must renounce something, renounce the wrong valuations which you have given to everything. Wrong valuations create havoc and it is from these wrong valuations which cause misery that you want to escape. You don't want to understand that you are giving wrong values. You want to escape from the result of wrong values but if you understood the world, which is - ideas, relationship, things - and their true significance, then you would not be in conflict with the world. You cannot withdraw from the world, to withdraw means isolation and you cannot live in isolation. You can live in isolation only in an asylum, but not by renouncing the world. You can only live truly happily with the world when you are not of the world, which means you don't give wrong values to the things in the world. This can happen only when you understand yourself the giver of wrong values. Sirs, it is like a stupid man trying to renounce stupidity. He will still be stupid, he may try to become clever but he will remain stupid. But if he understood what stupidity is, that is, himself, surely then he would reach great heights. Then he would have wisdom. It is not by renouncing that you can find Reality. By renouncing you escape into illusion; you do not discover that which is true. So, what I have been saying is that one must give right values to things, to relationship, to ideas and not try to escape from the world. It is comparatively easy to go away into isolation, but it is extremely arduous to be aware and to give true values. Sirs, things have no value in themselves. The house has no value in itself but it has the value you give it. If psychologically you are empty, insufficient in yourself, the house becomes very important because you identify yourself with the house, and then comes the problem of attachment and renunciation. It is really stupid, and if you understood your inward nature, your inward hollowness, then the problem would have very little meaning. Everything becomes extraordinarily significant when you are trying to use it to cover up your own loneliness. Similarly with relationship, with ideas, with belief. So, there is richness only in understanding the significance of what is, and not in running away into isolation.
Question: a) Life hurls at us one problem after another. Will the state of awareness of which you speak, enable us to understand and solve, once and for all, the whole question of problems or have they to be solved one after the other?
Question: b) I feel certain deep urges which need to be disciplined. What is the best way of disciplining them?
Krishnamurti: Sirs, it is a very difficult problem. Those of you who are really earnest must give your mind and heart to it. First of all there are problems one after the other. Life is one constant battle of problems and we want to know how to solve them, how to meet them or how to discipline ourselves in order to resist them. That is the whole problem: How are we to discipline ourselves so as not to let problems affect us, how are we to prevent this constant arising of problems? Can they be cut off at the root once and for all?
So, there are several things involved in this question. You will be pursued by problems, one after the other, with their constant annoyance and pain, constant apprehensions if you don't understand who is the creator of problems. If you understand who is the creator of problems, then naturally you will not deal with the problems one by one; that would be utterly stupid. If I understand the cause and not merely the symptoms, then the symptoms cease to be. Similarly if I understand who is the creator of the problems, then the problems cease to be, then there is no question of tackling first one problem and then another.
Then, there is implied the problem of the thinker and the thought, of the one who disciplines and the one who is disciplined. The thinker, the imitator, the discipliner is trying to discipline his thought. This is one of the problems, and the other is how to resist attack from the outside. So, let us begin with the resistance first.
Do you resist when you understand something? Surely not. Discipline exists only as a measure of resistance; otherwise you don't need discipline at all. If through discipline you can create a certain habit, a certain isolation, a certain enclosure then you think you will no longer be afraid. So, discipline, which is resistance or a means of self-protection exists when there is no understanding. If you understand a problem, then the problem ceases. You don't have to resist it. For example, if you understand why you are arrogant then you don't have to resist arrogance. Your disciplining yourself is again arrogance, pride, the pride of achieving, the pride of becoming, the pride of being somebody, it is the search for power, position. If you understand all of that then you will never resist, and you will not discipline your mind `not to be arrogant'. So, to understand `what is', is extremely difficult because to understand what is, there must be no distraction of an opposite; for instance, of humility which is the opposite of arrogance. There must be complete concentration on `what is'.
So, discipline exists only as a form of resistance. You discipline yourself in order not to be tempted, you discipline yourself against something. But, discipline as a mode of resistance, which is violence, ceases only when you understand it, when you are aware of it, when you don't reject it, when you don't condemn it. You will find that through awareness there comes a discipline which is not imposed, a discipline of extraordinary intelligence and pliability. A man who resists is really `dead,' he is `enclosed' to a man who is independent and free. So, discipline is resistance, I am using the word to include all modes and practices used for self-protection. Discipline is a form of resistance and where there is resistance, there is enclosure and where there is enclosure there is no understanding, there is no communion. A disciplined man is merely righteous and a righteous man has no love in his heart, he is enclosed within the walls of his becoming.
The other point in this question is whether problems can be solved all at once, in one stroke cut off at the root. But first we must discover who is the creator of problems. If the creator is understood the problems will cease. The creator of the problem is the thinker, is he not? Problems do not exist apart from the thinker, that is obvious, is it not? The thinker is the creator of the problems whether many or one. Now, is the thinker separate from his thoughts? If he is separate, then the problem will continue because he creates the problem, separates himself from it and deals with the problem. But if the thinker is the thought, inseparably, then being the creator, he can begin to solve himself without being concerned with the problem, or with the thought. Now, you think that the thinker is separate from his thought, that is exactly what all your religious books, your philosophies are based on. Is that not so? It does not matter what the Bhagavad Gita says or what any book says. Is the thinker separate from his thought? If he is separate, problems will continue, if he is not, then he can be freed of the source of all problems.
If the thinker is separate from his thoughts, how does he become separated? Remove the qualities of the thinker, remove his thoughts, where is the thinker? The thinker is not. Remove the qualities of the self which is memory, ambition and so on, where is the self? But if you say the self is not the thinker but some other entity behind the thinker, he is still the thinker, because you have only pushed the thinker further back. Now, why has the thinker separated himself from his thoughts? The thinker cannot be without thought because if there is no thought there is no thinker. Now the thinker has separated himself from the thought for the simple reason that thought can be transformed, can be modified, and so in order to give himself permanency the thinker separates himself from the thought and thereby gives himself permanency. The thought being transient, mutable, can be altered, but the thinker who creates the thought can be permanent. He is the permanent entity, whereas the thought is changeable, it can be changed according to circumstances, according to environ- mental influences but he the thinker remains. He is the thought and if thought ceases he is not, surely, although all our books say differently. Just think it out for yourself for the first time. Put your books aside, forget your authorities and look at the problem directly. Without the thought the thinker is not and the thinker creates the thought and separates himself from it in order to protect himself; thereby he gives stability, certainty to himself and continuity.
Now, how does the thinker come into being? Obviously through desire. Desire is the outcome of perception, contact, sensation, identification and `me'. Perception of a car, contact, sensation, desire, identification, and `I like it', `I want it'. So, I am the product, the thinker is the product of desire, and having produced the `I', the `I' separates itself from the thought because it can then transform the thought and yet remain permanent.
So, as long as the thinker is separate from his thought, there will be problems, one after the other, innumerable problems; but if there is no separation, if the thinker is the thought, then what happens? Then the thinker himself undergoes a transformation, a radical, fundamental transformation, and that, as I have said, is meditation. It is self-knowledge, it is all that I have said about the thinker; how he separates himself from the thought and how the thinker has come into being. You can test it for yourself. You don't have to read a sacred book to find out the truth of it. That is the beginning of self-knowledge and from that there comes meditation. Meditation is the ending of thought of the thinker, by not giving significance to the thinker, by not giving continuity to the thinker. The thinker is disciplining his thought, separating himself so as to give continuity to himself through property, through family, through ideas, and as long as the thinker exists there will be problems and it is when the thinker ceases thinking, that meditation begins. Meditation is self-knowledge and without self-knowledge there is no meditation. You will find that if you go into the whole question of self-knowledge which is the beginning of wisdom - not by any practice because practice is merely resistance - you can go deeper and deeper starting with the centre which is the desire creating the `I', the self; and when that self continues in the Atman or higher self it is still the thinker merely pushing further back his permanency. Till you are aware of this whole process there is no ending of the problem. But when you become aware, you will find that time has ceased - time as memory of the past and the future - and that there is the immediate present, the eternal, and in this alone is Reality.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 29th December, 1947
In daily life, if you watch yourself you will find that you are not sensitive. Why are you not sensitive? Because it hurts you, or because you don't want to be found out in your true colours, your natural instinct is to be physically insensitive. Generally speaking, artists are considered unsteady and immoral. That is because, biologically and physically they are intense in their emotions.Modern civilisation necessarily involves a biological and physical barrier of sensitivity as otherwise existence will be almost impossible. Is it necessary to have also a psychological barrier? In practice, we are psychologically more sensitive than even physically, though both work upon each other. We have walls of guilt, defence and fear.
Let us find out to whom there is experience, to him who is asleep or to him who is awake. Experience is only to the man who is asleep because he is awakened by that experience and he then says that he has had experience. If he is awake, he is always active and therefore he has no experience.
You now want to know what Karma means. Karma really means either to do or to be, and it comprises (i) the instinctive responses of the physical and (ii) the cultural responses of the psychological human being. The cultural responses are educated, controlled, conditioned and disciplined. Society, by means of its discipline, impinges on the individual and changes his impulses. The individual has also inherited impulses from his past. So the present is the passage from the past to the future. His cultural and psychological responses are from the past but modified by the conjunction of the past with the present. Thus, the past is controlling and modifying the present - i.e. the cause which was in the past brings about an effect in the present. The past modified by, or flowing through, the present produces action which is also conditioned. The old, meeting the new challenge, produces modified action - i.e. the new is always modified by the old. The past is the 'me' and in conjunction with the present, the 'me', produces action. The past itself was a series of modifications- yesterday was a modification of the day before yesterday in conjunction with yesterday's present; similarly, the day before yesterday was the modification of the day before in conjunction with the present of the day before yesterday. Today is a modification of yesterday in conjunction with today's present. Thus, the 'modifier' is the continuous entity of the days before yesterday, yesterday and today. The modifier is the actor and he is the result of modification of the innumerable days before yesterday. Therefore, he is the creator of time - the time of memory not chronological time. As the actor is the result of the past, he necessarily causes modification to the present when he meets the present which is new. This meeting of the past with the challenge of the present which is new, leads to conflict which results in modification of the new into the old. In other words, your feeling now is conditioned by what you felt yesterday and all the days before. Therefore, in meeting a new challenge today you act in a conditioned manner and therefore you feel pain.
Yesterday was modified by the days before yesterday. In the time-interval, cause and effect form a process of change. That which was the effect yesterday of a cause of day-before-yesterday, is now found to be the cause of the effect today; this effect in turn will be the cause of something which will be noticed as effect tomorrow.
Is today (which is cause) different from tomorrow (which is effect)? Is cause different from effect? Is what we call modification a modification at all?
The means creates the end. Is the end distant from the means?
You have seen that what was the effect becomes the cause and what is the cause will become the effect, and that this is a continuous chain throughout. You have also realised that the actor who is the modifier, is also really the cause and the effect, and that there is no time-interval when the cause is distant from the effect; thus cause and effect are the same.
As has already been stated, the conditioned experience of yesterday meets the present which is always new, and modifies the present according to yesterday's conditioning. This modification is taking place continuously with no time-interval and therefore there is no moment in time when the cause and the effect are two distinct things separate and distant from each other. The whole is one continuous process and the action is a continuous stream where the cause, the effect and the modifier are all one and the same. Why is it that the actor does not realise that he is at the same time the cause, the effect and the modifier? You are sorrow (i.e. today); you are the cause of sorrow (i.e. tomorrow); yet you want to avoid sorrow. Today's experience has been conditioned by yesterday's and it will condition the experience of tomorrow. Therefore, psychological time is created by memory and does not exist except as memory ever undergoing modification. As long as the actor is the result of yesterday in conjunction with the present, he will be the modifier also. Cause and effect and their modification are all fluid and in a state of flux, they are never steady. You are the cause and the modifier always living and moving, always going on as one continuous process. If you realise this, then to you, time as a process of understanding ceases.
If you consider that the cause is different from the effect, then you accept the time-interval for modification. that means you can modify the effect during this time-interval; this implies growth or progress in time towards a state already projected by you. This is really false because the acorn contains the oak tree and it cannot grow into anything else. When you thus realise that cause and effect are the same, there is no time at all; and when you also realise that any action on the part of the actor will be only in time, you will cease to think in terms of time. Therefore the actor cannot do anything but remain still and silent in a state of alertness. Any discipline that the actor chooses to impose upon himself is really a response to a challenge made by a temptation or a desire, whether verbal or painful. All discipline is therefore a process of isolation. For instance, to resist greed, you discipline against greed by erecting a wall of non-greed. When discipline is a means of resistance, you are using time as a means of modification or resistance and therefore time becomes important. Discipline, being then a process of conditioning in time, causes sorrow.
When you realise this and when you understand the whole meaning of discipline, the discipline drops away. You will never act contrary to what is orderly if you live without discipline but with understanding.
Fighting a response always leads to further resistance. Your psychological inward intention is to be free so that you may meet a new challenge without any conditioning; there- fore, you would allow all the responses that are already in you to come out; you do not impede them in any manner. You go on like this, till you have worked out all your old responses. This understanding of responses really leads to the dropping away of your responses and you will be neither 'excited' nor 'not excited', because being aware of every response means intense watchfulness. You will then be in a state of extraordinary pliability when love will come into being. Then, the actor who has realised himself to be the cause, the effect and the modifier, faces everything that comes to him irrespective of whether it is pleasurable or painful without any resistance whatsoever.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 30th December, 1947
To love one another is one of the most difficult things, because there is in it always the shadow of pleasure and pain. In it there is always the sensual memory with its incessant gnawing either of yesterday's picture or of tomorrow's delight. There is always a sense of frustration, a sense of unpleasant existence; there is never a moment of complete love, of complete communion with another. Have you ever felt this sense of an extraordinary physical resistance as well as psychological impediment in loving another, when there is really no openness between two people? Surely, there can be only love when there is this sense of complete communion with another.There is no way to love. You cannot buy it, nor can you barter it away for something else; love must be really felt and lived, and it comes into being when this pleasure and pain, when this sense of frustration, when this sense of demanding fulfilment in another, when this sense of the "me" and "my pleasures" ceases; and that is one of the most difficult and arduous things. We can be sentimental over love; but that is not love. In loving one, you will love the whole of humanity. The idea of loving everybody has very little meaning if you don't know how to love one, your child, your husband, your wife, your neighbour. After all, the one is the whole.
The idea of cosmic love and loving mankind is really a rationalisation of the lack of love in one's heart for another. It is an easy escape of the reformer, of the humanist, of the moralist and of the righteous. Our trouble is that we really do not know how to love one another.
We know when we love somebody with all our being. It is surely a shattering experience because it implies a letting down of all barriers.
It is worthwhile discussing the problem of duality, in which is implied pleasure and pain, resistance and non-resistance, merit and demerit, the desire for fulfilment, the desire to have an example or an ideal, the desire to imitate, the problem of resistance, meditation etc. Is there the opposite? Are we aware of the opposites and when?
When you crave for something, there is always resistance. In gaining it, you must resist other encroachments and other influences. You must build around you a wall in order to gain what you want. Others also may want the same thing: and so, you must resist them. So, in craving for something, there must be resistance.
You desire power. In setting out to achieve power, you desire to acquire position, prestige and all the implications of power. In this craving for achievement, there is inherently the state of 'not-achieving' and fear of 'not achieving'; this means resistance. Thus, every craving for something creates its own opposite, its own resistance.
Let us take attachment and detachment. Being attached, you find pain and strife in attachment; and in order to overcome that pain and strife, you say 'I must be detached.' It is really the pain that comes out of attachment that you want to get rid of; only, you call it detachment. But you never question why you are attached. If you understood what attachment is, then you would not proceed to detachment. Attachment may be the outcome of frustration. You are attached to your house, name, wife. Inwardly, you are frustrated, you are not fulfilling, you are not complete. Therefore, the house, the family and the name become all important, to which you become attached; and when they cause you pain, you wish to 'develop detachment'. But still, the inward frustration, emptiness, poverty, continues. We treat detachment and attachment as opposites, because we do not really understand the process of detachment.
You have to understand what is implied in being held to something. In the very desire to achieve anything, there is the seed of its own opposite. In the process of 'becoming', achieving, gaining, there is always the 'conflict of the opposites', because the very desire to 'become something' creates its own opposite.
In 'becoming' there is always the dual; in 'being' there is no duality. When you are angry, there is no duality at the moment of anger, i.e. you are in the state of 'being angry'. But that 'being angry' creates a disturbance and you don't want to be angry; so you want to 'become peaceful'; this 'becoming' implies the dual. There is no duality in that particular moment when the feeling arises; duality is only found after that feeling has been termed; there is the time-factor involved in it. If there is no 'becoming', there is no duality with all its conflict, the time-factor, the whole sense of frustration and all the rest of it.
For example, you are angry; you find anger painful, you think there will be pleasure in 'non-anger'; thus you have immediately created duality; you refuse to understand the full significance of anger, but you pursue its opposite; you want to transform 'anger' into 'non-anger'. Thus, 'becoming' implies a refusal to acknowledge 'what is' and a desire to transform 'what is' into other than 'what is'.
The pursuit of an ideal also implies the 'conflict of opposites'. The ideal is something which you are not. You are this and you want to 'become' that which is your ideal. To understand the implications of what you actually are now, your mind must be free and concentrated; but if your mind is thinking in terms of the ideal, then it is distracted by the ideal. What are the implications of 'becoming the ideal'? The ideal is the example to be followed, and 'becoming' the ideal means imitation. Supposing you are arrogant, your ideal is humility. The ideal is created by your not understanding 'arrogance' which is the 'what is'. Humility is the example which you are going to become. The example means imitation. So, in becoming, in achieving the ideal, there is coping which means only imitation and no thinking. when you have an ideal there cannot be thinking; there is merely the achievement of 'becoming that ideal'. In your daily life, you are full of ideals; which means you are not thinking but merely imitating. In 'becoming', there is imitation, copying and therefore the cessation of thinking, feeling, living; and therefore, the idealists are the most thoughtless, brutal and ruthless people; and to them systems are more important than man. Hitler was said to be a great idealist. In yourself, you can see the truth of this when you pursue an ideal. You have the ideal of Brahmacharya; then you just leave you wife and go. When you have an ideal of a perfect state, the proletariat or the right, you see how ruthless you are bound to be in achieving that ideal. The ideal, for example, is the authority, whether it is imposed by another or by yourself inwardly, therefore, there is cessation of thinking and there is fear.
All your social structure, all you education, and all your relationship are based on imitation. Your judgement and your thought is based on avoiding 'what is'. Look at what is happening in society. corruption, degradation and so on. Why do you not tackle all this directly, instead of saying that through an ideal you must become marvellous?
It is the thoughtless man who is asleep and who is imitative, that wants an ideal, because he has to whip himself up to become something. But the man who is learning, watching and feeling things, does not require an ideal; he is active where he is. So, in 'becoming' there is the denial of 'what is', the denial of what you are, i.e. your 'being arrogant'. And in 'becoming humble', which is the ideal, you must find out how to become that. "How" is the imitative process. You go to a Guru for help, in which there is implied authority and fear. So, 'becoming' implies imitation and therefore no creativeness at all. Look at the society, look at us, how thoughtless as are! We are marvellous in passing examinations and nothing else. A man who is 'becoming' can never find Reality because he is not understanding 'what is', but wants to transform 'what is'. Why should any man 'become the ideal' when he is what he is? By understanding 'what is', perhaps a new thing will come into being.
So, an ideal is really an impediment; the example is a horror to a creative man. When you want to write a poem and when you are imitating Keats, you cease to be a poet. But when you are really creative and you really want to write a poem, you don't care two pins about Keats as the ideal. That is why you need revolution of a fundamental, deep and psychological nature to free you from imitation, from the ideal; because it is only when you are free, you can be creative. When you are aware of the implications of 'becoming' which creates the ideal and which creates the example, it drops away. This means facing 'what is' and living very dangerously, sailing in uncharted seas and being very alert and awake all the time.
You say that others will exploit you. If you are intelligent, you are not exploited by others, nor do you want to exploit others. You cannot be exploited by another unless you both belong to the same club.
There is, at present, chaos in most of the countries and a revolution is taking place - economic, social as well as religious. This revolution is thoughtless and mostly chaotic. Why not acknowledge this? At least those people who are intelligent can really think it all out and deliberately bring about the necessary revolution and thus lay the foundations for a new culture. A house that is crumbling must be pulled down before you build; in the process of pulling down, it looks rather chaotic and people who look at it from outside may say that it is chaotic; but, the man who is pulling it down is not affected by it, because he knows what he is going to build.
If you are concerned with the ideal that humanity must be fed and therefore a system must be found to feed them, the common man will go hungry, and that is the case with the idealists, whether the extreme Leftist or the Rightist, because the system becomes very important. So, there is the obvious creation through false thinking, through ignorance, through wrong thinking, that the opposite, the 'becoming', is going to alter 'what is' and, on that, so many philosophies are founded. You are not concerned in becoming humble; it is futile, it is only one of the tricks of the mind. After all arrogance is the fact. You are arrogant, what is the cause? First of all, why do you name it? Why do you term as arrogance the feeling which you have?
You give a name to a feeling that arises in you in response to a challenge, in order to bring it within the frame of reference which is memory. The feeling is new and you absorb that into the old; by giving it a name, you strengthen the old. But if you do not absorb it into the framework of references and do not give it a name, the feeling withers away. Further, the feeling is always the new, though it is out of an old conditioning; if you treat it as new, then you will understand the old.
When you are arrogant, arrogance is the effect, and not the cause; it may be the cause a little later. You feel superior and call yourself a name, because you feel a sense of inferiority and you want to become superior. The superiority is the ideal which you want to become and therefore you create the framework of imitation and therefore thoughtlessness and deny 'what is' which is your being inferior. You feel inferior in relationship to something. You want to be something because the whole society in which you live is based on 'becoming' something. And as long as you are 'becoming' you must be inferior. There is always the 'you', a little bigger that 'what is'. If you think you are nobody and if you accept that, you may not strive to 'become' somebody, because that is too silly. So, you don't "become"; you accept that you are nothing. Do you know what it means? When you accept that you are nothing, it is really wonderful. Then, you know what it means to love; then, you are willing to cry with somebody.
The man who is something and who wants to 'become the ideal' of loving, and does not know 'what is', is merely thinking in terms of 'becoming' something. He has the ideal, the authority, the fear, the example; and he gets lost in that.
The fact is that you are nobody. Why not start from there and face facts directly without trying to become 'somebody'? To face your nothingness means to be humble and to love; it means, you have no resistance to anyone, no barrier between you and the person whom you despise and who has no ideal.
A person who is arrogant can never find humility however hard he may try to 'become' humble. A person who does not recognise his nothingness but pursues ideals is like a man who, without ever knowing how to sow, ploughs and ploughs and never sows. Behind all your knowledge, all your degrees, titles and possessions, there is nothing. When you really acknowledge that you are nothing, you are everything because you know what love is. You ask me if there is free choice in the opposite. How can there be free choice? You choose only by comparison, when you have two things; and your choice is based on either pleasure or pain. It means memory which is the accumulation of experience. So, you really are not choosing. There are two things, memory and response; and there is no choice. You may say that you have listened to the dictates of memory.
You want to know, 'how to love'. If love is the opposite of hate, ill-will, it is no longer love; love is the ideal which implies imitation; and the man who imitates, cannot know love. Man who is seeking how to love, does not know love. He may seek methods as he has the ideal of love; but he is not loving. He does not want to acknowledge his lack of love, and he says that he has the ideal to become loving, thus deceiving himself and cheating others. "How to love" implies duality, and in the very 'becoming' there is a conflict of the opposites. If he understands the whole significance of the 'becoming' it drops away, and he is faced with 'what is'. 'What is' is the most marvellous thing; it is the only true thing: everything else is not. When he faces 'what is' - i.e. he is lacking in love - and goes deeper and deeper into it, he finds that he is nothing though he has a mask, though he is talking about God and that behind all verbal things intellectually produced there is absolutely nothing. The feeling of nothingness is not the end; it is only the beginning of liberation; your activity will be immediate and very clarifying.
You ask me how you can feel as 'nothing' when you are constantly reminded by others that you are something. You are known to be something, as a house-agent, as a black marketeer, or as a religious man worshipping God. Psychologically, you are reminded by others that you are something. You, by yourself, feel and acknowledge that you are nothing; but, society and your friends say that you are something. Either you should be 'nobody' or somebody'. If you acknowledge that you are nothing, no amount of your friends telling you that you are a great man is going to make you believe you are a great man. But when you play with them in the same market, then they will have to remind you, then you will accept them. That is, if you think that you are somewhat great, then their telling you that you are a great man means a lot to you. You want to know what will happen if you feel you are 'nothing' but you are married and have relationships. There is your responsibility to the family; it means immediate communion because you are nothing and she want to be something. Because you are open completely and your wife is not, there is a friction between you and her, not on your part but on her part, because she is something and you are not. You love and you don't ask anything. You really love your wife or your neighbour, or your husband, because you are open. They may be closed and they may create trouble. You become more and more silent, and more and more loving. They may get more and more irritated; but you are not irritated. In other words, relationship becomes extremely difficult. The moment you are very earnest in acknowledging your nothingness, you are going to have difficulties between you and another, between you and society.
Your problem is to be that which you are. If you are stupid, cunning, black-marketing, be that. Be aware of it. That is all that matters. If you are a liar be aware that you are a liar; then you will cease to lie. To acknowledge and to live with 'what is' is the most difficult thing. Out of that, comes real Love, because that sweeps away all hypocrisy. Try it in your daily life; be what you are, whatever it is; and be aware of that. You will see an extraordinary transformation taking place immediately. And from that, there is freedom because, when you are nothing, you do not demand anything. That is liberation. Because you are nothing and you are free, there is real opening and no barrier between you and another. Though you are married and though you love one, there is no enclosure. If you love one completely, you love the whole because one is the whole.
You want to know what will happen when you feel that you are 'the whole'. Feeling as 'the whole' comes perhaps later. But first, you are nothing and you are not concerned with what comes after. If you are concerned with what is beyond the nothingness, it means you are frightened of being nothing. 'Be nothing'. Life then becomes extraordinarily simple and beautiful. Being nothing, i.e. acknowledging 'what is', is one of the most difficult tasks because mind does not like it, because it is afraid of being nothing, i.e. of having no security. But the moment you 'are nothing', you love; till then, you do not know what it means to love; till then, you have the resistance of responsibility, of duty and marrying off. If you love you wife really, you will love your children. Then you would see how they are to be taught and by whom they are to be taught. Because you love them, you want to see that they are the best human beings, not that you would compel them to any ideal. You do not realise what a revolution this will produce.
You want to know if this revolution would be reciprocated. You are not concerned with others at all. If you recognise 'what is' and live with it, you will see a revolution produced in you and therefore in the family and in the world. Surely that is the most practical way of living. Out of that comes creativeness, because when you accept 'what is' - i.e. in accepting what you are - you are free. Then you begin to create. Then there is Reality, God or what you like to call it. All ideals are foolery and without much significance for a thoughtful man. When you set all ideals aside and face 'what is' then you will find a beautiful and really indescribable love that is not yours and mine but a thing that is self-created and which is its own eternity.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 31st December, 1947
When you do not understand fully "the now" in which you are, how can you know about tomorrow? When you do not know anything about living, how can you understand death? Knowledge gathered from books or from others or from one's own experience is really an impediment to the understanding of 'what is'. You say that some knowledge of psychology is necessary to understand what we are discussing. Words are useful only so long as they are not hindrances to communication. It is really very difficult to understand how we use words and how to interpret. There is no need to learn any psychological terminology to understand what we have been discussing, especially as we have been using only ordinary words.Knowledge and book-learning will be a help only in connection with the learning of a technique. For instance, when you study Engineering you begin to know what has been previously experimented with and, as you experiment, you learn more.
Self-knowledge is quite different from technical knowledge. Accumulation of Engineering knowledge and also knowledge about other technical subjects has gone on through centuries and you cannot do without them. But it is not the case with self-knowledge which cannot be communicated to another. For instance, you suffer not because the book says so; to find a solution for suffering you have to start anew independent of others' experience. You have to start with yourself to enquire and to find out the solution. Any amount of understanding of what others have said about suffering will not be the same as your own understanding of your suffering or sorrow. Nowadays, people go to psycho-analysts in order to dissolve their sorrow. When you gather knowledge in regard to psychology, you are only assimilating the various systems of psycho-analysis relating to the mind. Gathering of such knowledge makes your mind conditioned; and there is also a constant choice and discarding of the knowledge given by others. Mere gathering of knowledge from books really conditions your mind because you search for security in knowledge, and you agree with what is pleasant to you; for instance, war is disastrous, everyone knows it; and yet, people are ready to go to war. You read a number of knowledge-giving books but you don't relate what you read to your action in daily life.
If you care to analyse the question seriously, you will find definitely that you can understand and face 'what is' without reading a single book. You have got your own prejudice which translates the knowledge that you gather from books; and no book can point out to you that you are prejudiced nor can it teach you how to love. You can only discover when the mind is fresh without any burden of book knowledge.
Using knowledge to further thinking really amounts to treating knowledge as memory. Thinking is the response of memory to a challenge. How can understanding which is new be the outcome of memory, of book-knowledge, which is old? The new cannot be the outcome of the old.
To understand today, your attachment to yesterday must cease, as yesterday prevents you from experiencing anew.
An incomplete experience leaves a scar or a residue whereas a completed experience does not leave any residue. This residue is memory. Similarly suppression of any feeling leaves a residue. The problem then is how to act without leaving a residue. Psychologically, you have to give an end to every one of your feelings. Otherwise, you carry it over and it becomes a burden. When you see the implications of continuing the feeling and the truth of ending the feeling so as to leave no residue, there is an immediate ending. Then there will be no continuity but there will be renewal. Memory continuing on and on is incapable of understanding. Therefore a mind seeking continuity can never meet the new. Therefore your mind should not be interested in accumulating; and it can meet the new only when it is not burdened with memory. Similar is the case with your thought and with your feeling.
It is necessary to experiment with this in your daily life and so live that every thought and feeling comes to an end. This means you should be extremely careful as to what you say consciously or unconsciously, what you feel and what you do. Every word has a verbal and a nervous reaction which sets a wave going. Do not allow other's words to react upon you. Be careful not to use words which produce responses in others. Be careful about what books and newspapers you read. Similarly, what you feel affects you nervously and you will find what tremendous effect cinema-going has upon you. Cinema shows awaken responses which continue in that state and are not ended. Therefore, you are inclined to go again and again to movies. You have to understand this and be free from all these excitements. Love is not memory and it comes into being only before you have a feeling. The ending of feeling is not a battle to overcome a struggle but it is really seeing directly the truth of ending the feeling. A feeling is a thought when named. When words have nervous responses both on yourself and on the individual in relationship with you, they become important, so, you are silent. Similarly, when you end a feeling, there is immediate communion and there is complete understanding.
You should all of you live a personal life of inner awareness which is possible only through love and understanding. You will find Truth only through awareness of your own thoughts, feelings and actions. Such an awareness will free you from your shortcomings and will enable you to solve your problems without your striving to force any solution. Life will then become rich and you will find joy in every one of life's moments, and you will not be interested in any habitual or mechanical pursuits. Then, to you, Reality will come into being.
Bombay, India. Public Talk 18th January, 1948
To communicate with one another, even if we know each other very well, is extremely difficult. Here we are; you do not know me, and I do not know you. We are talking at different levels. I may use words that may have to you a significance, different from mine. Understanding comes only when we, you and I, meet on the same level at the same time. That happens only when there is real affection between people, between husband and wife, between intimate friends. That is real communion. Instantaneous understanding comes when we meet on the same level at the same time.It is very difficult, at a gathering of this kind, to commune with one another easily, effectively and with definitive action. I am using words which are simple, which are not technical, because I do not think that any technical type of expression is going to help us solve our difficult problems. So I am not going to use any technical terms, either of psychology or of science. I have not read any books on psychology or any religious books, fortunately. I would like to convey, by the very simple words which we use in our daily life, a deeper significance; but that is very difficult if you do not know how to listen.
There is an art of listening. To listen really, one should abandon or put aside all prejudices, pre-formulations and daily activities. When you are in a receptive state of mind, things can be easily understood; you are listening when your real attention is given to something. But, unfortunately, most of us listen through a screen of resistance. We are screened with prejudices, whether religious or spiritual, psychological or scientific; or with our daily worries, desires and fears. And with these for a screen, we listen. Therefore, we listen really to our own noise, to our own sound, not to what is being said. It is extremely difficult to put aside our training, our prejudices, our inclination, our resistance, and, reaching beyond the verbal expression, to listen so that we understand instantaneously. That is going to be one of our difficulties.
I am going to explain presently that truth can be understood instantaneously. It is not a matter of time, it is not a matter of growth or of habit. Truth can only be understood directly, immediately, now, in the present, not in the future; and it can be understood, felt, realized, when there is the capability of listening directly, in an open manner and with an open heart. But if our minds are engrossed, if our hearts are tired, then there is no possibility of receiving that which is truth. So our difficulty is to have that instantaneous capacity to perceive directly for ourselves and not wait for the medium of time. Time and life become a process of destruction when we are unable to understand directly; so it is obvious why I suggest that you should listen without any resistance.
If, during this discourse, anything is said which is opposed to your way of thinking and belief, just listen, do not resist. You may be right, and I may be wrong; but by listening and considering together, we are going to find out what is the truth. Truth cannot be given to you by somebody. You have to discover it; and to discover, there must be a state of mind in which there is direct perception. There is no direct perception when there is a resistance, a safeguard, a protection. Understanding comes through being aware of what is. To know exactly what is, the real, the actual, without interpreting it, without condemning or justifying it, is, surely, the beginning of wisdom. It is only when we begin to interpret, to translate according to our conditioning, according to our prejudice, that we miss the truth. After all, it is like research. To know what something is, what it is exactly, requires research - you cannot translate it according to your moods. Similarly, if we can look, observe, listen, be aware of what is, exactly, then the problem is solved. And that is what we are trying to do in all these discourses. I am going to point out to you what is, and not translate it according to my fancy; nor should you translate it or interpret it according to your background or training.
Is it not possible, then, to be aware of everything as it is? Starting from there, surely, there can be an understanding. To acknowledge, to be aware of, to get at that which is, puts an end to struggle. If I know that I am a liar, and it is a fact which I recognize, then the struggle is over. To acknowledge, to be aware of what one is, is already the beginning of wisdom, the beginning of understanding, which releases you from time. To bring in the quality of time - time, not in the chronological sense, but as the medium, as the psychological process, the process of the mind - is destructive, and creates confusion.
So, we can have understanding of what is when we recognize it without condemnation, without justification, without identification. To know that one is in a certain condition, in a certain state, is already a process of liberation; but a man who is not aware of his condition, of his struggle, tries to be something other than he is, which brings about habit. So, then, let us keep in mind that we want to examine what is, to observe and be aware of exactly what is the actual, without giving it any slant, without giving it an interpretation. It needs an extraordinarily astute mind, an extraordinarily pliable heart, to be aware of and to follow what is; because what is, is constantly moving, constantly undergoing a transformation, and if the mind is tethered to belief, to knowledge, it ceases to pursue, it ceases to follow the swift movement of what is. What is, is not static, surely - it is constantly moving, as you will see if you observe it very closely. And to follow it, you need a very swift mind and a pliable heart which are denied when the mind is static, fixed in a belief, in a prejudice, in an identification; and a mind and heart that are dry cannot follow easily, swiftly, that which is.
So, what are we going to do in all these talks, discussions, questions and answers? I am just going to say what is and follow the movement of what is; and you will understand what is, only if you also are capable of following it.
One is aware, I think, without too much discussion, too much verbal expression, that there is individually as well as collective chaos, confusion and misery. It is not only in India, but right throughout the world; in China, America, England, Germany, all over the world, there is confusion, mounting sorrow. It is not only national, it is not particularly here, it is all over the world. There is extraordinarily acute suffering, and it is not individual only, but collective. So, it is a world catastrophe, and to limit it merely to a geographical area, a coloured section of the map, is absurd; because then we will not understand the full significance of this worldwide as well as individual suffering. Being aware of this confusion, what is our response today? How do we react?
There is suffering, political,social, religious; our whole psychological being is confused, and all the leaders, political and religious, have failed us; all the books have lost their significance. You may go to the Bhagavad Gita or the Bible or the latest treatise on politics or psychology, and you will find that they have lost that ring, that quality of truth; they have become mere words. You yourself, who are the repeater of those words, are confused and uncertain, and mere repetition of words conveys nothing. Therefore, the words and the books have lost their value; that is, if you quote the Bible, or Marx, or the Bhagavad Gita, as you who quote it, are yourself uncertain, confused, your repetition becomes a lie. Because, what is written there becomes mere propaganda, and propaganda is not truth. So, when you repeat, you have ceased to understand your own state of being. You are merely covering with words of authority your own confusion. But what we are trying to do, is to understand this confusion and not cover it up with quotations. So, what is your response to it? How do you respond to this extraordinary chaos, this confusion, this uncertainty of existence? Be aware of it, as I discuss it; follow, not my words, but the thought which is active in you. Most of us are accustomed to be spectators, and not to partake in the game. We read books, but we never write books. It has become our tradition, our national and universal habit, to be the spectators, to look on at a football game, to watch the public politicians and orators. We are merely the outsiders, looking on, and we have lost the creative capacity. Therefore, we want to absorb and partake.
But here, in this crowd, if you are merely observing, if you are merely spectators, you will lose entirely the significance of this discourse, because this is not a lecture which you are to listen to from force of habit. I am not going to give you information which you can pick up in an encyclopedia. What we are trying to do, is to follow each other's thoughts, to pursue as far as we can, as profoundly as we can, the intimations, the responses of our own feelings. So, please find out what your response is to this cause, to this suffering; not what somebody else's words are, but how you yourself respond. Your response is one of indifference if you benefit by the suffering, by the chaos, if you derive profit from it, either economic, social, political or psychological. Therefore, you do not mind to have this chaos continue. Surely, the more trouble there is in the world the more chaos, the more one seeks security. Haven't you noticed it? When there is confusion in the world, psychologically and in every way, you enclose yourself in some kind of security, either that of a bank account or that of an ideology; or else you turn to prayer, you go to the temple - which is really escaping from what is happening in the world. More and more sects are being formed, more and more `isms' are springing up all over the world. Because, the more confusion there is, the more you want a leader, somebody who will guide you out of this mess; so you turn to the religious books, or to one of the latest teachers; or else you act and respond according to a system which appears to solve the problem, a system either of the left or of the right. So, that is exactly what is happening.
The moment you are aware of confusion, of exactly what is, you try to escape from it. And those sects which offer you a system for the solution of suffering, economic, social or religious, are the worst; because then, system becomes important and not man - whether it be a religious system, or a system of the left or of the right. System becomes important, the philosophy, the idea, becomes important, and not man; and for the sake of the idea, of the ideology, you are willing to sacrifice all mankind, which is exactly what is happening in the world. This is not merely my interpretation; if you observe, you will find that is exactly what is happening. The system has become important. Therefore, as the system has become important, man, you and I, lose significance; and the controllers of the system, whether religious or social, whether of the left or of the right, assume authority, assume power, and therefore sacrifice you, the individual. That is exactly what is happening.
Now what is the cause of this confusion this misery? How did this misery come about, this suffering, not only inwardly but outwardly, this fear and expectation of war, the third world war that is breaking out? What is the cause of it? Surely, if you seek the cause according to Marx, or according to Spengler, or according to the Bhagavad Gita, you will not understand it, will you? You have to find out for yourself what the cause is, you must know the truth of it, see it as it actually is and not as someone else sees it. So, what is the truth of it? First of all, what is the significance of this confusion? Surely it indicates the collapse of all moral, spiritual values, and the glorification of all sensual values, of the value of things made by the hand or by the mind. What happens when we have no other values except the value of the things of the senses, the value of the products of the mind, of the hand or of the machine? The more significance we give to the sensual value of things, the greater the confusion, is it not? Again, this is not my theory. When you are on the street, what is the predominating value that you have? You do not have to quote books to find out that your values, your riches, your economic and social existence are based on things made by the hand or by the mind. So, we live and function and have our being steeped in sensual values, which means that things, the things of the mind, the things of the hand and of the machine, have become important; and when things become important, belief becomes predominantly significant - which is exactly what is happening in the world, is it not?
I will go into this whole matter during the many talks which we are to have, but in this first talk I just want to show what is happening, to point out what is, so that we can be aware of the actual.
So, giving more and more significance to the values of the senses brings about confusion; and being in confusion, we try to escape from it through various forms, whether religious, economic or social, or through ambition, through power, through the search for reality. But the real is near, you do not have to seek it; and a man who seeks truth will never find it. Truth is in what is - and that is the beauty of it. But the moment you conceive it, the moment you seek it, you begin to struggle; and a man who struggles cannot understand. That is why we have to be still, observant, passively aware. We see that our living, our action, is always within the field of destruction, within the field of sorrow; like a wave, confusion and chaos always overtake us. There is no interval in the confusion of existence. I hope you see the significance of this - or do I have to explain it a little further?
Whatever we do at present seems to lead to chaos, seems to lead to sorrow and unhappiness. Look at your own life and you will see that our living is always on the border of sorrow. Our work, our social activity, our politics, the various gatherings of nations to stop war, all produce further war. Destruction follows in the wake of living; whatever we do leads to death. That is what is actually taking place.
So, can we stop this misery at once, and not go on always being caught by the wave of confusion and sorrow? Am I making myself clear? That is, great teachers, whether the Buddha or the Christ, have come; they have accepted faith, making themselves, perhaps, free from confusion and sorrow. But they never prevented sorrow, they never stopped confusion. Confusion goes on, sorrow goes on. And if you, seeing this social and economic confusion, this chaos, this misery, withdraw into what is called the religious life and abandon the world, you may feel that you are joining these great Teachers; but the world goes on with its chaos, its misery and destruction, the everlasting suffering of its rich and poor. So, our problem, yours and mine, is whether we can step out of this misery instantaneously. If, living in the world, you refuse to be a part of it, you will help others out of this chaos - not in the future, not tomorrow, but now. Surely, that is our problem. The war is probably coming, more destructive, more appalling in its form. Surely, we cannot prevent it, because the issues are much too strong and too close. But you and I can perceive the confusion and misery immediately, can we not? We must perceive them, and then we will be in a position to awaken the same understanding of truth in another. In other words, can you be instantaneously free? - because that is the only way out of this misery. Perception can take place only in the present; but if you say, `I will do it tomorrow', the wave of confusion overtakes you, and you are then always involved in confusion.
So, is it possible to come to that state when you yourself perceive the truth instantaneously, and therefore put an end to confusion? I say that it is, and that it is the only possible way. I say it can be done and must be done, not based on supposition or belief. To bring about this extraordinary revolution - which is not the revolution to get rid of the capitalists and install another group - , to bring about this wonderful transformation, which is the only true revolution, is the problem. What is generally called revolution is merely the modification or the continuance of the right according to the ideas of the left. The left, after all, is the continuation of the right in a modified form. If the right is based on sensual values, the left is but the continuance of the same sensual values, different only in degree or expression. So, true revolution can take place only when you, the individual, become aware in your relationship to another. Surely, what you are in your relationship to another, to your wife, your child, your boss, your neighbour, is society. Society by itself is non-existent. Society is what you and I, in our relationship, have created; it is the outward projection of all of our own inward psychological states. So, if you and I do not understand ourselves, merely transforming the outer, which is the projection of the inner, has no significance whatsoever; that is, there can be no significant alteration or modification in society as long as I do not understand myself in relationship to you. Being confused in my relationship, I create a society which is the replica, the outward expression of what I am. This is a obvious fact, which we can discuss. We can discuss whether society, the outward expression, has produced me, or whether I have produced society. We can go into that later. So, is it not an obvious fact that what I am in my relationship to another, creates society; and that, without radically transforming myself, there can be no transformation of the essential function of society? When we look to a system for the transformation of society, we are merely evading, the question, because a system cannot transform man; man always transforms the system, which history shows. Until I, in my relationship to you, understand myself, I am the cause of chaos, misery, destruction, fear, brutality. Understanding myself is not a matter of time; that is, I can understand myself this very moment. If I say, `I will understand myself tomorrow', I am bringing in chaos and misery, my action ia destructive. The moment I say that I `will' understand, I bring in the time element and so am already caught up in the wave of confusion and destruction. Surely, understanding is now, not tomorrow. Tomorrow is for the lazy mind, the sluggish mind, the mind that is not interested. When you are interested in something, you do it instantaneously, there is immediate understanding, immediate transformation. If you do not change now, you will never change; because the change that takes place tomorrow is merely a modification, it is not transformation. Transformation can only take place immediately; the revolution is now, not tomorrow.
You all look so baffled. Why? Because you say, `How can I change now? I, who am a product of the past, of innumerable conditionings, I, who am a bundle of mannerisms, how can I change, how can I throw all that away and be free?' But if you do not throw it all away, if there is not that tremendous revolution, you will always live with chaos. So, how is it possible for this instantaneous revolution to take place? I hope you see the importance of immediate change. If you do not see that, you miss the whole significance of it. Understanding does not come tomorrow; there is understanding now, or never. The present is always the continuation of the past, So, can I, who am a result of the past, whose being is founded on the past, I who am the outcome of yesterday - can I step out of time, not chronologically but psychologically? Surely, you do step out of time when you are vitally interested - you take a stride in that timeless existence, which is not an illusion a self-induced hallucination. When that happens, you are completely without a problem, for then the self is not worried about itself; and then you are beyond the wave of destruction. And during these talks, that timeless transformation is the only thing that I am going to be concerned with. I cannot induce it in you, that would be false. But if you follow freely, without resistance, with understanding, you will find yourselves very often in that state of immediate perception and therefore of immediate transformation.
Question: I am born with a certain temperament, a certain psychological and physical pattern, whatever may be its reason. This pattern becomes the major single factor in my life. It dominates me absolutely. My freedom within the pattern is very limited the majority of my reactions and impulses being rigidly predetermined. Can I break up the tyranny of this genetic factor?
Krishnamurti: To put it differently, I am caught in a pattern, social, hereditary, environmental, ideological, whether it is the pattern of my parents or of the society about me. I am hemmed in by a pattern, and the question is, how am I to break it up? I am the result of my father and mother, biologically, physically. I am the result of my parents' beliefs, habits, fears, which have created the society around me. My parents, in turn, were the result of their parents, with their social, physical, psychological environment, and so on backward indefinitely, timelessly, without a beginning. Each person is held with a pattern of existence, and I am the result of all that past - not just my own past, but the whole past of mankind. I am, after all, the son of my father. I am the result of the past modified in conjunction with the present. We are not bringing in the question of reincarnation, which is merely a theory. We are just examining what really is. My existence is the result of my past, my past being the result of my father's existence. I am the outcome of time, I am the past going through the present to become the future. I am the result of yesterday, which is today becoming tomorrow.
Now, can I step out of that process of time, that is, can I break away from the pattern which my father and I myself have created? I am not different from my father; I am my father, modified. That is exactly what is. But if I begin to translate what is, if, for example, I bring in the idea that I am the soul, a spiritual entity, then I step into another realm altogether. That is not the point for the moment - we will discuss that when we go into the problem of what is soul, what is continuity, what is reincarnation. The problem at the present moment is: Can I, who am conditioned - whether by the left or by the right is irrelevant - , can I step out of that conditioning?
What is it that conditions you? What is it that limits thought? What is it that creates the pattern in which you are caught? If I cease to think, then there is no pattern. That is, I am the thinker, my thoughts are the outcome of yesterday, I respond to every new challenge according to the pattern of yesterday or of the past second; and can I, whose thinking process is the outcome of yesterday, cease to think in terms of yesterday? I am only explaining the problem differently, and you will find the answer for yourself in a minute. My thought is conditioned, because any response from the conditioned state creates further conditioning; any action from the conditioned state is a conditioned action, and therefore gives continuity to the conditioned state. Therefore, to step out of it, there must be freedom from condition, which means freedom from the process of thinking - which does not mean that I am suggesting this as a means of escape. Most people do try to escape because life is too urgent, too strong, too demanding for them. I am not proposing such an escape; I am just asking you to look at the truth of the problem. Can you be free of the process of thinking? Can there be a complete revolution in thinking - not according to the old pattern, which is the continuation of the old with values modified, but - , a complete transformation, a total breaking up of what is? As I am the product of yesterday, freedom obviously does not lie on the same level, which would merely be a continuation of yesterday. So, I can step out of it only when there is cessation of thinking.
We are just looking at the problem, not seeking an answer; because the answer is in the problem, not away from the problem. If you understand the problem, the answer is there; whereas if you are looking for an answer and you fail, you are puzzled. You are waiting for me to tell you how to step out of the pattern. I am not going to tell you how to step out of it; it has no meaning if I tell you how, because then you are not following the problem. You are waiting for me to tell you what to do, and therefore you are very puzzled. I am not going to tell you what to do; because, if you understand the problem, the problem ceases. When you see a snake and know it is poisonous, there is no problem, is there? You know what to do - you do not touch it. You go away, or do something else. Similarly, you must understand this problem completely - which you are not doing. I am doing it for you, and you are merely listening to me. We must understand the problem, not ask how to solve it. When you understand the problem, surely, the problem itself reveals the answer. It is like a schoolboy taking an examination. He does not read the problem carefully, he wants the answer; and therefore he fails. But if he reads the problem very slowly, very carefully, looking at it from all angles, then he will find the answer - or rather, the answer is there.
Similarly, you are looking at this problem with the desire for a answer. I do not think you see the beauty of it. Probably you are tired, Sirs.
Comment from Audience: No.
Krishnamurti: Yes, you are tired. I will tell you why. Probably this is all very new to you, it must be, it is a new approach altogether; so you are a bit puzzled, and when you are puzzled or bewildered, the mind wanders off. I can go on, it is my job; but I have done this, I am not just talking. Whereas with you, Sirs, if I may say so, you are not studying the problem. I have put it in different ways, but you refuse to follow it. I am just pointing out what is, which is the problem. But you are not interested in studying what is. You are waiting to see the outcome, whereas I am not interested in the outcome. I want to understand the thing as it is - therefore I have found the answer.
So, let me again request you please to follow the problem itself, and not look for an answer. Please see the importance of this: to look for an answer, for a solution, is not to understand the problem; and if you do not understand the problem, there is no answer to that problem. The problem is here, and you are looking for the answer there - which means that you will find an answer which is convenient, gratifying. But if you look at the problem very carefully, very intelligently, then you will see the beauty of it and then the outcome is marvellous.
So, the problem is this: my thought is conditioned, it is fixed in a pattern; and to any challenge, which is always new, my thought can respond only according to its conditioning, transforming the new into the modified old. Therefore, my thought can never be free. My thought, which is the outcome of yesterday, can respond only in terms of yesterday; and when it asks, `how can I go beyond?', it is asking a wrong question. Because, when thought seeks to beyond its own conditioning, it continues itself in a modified way. Therefore, there is a falseness in that question. There is freedom only when there is no conditioning; but for freedom to be, thought must be aware of its condition and not try to become something other than it is. If thought says, `I must free myself from my conditioning', it never can; because whatever it does is its own net continued or modified. All that thought can do is to cease to be. Surely, the moment thought is active, it is conditioned, is continuity modified by a conditioned response. So, along that line there is no way to step out of conditioning. Therefore, there is only one way, which is vertical, which is straight - for thought to cease.
Now, can thinking cease? What is thinking, what do we mean by thinking? We mean by thinking, the response of memory. I am making it very simple. I do not want to complicate it, because the problem itself is quite complex. Thinking is the response of memory; and what is memory? Memory is the residue of experience. That is, when there is a challenge, yesterday's thought, which is memory, responds to that challenge, and therefore that challenge is not fully understood but is interpreted through the screen of yesterday. So, what is not understood leaves a mark, which we call memory. Have you not noticed that when you have understood something, when you have completed a conversation, when it is finished, it does not leave a mark? It is only an incomplete act, whether verbal or physical, that leaves a mark. The response of that mark, which is memory, is called thinking. So, can there be a state in which there is no yesterday, that is, can there be a state when there is no time, no thought that is the product of yesterday? Conditioned thought that seeks to modify or change itself merely continues the conditioned state. That is fairly obvious. Thinking is the response of memory - which is obvious too. And memory is the outcome of imperfect understanding of experience, of challenge. Imperfect understanding of experience is the cause of memory. When you do something with all your being integrated, it leaves no residue of memory; but when the residue gives response, that response we call thinking. Such thinking is conditioned, and that conditioning can come to an end only when the act is complete. That means you meet everything anew.
How can you meet everything anew? How can you meet life, existence, anew, in the sense of `without time'? It is a new question, is it not? That is the question arising out of this question. When I put that new question to you, what is your response? If your response is also new, then you are passively aware, alert, watching. That state is timeless. In that state, when you meet everything with passive alertness, awareness, there is no time; there is a direct experience, the challenge is directly understood; therefore there is freedom from thinking. And that freedom is eternal; it is now, not tomorrow.
Bombay, India. Public Talk 25th January, 1948
This meeting will be held hereafter at 6 o'clock every Sunday evening here, and the discussions at Carmichael Road will be on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays at 6 o'clock.Perhaps some of you will remember what I was discussing in my talk last Sunday. I was saying that in understanding what is, we shall find the truth of a problem; and it is extremely difficult to understand what is, because what is is never static, it is constantly in motion. A mind that wishes to understand a problem must not only understand the problem completely, wholly, but must be able to follow it swiftly, because the problem is never static. The problem is always new, whether it is a problem of starvation, a psychological problem, or any problem. Any crisis is always new; therefore, to understand it, a mind must always be fresh, clear, swift in its pursuit. I think most of us reaLize the urgency of an inward revolution, which alone can bring about a radical transformation of the outer, of society. This is the problem with which I myself and all seriously-intentioned people are occupied. How to bring about a fundamental, a radical transformation in society, is our problem; and, as I said last Sunday, this transformation of the outer cannot take place without inner revolution. Because, society is always static, any action, any reform which is accomplished without this inward revolution, becomes equally static; so there is no hope without this constant inward revolution, because, without it, outer action becomes repetitive, habitual. The action of relationship between you and another, between you and me, is society; and that society becomes static, it has no life-giving quality, as long as there is not this constant inward revolution, a creative, psychological transformation; and it is because there is not this constant inward revolution that society is always becoming static, crystallized and has therefore constantly to be broken up.
So, our problem, is it not?, is whether there can be a society which is static, and at the same time an individual in whom this constant revolution is taking place. That is, revolution in society must begin with the inner, psychological transformation of the individual. Most of us want to see a radical transformation in the social structure. That is the whole battle that is going on in the world - to bring about a social revolution through communistic or any other means. Now, if there is a social revolution, that is, an action with regard to the outer structure of man, however radical that social revolution may be, its very nature is static if there is no inward revolution of the individual, no psychological transformation. So, to bring about a society that is not repetitive, not static, not disintegrating, that is constantly alive, it is imperative that there should be a revolution in the psychological structure of the individual; for without inward, psychological revolution, mere transformation of the outer has very little significance. That is, society is always becoming crystallized, static, and is therefore always disintegrating. However much and however wisely legislation may be promulgated, society is always in the process of decay; because revolution must take place within, not merely outwardly.
I think it is important to understand this, and not slur over it. Outward action, when accomplished, is over, is static; and if the relationship between individuals, which is society, is not the outcome of inward revolution, then the social structure, being static, absorbs the individual, and therefore makes him equally static, repetitive. Realizing this, realizing the extraordinary significance of what I have said, which is a fact, there can be no question of agreement or disagreement. It is a fact that society is always crystallizing and absorbing the individual; and that constant, creative revolution can only be in the individual, not in society, not in the outer. That is, creative revolution can take place only in individual relationship, which is society. We see how the structure of the present society in India, in Europe, in America, in every part of the world, is rapidly disintegrating; and we know it within our own lives. We can observe it as we go down the streets. We do not need great historians to tell us the fact that our society is crumbling; and there must be new architects, new builders, to create a new society. The structure must be built on a new foundation, on newly discovered facts and values. Such architects do not yet exist. There are no builders, none who, observing, becoming aware of the fact that the structure is collapsing, are transforming themselves into architects. So, that is our problem. We see society crumbling, disintegrating; and it is we, you and I, who have to be the architects. You and I have to re-discover the values and build on a more fundamental, lasting foundation; because if we look to the professional architects, the political and religious builders, we shall be precisely in the same position as before.
Now, because the individual, you and I, are not creative, we have reduced society to this chaos. So, you and I have to be creative, because the problem is urgent; you and I must be aware of the causes of the collapse of society and create a new structure based, not on mere imitation, but on our creative understanding. Now, this implies, does it not?, negative thinking. Negative thinking is the highest form of understanding. That is, in order to understand what is creative thinking, we must approach the problem negatively; because a positive approach to the problem - which is that you and I must become creative in order to build a new structure of society - will be imitative. To understand that which is crumbling, we must investigate it, examine it negatively, not with a positive system, a positive formula, a positive conclusion.
So, why is society crumbling, collapsing as it surely is? One of the fundamental reasons is that the individual, you, have ceased to be creative. I will explain what I mean. You and I have become imitative, we are copying, outwardly and inwardly. Outwardly, when learning a technique, when communicating with each other on the verbal level, naturally there must be some imitation, copy. I copy words. To become an engineer, I must first learn the technique and use the technique to build a bridge. So, there must be a certain amount of imitation copying, in outward technique. But, when there is inward, psychological imitation, surely, we cease to be creative. Our education, our social structure, our so-called religious life, are all based on imitation; that is, I fit into a particular social or religious formula. I have ceased to be a real individual; psychologically, I have become a mere repetitive machine with certain conditioned responses, whether those of the Parsi, the Hindu, the Christian, the Buddhist, the German or the Englishman. Our res- ponses are conditioned according to the pattern of society, whether it is Eastern or Western, religious or materialistic. So, one of the fundamental causes of the disintegration of society is imitation and one of the disintegrating factors is the leader, whose very essence is imitation.
So, in order to understand the nature of disintegrating society, is it not important to enquire whether you and I, the individual, can be creative? We can see that when there is imitation, there must be disintegration; when there is authority, there must be copying. And since our whole mental, psychological make-up is based on authority, there must be freedom from authority to be creative. Have you not noticed that in moments of creativeness, those rather happy moments of vital interest, there is no sense of repetition, no sense of copying? Such moments are always new, fresh, creative, happy. So, one of the fundamental causes of the disintegration of society is copying, which is the worship of authority.
Please do not agree with me. It is not a question of agreement, but of understanding what is. If you merely agree with me, you will make me your authority; but if you understand, you will cease to worship authority, because the problem is not a matter of substituting one authority for another, but of being creative. When you try to become creative, then you need authority; but when you are creative, there is no authority, there is no copying. There is a difference between becoming and being. Becoming admits time, and being is free of time. In becoming you must have authority, an example, an ideal, you must have tomorrow. In being, there is the cessation of time, therefore there is immediate revolution, which we will discuss as we go along during the many talks we are going to have here.
So, it is important to understand first that our approach to any problem must be negative, because any positive approach is merely imitation. And to understand this crumbling social structure, we must approach it negatively, and not through a system, whether that of the left or of the right; and in that approach, we will find that negative thinking is the highest form of understanding, which alone is going to solve the many difficulties of our whole existence.
I have several questions, and I will go ahead with the answers. In all these talks I will make introductory remarks, as I have done just now, and then answer questions.
Question: What is your solution to the problem of starvation?
Krishnamurti: Now, let us first examine the question itself. As I said last Sunday, I have not studied this question. I am considering it now for the first time, So, we are going to examine and understand this problem together, which means you are not going to become the listeners, the observers, and I the one who answers. We are going to examine this problem very carefully together, step by step, because it is your problem as well as mine. So, please do not wait for an answer, but see the implications, the significance of this question, all that is implied in it. Because, as I said, the problem contains the answer; the answer is never outside the problem. If I can understand the problem with all its significance, then the answer is there; but if you have an answer, then you will never understand the problem, because the answer, the conclusion, the formula, intervenes between the problem and yourself. Then you are merely concerned with the answer, and not with the problem itself.
Now the question is, "What is your solution to the problem of starvation?" Will any solution bring about an end to starvation? Will any system - which is always implied in a solution - put an end to starvation, whether the system be of the modified right, or of the extreme left? Will the modification of capitalistic society, or a communistic system, put an end to starvation? That is what is implied in this question. When you ask about a solution, you mean a system, don't you? I am not putting into the question something that isn't there. We have several systems: the fascistic, the communistic, the capitalistic systems. As they have not solved the problem of starvation, have you a system that will solve it? So, can any system bring about the ending of starvation?
Now, systems become more important than feeding people when the system intervenes between the problem and yourself. Let me put it this way. Why have systems become important? Why have these intervening systems, whether of the left or of the right, become important? They have become important because we think they will solve the problem, that by outward application of certain legislative action, that is, by the outward compulsion of the possessors, of those who have in their hands the things, the machinery, we are going to put an end to the problem. We think that by compulsion we are going to transform society and put an end to starvation. I hope you are following this. We give importance to systems because we think through compulsion, through legislation, through outward action, we can end starvation. Obviously, to a certain extent that is true - we need not even discuss it. But that is not the whole problem, is it? Why have food, clothing, and shelter, become so important in man's life? They are necessary, that is an obvious fact. It would be stupid, one would have to be quite disarranged mentally, to say that they are not necessary. But why have they assumed such overwhelming importance? Do you understand? Or rather, I hope I am making myself clear - it is more polite to put it that way! Why have property, relationship, idea, ideology, become all-consuming - for they are the same thing as food, clothing and shelter, only on a different plane of thought. That is, we look to a system to solve this problem; we say this or that is the best system, the communistic, the socialistic, or the capitalistic, and there we stop. Surely, this is not the answer. If we go a little deeper into the problem, we will ask ourselves why these things, made by the hand or by the mind, have become so extraordinarily significant in our lives. Is it because we need food, clothing, and shelter? But why have they become such a dominating influence in our lives? Surely, if I can find out the truth of that question, then food, clothing, and shelter, however necessary, will become of secondary importance. Then I shall not give undue significance to these things, because I shall not mind whether I have a little more or a little less. Therefore, it is irrelevant to me whether society is organized by this or by that group - I shall not kill, I shall not join either of them to be destroyed by the other. Do you follow? When systems become important, the problem itself becomes secondary; because emphasis is laid on the system, and not on the problem. That is what is happening in the world at the present time. If the whole world were concerned with feeding man, surely, then, the problem would be very simple. The scientists have already discovered enough to make possible the feeding, clothing, and sheltering of man. That is an irrefutable fact. But we do not avail ourselves of these possibilities because we are more concerned with systems than with the feeding of man. We say, `My system is better than your system', and we are preparing to destroy, butcher, liquidate each other. Therefore, what happens? The poor man who is hungry, remains hungry. Whereas, if we do not look to systems, but find out what are the implications of the problem itself, then systems can be used, but they will not become our masters.
So, what are the implications of the problem? Why has man, that is, why have you and I, given such an extraordinarily dominant significance to things, to property, to food, clothing, and shelter? We give importance to sensate values, which are food, clothing and shelter, because we use them as a means of psychological self-expansion. That is, food, clothing, and shelter are used by the individual for his own psychological aggrandisement. After all, property has very little meaning in itself. But, psychologically, property becomes of extraordinary significance, because it gives you position, prestige, name, title. So, since it gives you power, position, authority, you hold on to it; and on that you build a system which destroys the equitable distribution of things to man. So, as long as you and I psychologically use property, name, belief - which are the same as food, clothing, and shelter, on a different level - there must be starvation, there must be conflict between man and man. I may not seek power through property, but I become the commissar, the bureaucrat, wielding enormous power, which again brings tension between man and man. As long as you and I, or any group of people, are using food, clothing and shelter as a means of exploitation, of power, the problem of starvation will continue. A system is not the solution to the problem, because a system is in the hands of the few; therefore, the system becomes important. This does not mean that there must not be a system to regulate man and his greed; but this problem can be solved radically, fundamentally, and for all, not through any system, but only when you and I are aware that we are using property, things made by the hand or by the mind, as a means of self-expansion. After all, remove your name, your title, your property, your B.A.'s and M.A.'s, and what are you? You are really a nonentity, aren't you? Without your property, without your medals and all the rest of it, you are nothing. And to cover up that emptiness, you use property, you use name, family. The psychological emptiness of man ever seeks to cover itself with property, which is food, clothing, and shelter.
So, the problem of starvation is much more psychological than legislative; it is not a matter of mere enforcement. If we really see the truth of this, we will stop using things as a means of self-expansion and therefore we will help to bring about a new social order. Surely, that is the truth of it: that you and I use things made by the hand or by the mind as a means of self-expansion, and therefore we give extraordinary significance to sensate values. But if we do not give a wrong significance to sensate values, that is, if we do not give the predominating importance to food, clothing, and shelter, then the problem is simple and very easily solved. Then the scientists will come together and give us food, clothing and shelter; but they will not do it now, because, like you and me, they belong to a society which uses things as a means of self-expansion. The scientists are like the rest of us; they may be different in the laboratory, but they are conditioned like you and me. They are nationalistic, psychologically seeking power, and so on. Therefore, there is no solution through them. The only solution to this problem is in ourselves. That is the truth; and if you really understand it, there will be a revolution, that inward revolution which is creative; and therefore there will be a society which is not merely static but creative because it represents you and me. Sir, in understanding what is, which is the problem, truth is discovered. It is the immediate perception of truth that is liberating, not ideation. Ideas merely breed further ideas, and ideas are not in any way going to give happiness to man. Only when ideation ceases is there being; and being is the solution.
Question: You say we can remain aware even when in sleep. Please explain.
Krishnamurti: This is really a very complex problem needing very careful observation and swift following of thought, and I hope you and I will be able to do it together. I am going to explain this question. Please follow it in yourselves, and not merely listen to my verbal explanation; follow it step by step as I go into it.
Consciousness is made up of many layers, is it not? Consciousness is not merely the superficial layer; it is made up of many, many layers, the layers being the hidden motives, the unrevealed intentions, the unsolved problems, memory, tradition, the impingement of the past on the present, the continuation of the past through the present to the future. All that, and more, is consciousness. I am considering what consciousness actually is, not a theory. The many layers of memories, all thoughts, the hidden problems which are not solved and which create memory, the racial instincts, the past in conjunction with the present creating the future - all that is consciousness.
Now, most of us are aware, are functioning, only within the superficial layers of consciousness. I hope you are interested in all this; but whether you are interested or not, it is a fact. If merely for information, listen to it. First, I have not read using any special terminology, any jargon of the psychologists; nor have I read any of your sacred books, either of the East or of the West. But in being aware of oneself, one discovers all these things. In oneself is the whole of wisdom. Self-knowledge is the beginning of understanding, and without self-knowledge, there is no right thinking, there is no basis for thought. In understanding this, we are exploring self-knowledge, we are exploring consciousness; and you can explore it directly while I am talking, you can be aware of yourself and have direct experience; or you can merely listen verbally, for information: you can take your choice, it is up to you.
So, most of us function in the superficial layers of consciousness; therefore we remain shallow, and therefore our action brings further responses, further reactions, further misery. There is release, liberation, only when the whole of consciousness is thoroughly understood. It is not a matter of time - which we will go into later, during the course of these talks. So, since we function only in the superficial layers of consciousness, naturally it creates problems; it never solves problems, but is always the breeding ground of problems. That is, as most of the activities of our daily existence are the response of those superficially cultivated layers, the whole bag of layers is always breeding more and more problems. Now, when you have a problem created by the superficial layers of consciousness, you try to solve it superficially, like a dog worrying a bone, gnawing at it, struggling with it - that is always the case with the superficial layers of consciousness; and you do not find a solution. Then, what happens? You go to bed, you sleep on it; and when you wake up, you find you have solved the problem, or you see a new way of looking at it and you can solve it. This happens all times to all of us. It is not something extraordinary or mysterious, it is well-known. Now, exactly what has happened? This upper layer of consciousness, the man, the superficial man, has thought about the problem all day long, worried over it, trying to translate it according to his demands, to his prejudices, to his immediate desires. That is, he is seeking an answer, and therefore cannot find it. Then he goes to sleep, and when he is asleep, the superficial consciousness, the upper layer of the mind, is somewhat quiet, relaxed, free from the incessant worry over the problem. Then, into that superficial layer, the hidden projects its solution; and when you wake up, the problem has a different significance. That is a fact. You do not have to become an occultist, you do not have to become very clever to understand it - which would be absurd. If you observe it for yourself, you will see that it is an obvious, everyday fact. But this does not mean that you have to go to sleep to have your problem answered. The problem is there; and if you can approach it openly, without any conclusion, without any answer intervening between you and the problem, then you are immediately and directly in relationship with the problem, and therefore you are open to the hints of the unconscious.
Have I explained it too quickly? Perhaps I have. But it doesn't matter, Sir. We are going to meet again several times, because this is a question one has to go into much more deeply. We have touched only one part of it, although most of us are content to leave it at that level.
The next point involved in this question is the intimation of the unconscious. Surely, our life is not mere superficial existence. There are vast, hidden resources, treasures of extraordinary importance, of extraordinary delight and greatness and joy, which are always hinting, intimating; and because we are not capable of receiving them directly when we are awake, they become symbols, as dreams, when we sleep. That is, the unconscious, the deep layers, the layers which have not been explored, are always giving intimations, hints of extraordinary significance; but the superficial consciousness is so occupied with its daily existence, its daily worries, its pursuit of bread and butter, that it is incapable of receiving the intimations directly. Therefore the intimations become dreams; and dreams require interpreters, so the psychologists come in and make money. Whereas, there need be no interpretation if there is immediate and direct contact with the unconscious; and this can take place only when the conscious mind is continually being quiet, constantly having an interval, a space between action and action, between thought and thought.
Then the other point involved in this is the subjective experience of conversation with another. I do not know if you have ever remembered, when you wake up, having had a long talk with somebody - remembering words, or a word, with extraordinary potency and meaning. This must have happened to you - you remember having a discussion with a friend, with a man whom you respect, with an ascetic, guru or Master. Now, what is that? Is it not still within the field of consciousness? It is still a part of consciousness; therefore it is a self-projection which is translated upon awakening as a conversation with somebody, a direction received from a Master. The Master is still within the framework of consciousness, and it is therefore a projection of the self into the image of the Master. The remembering of a word and the giving of significance to it is one of the ways in which the unconscious functions to impress itself upon the conscious mind. So, this remembering of an event within the field of consciousness is still the intimation or the projection of thought; it is a creation of thought, and therefore not the real. The real comes into being only when thought ceases, when thought no longer creates. The next point involved in the question - and I hope you do not mind my exploring it further - is whether during sleep it is possible to meet a person objectively. Do you understand? That is, can I, during sleep, meet someone objectively, not subjectively? Now that implies identification of thought as the `I'. What is the `I'? What is thought, identified? When I say `Krishnamurti', I mean thought in which there is identification as the man. The man is thought, objectified, which is a continuity; and, surely, it is possible to meet that continuity objectively. This has been proved over and over again - objectively, not subjectively. That is, thought, which is like a wave, a moving wave, is identified, given a name; and that, surely, you can meet objectively.
So, those are some of the things involved in this question of remaining aware even in sleep. But all these explanations have no significance whatsoever without self-knowledge. You may repeat what I have said, but repetition is a lie; it is merely propaganda, and it is not true. These things must be experienced, not repeated; and you must experience what is; be aware of the many layers of consciousness which expresses itself in so many different ways.
So, there is a very narrow margin of division between the waking-consciousness and the sleeping-consciousness; but since most of you are almost entirely occupied with the waking consciousness, with its worries, its beliefs, the daily anxieties of earning a livelihood, the tension of relationship between yourself and another, all these are preventing the exploration of yourself at a deeper level. And you do not have to explore - surely, the hidden projects itself with an enormous quickness when the mind is not superficially active. Have you not noticed it when you are sitting quietly, not occupied with the radio, when the mind suddenly has a new idea, a new feeling, a new joy; but, unfortunately, what happens? When that creative expression comes into being, you immediately translate it into action, and you want a repetition of it. Therefore, you have lost it. So, the problem of awareness, which we have now dealt with partly, is really very creative, if you can understand it fully. I will go into it later, into the significance of what it is to be aware, But it is important to understand, is it not?, that there cannot be right thinking and therefore right action without self-knowledge; and self-knowledge is not merely the comprehension of the superficial layers, but the complete understanding of the whole consciousness. This is not a matter of time; for, if the attention is there, there is immediate perception, and the urgency of that perception depends on how honest one is. The more one is alert, passively aware, the more one comprehends the deeper layers of consciousness; and I assure you, there is an extraordinary joy in it, in discovering, in fathoming one's whole being. If you pursue understanding, it escapes you; but if you are passively aware, then it unfolds and gives its extraordinary depths.
Shall I go on to the next question? Are you tired? Alright, I shall go on with it.
Question: You say that full awareness of the problem liberates us from the problem. Awareness depends on interest. What creates interest, what makes one man interested and another indifferent?
Krishnamurti: Now, again we are going to examine the question, the problem itself. So, do not intervene with an answer. We are going to discover the content of the problem, and not search out a conclusion. Because, if we have a conclusion, the problem is not understood; if we have answers to our various problems, the pro- blems are never examined. We either quote the Bhagavad Gita, or one of our latest leaders, or a guru, and so never look at the problem itself - which means, we are never directly in relationship with the problem because there is always an intervention between us and the problem in the shape of a conclusion, in the shape of a quotation or an answer. There is never a direct relationship between you and the problem, so the problem loses its significance. To be aware of the problem directly, you have first to be aware that you are intervening, putting a screen between yourself and the problem. Are you? Become directly aware of your own problem, not somebody else's, and you will see what happens. Let us experiment with that. You will see how quickly you can dissolve the problem, if you follow what I am going to suggest.
If you have a problem, what is your first response to that problem? Your instant response is that you are looking for an answer. You want to solve it, which mean; you want to run away from the problem by means of an answer; that is, you are more concerned with the discovery of the answer than with the study of the problem. Your guru, your Bhagavad Gita, intervene, which means they are really an escape from the problem. That is a fact, that is what is happening to you. Now, if that is a fact, what happens? You are not concerned with the problem which you are trying to understand; so naturally the problem falls away, and therefore you are not directly in contact with the problem. But what happens when you are directly confronted with the problem without any intervention, when you are directly related to the problem? The problem ceases to be a problem - you understand it entirely, immediately. So, to be aware of a problem implies awareness of the interventions, that is, of the escapes, of the answers, of the unconsciously or consciously seeking in order to avoid the problem - which means that you are not really concerned with the understanding of the problem. So, to have that awareness of a problem, dissolves the problem; it liberates us from the problem.
Every moment, the problem is a new problem; the problem is a challenge. Life is a challenge and a response; and when there is a challenge, which is always new, I respond according to my conditioning; but if I can meet the challenge without the conditioning - which is the answer, the conclusion, the quotation - then my mind, being fresh, is able to meet the challenge anew. Therefore, it is capable of instantaneously understanding the problem. Please, it is not a question of your accepting my word for it - experiment with it and you will soon see how extraordinarily awareness dissolves the problem. You taste that awareness in moments of great crisis, when you have got to solve something, when something extraordinarily serious takes place in your life. Then you are not seeking an answer, a guide, an authority. That means you are not escaping from the problem, from the crisis, which means that you are meeting the challenge anew, afresh.
To continue with the question. "Awareness depends on interest. What creates interest...?" Why are you interested. Are you not interested now? You are actually listening to me; why? Either you are mesmerized by my words, or there is interest, obviously, I hope you are not mesmerized by my words. Therefore, there is interest. Why are you interested? Because I am interested. I am urgently interested in that which I am saying, and not only for the moment. I am interested vitally in solving the problems of man, which is myself; and because I am enthusiastically, keenly interested, you also are interested. But the moment will come, as soon as you leave this place, when you will fall back into the routine of your property, your ownership, your job, and all the rest of it. You are interested, because I am interested, because I am tremendously concerned. So interest is catching, only then it is not lasting. There is good influence, and bad influence; and since I am not interested in influencing you one way or the other, you lose interest. And to be influenced is wrong, it is fatal; because if you can be influenced by one, you can be influenced by another; like fashion, influence changes and therefore has no significance. But, if you are earnest in yourself, then you are alive, not only now but constantly, to the enormous significance of the crisis. And if you are not interested, it is your misery. What makes one man interested, and another indifferent? What makes you not interested - that is the problem, not the indifference of another. Why are you indifferent? That is the problem, isn't it? Why are you indifferent to the problem of starvation, to the problem of consciousness, to the problem of finding a solution for all existing problems? What makes you indifferent? Why aren't you interested in all this? Have you ever sat down and thought about it? Obviously, we are not interested for the very simple reason that we want distractions: the guru, the leader, the Bhagavad Gita, the Bible and so on. They are all distractions, and distraction dulls the mind. The very function of a guru is to dull your mind. That is why you go to him - to pacify yourself, to give yourself satisfaction. Otherwise, if you did not seek satisfaction, you would never go to a guru. You want satisfaction, and therefore your mind is made dull; and in what can a dull mind interest itself? It is interested in everyday existence, how to put on a new sari beautifully. So, we are caught in the ways of dullness because to think very earnestly is to be discontented, which is very painful; and most of us do not want to invite sorrow. We want to avoid sorrow, and so our whole structure of thought is a confusion, is a distraction.
So, what is important is not who is indifferent, but why you yourself are so superficial. Why are you caught in this extraordinary net of suffering? Surely, the answer lies in discovering for ourselves the causes that make us dull, insensitive - insensitive to human suffering, to the trees, to the heavens, to the birds; insensitive to our human relationships. To be sensitive means pain; but we must be painfully sensitive in order to understand. But we stop on this side of pain and try to escape from it, which reduces us to imitative machines.
Bombay, India. Public Talk 1st February, 1948
Is it not important at all times, and especially during these critical days, to think very clearly and to know our feelings very intimately? Obviously, we are not separate from the crisis - whatever happens to a nation, to a group of people, is happening really to each one of us individually; and since we are so intimately connected, we ought to be fully aware and deliberately conscious of our thoughts and feelings. Because, if we are influenced, if we take sides, if we are persuaded by events and are not aware of the causes of the events, then we shall be merely carried away by the events; and as events, local and worldwide, are occurring with extraordinary rapidity, and as their impact is so very strong and fierce, it behoves us, surely, to be extremely clear in our thoughts and very fundamental in our feelings. Because, the stronger the event, the greater the outward mess, the more intense the turmoil and chaos within us. Outward events, being so very close to us, must naturally upset and disturb many; and I think it is right, is it not?, to have very strong feelings strong, directed emotions, unwarped and purposeful, because without any feeling, one is dead. Mere intellectual froth is of no significance in moments of great importance; and there is a danger of translating the great events intellectually and superficially, and thereby passing them by. Whereas, if we are able to follow very closely and very clearly the psychological causes of disturbance and maintain an emotional attention without the interference of the intellect, then perhaps we shall be able to perceive the significance of the issues. I am not merely throwing out a lot of words for you to listen to, but rather, by talking it over together, as we are doing now, perhaps we shall be able to clarify the confused state of our own mind and emotions. So, as I am going to answer questions this evening, I hope you will follow them, not merely verbally or intellectually, because that has very little significance; but rather follow what is being said as though it were actually happening. Because, surely, the responsibility for any crisis does not lie with another - it lies with you and me as individuals; and to understand any crisis, like the present one which is localized in India, we ought to approach it very diligently, with intensity, with clarification, with the intention of going into it very fully and seeing all its significance, all its depths. As I said, I am going to answer questions this evening; and answers have little meaning if you are merely waiting for an answer; but if we analyze, think out the problem together - not merely you listening and I explaining - , if we go into it together, then perhaps that very thought process will create an understanding, a revelation. Question: What are the real causes of Mahatma Gandhi's untimely death? Krishnamurti: I wonder what your reaction was when you heard the news. What was your response? Were you concerned over it as a personal loss, or as an indication of the trend of world events? If it was felt merely as an identified personal loss, then we have to analyze that feeling very carefully, very intelligently, very purposefully; and if it was seen as an indication of the trend of events in the world crisis, this also has to be closely followed. So, we must find out how we approach this problem, whether as a personal loss, or as an indication of the whole catastrophe that is taking place in the world. Now, if it is an identified personal loss, then it has quite a different significance. There is in all of us the tendency to identify ourselves with something greater, whether it is a nation, a person, an idea, an image, a thought, or a superior consciousness; because, it is so much more satisfying to be identified with a group, with a nation, or with a person representing the nation - Hitler or Stalin on the one side, and Gandhiji on the other, and so on. So, there is identification with something greater; and when anything happens to that person, or to that idea, or to that group or nation, there is a shattering of that response. Aren't you feeling it, Sir? The desire to identify ourselves with something is obvious, is it not? Because, in oneself one is nothing, empty, shallow, petty; and by identifying oneself with a country, with a leader, with a group, one becomes something, one is something. In this very identification lies the danger; because, if you are aware of it, you will see that it leads to the most extraordinary barbarities in history, in our daily life. That is, if you identify yourself with a country, with a community, with a group of people, with an idea, with the communalistic spirit, then, surely, you are responsible for any calamity that happens; because, if you are merely an instrument which identifies itself with some cause or some person, then you are being used, and the calamity, the crisis, the catastrophe, is created by that very identification. So, that is one side of the problem; and the question should be really, what are the contributory causes which I have created to bring about this incident, this misery, this catastrophe?'. Surely, that is the real question, is it not? Because, we are individually responsible for everything that is happening in the world at the present time. World events are not unrelated incidents: they are related. The real cause of Gandhiji's untimely death lies in you. The real cause is you. Because you are communalistic, you encourage the spirit of division through property, through caste, through ideology, through having different religions, sects, leaders. So, obviously, you are responsible, aren't you? And it is no good merely hanging one man - you have all contributed to that death. The question is, in what way have you contributed to it? I am purposely not including myself in it, because I am not a communalist, I am not Hindu or Indian, I am not nationalistic or internationalistic. Therefore, I am excluding myself from it, not because I am superior, but because I do not think in those terms at all - of belonging to one group or to one religion, of having property which is `mine'. I am deliberately, consciously excluding myself - please understand that it is not because I feel myself to be superior to others. Identification with a group, with a nation, with a community, with property, does lead to misery, does it not? Such identification obviously leads to murders, to disasters, to chaos, and you are responsible for it, because you do believe in Hinduism with its many different facets, which are all absurd. You are either a Hindu, a Parsee, a Buddhist, or a Mussulman - you know, the whole rot of identified division, isolation. So, since you have identified yourself with a group, you are responsible, aren't you? You are the real cause of this murder. I am not being dramatic, which would be too absurd; but that is the fact, is it not? So, the real cause is you - not some mysterious, unknown cause. When a so-called nation is made up of separate groups, each seeking power, position, authority, wealth, you are bound to produce, not one man's death, but thousands and millions of deaths - it is inevitable. So, the fundamental issue really is whether human beings can exist in identified isolation; and history has shown over and over again that it is destruction to man. When you call yourself a Hindu, a Mussulman, a Parsee, or God knows what else, it is bound to produce conflict in the world. If you observe so-called religion, organized religion, you will see that it is essentially based on isolation, separatism: the Christian, the Hindu, the Mussulman, the Buddhist; and when you worship an image or no image, when you prevent somebody from going into your temples - as if reality lies in the temple! - , surely you are responsible for conflict and violence, aren't you? Please, I am not haranguing, I am not interested in convincing you; but we are both interested in finding the truth of the matter. So, this is not just a political harangue, which has no meaning at all. To find the truth, to see that we are responsible for what happens, we must think very closely, directly. When you have a religion to which you belong, an organized religion, that very fact creates conflict between man and man; and when belief becomes stronger than affection, stronger than love, when belief is more important than humanity and your whole make-up is one of belief - whether belief in God or in an ideology, in communalism or in nationalism - , obviously you are the very cause of destruction. I do not know if you feel the extra, ordinary importance of all this - or thinking it out very clearly and not hiding behind words. Then there is the obvious fact of division through property, through the sense of acquisitiveness. Property in itself has very little meaning: you can sleep in only one room, one bed; but the desire for position, the urge to acquire, to make yourself secure when everybody around you is insecure - surely, this sense of acquisitiveness, this sense of ownership, this sense of possession, is one of the causes of the appalling misery in the world. It is not that you must give up property, but let us be aware of its significance, of its meaning in action; and when one is aware of it, one naturally gives up all these things. It is not difficult to renounce, it is not a travail to give up property, when you see directly that your relationship with property leads to misery, not for one person, but for millions; and that you are fighting over property. These are not just words, if you analyze them - property and belief really are the two chief causes of conflict. Property as a means of personal aggrandizement, property as a means of permanent self-continuity, gives you position, power, prestige. Without property you are nothing, obviously; therefore, property becomes extraordinarily important, for which you are prepared to kill, maim, destroy people. Similarly with organized religions and political ideologies, implying belief. Belief becomes very important - because, without belief, where are you? Without calling yourself by a communalistic, isolating name, where are you? You are lost, aren't you? So, because you feel the threat to yourself, you identify yourself with property, with belief, with ideologies, and so on, which inevitably breeds destruction. In how many different ways you try to isolate yourselves from others! This isolation is the real cause of conflict and violence. So, you are responsible, Sirs - and Ladies, with your beautiful saris and fashionable skirts. This event has also a world significance. We justify and have accepted evil as a means to good. War is justified because we say it is going to bring us peace - which is obviously using a wrong means to produce a right end. But the trend of the world is in that direction; groups of people, whole nations, are preparing for the ultimate in destruction - as if they were going to be peaceful at the end of it. This event is really an indication, is it not?, of the tendency of human beings to sacrifice the present for the future. We are going to create a marvellous world, but in the meantime we are going to butcher you; we are going to liquidate you for the sake of the future. You don't matter; what matters is the idea, the future - whatever that may mean. After all, the future, whether to the left or to the right, is as uncertain to me as it is to you; the future is changeable, liable to be modified, and we are sacrificing the present for an unknown future. That is the greatest form of illusion, isn't it? But that is one of the tendencies of the world - and that is what is taking place now. That is, we have an ideological future for which human beings are sacrificed: to save man we are killing man. And we are caught in that - you are caught in that. You want future security, therefore you are destroying present security. Surely, understanding is only in the present and not in the future. Comprehension is now not tomorrow. Now, these two extraordinary tendencies that are prevalent in the world at the present time, indicate, do they not?, an utter lack of love - not a mysterious love of the Supreme and all that rot, but ordinary love between two human beings. You know, one notices as one travels across the world an utter lack of the sense of love in human beings. There are plenty of sensations, sexual, intellectual, or environmental sensations, but actual affection for somebody, loving somebody with your whole being - that does not exist, for the obvious reason that you have cultivated intellect. You are marvellous at passing examinations, spinning out theories, speculating on the market, making money - which are all indications of the supremacy of the intellect. And when the intellect becomes supreme, you are bound to have disaster, because the heart is empty; so you fill it with words and the fabrications of the intellect. That is what one notices to an extraordinary extent in the world at the present time. Aren't you full of theories, either of the left or of the right, as to how to solve the problem of the world? But your heart is empty, isn't it? And surely the problem is very simple, if you actually look at it. As long as you are identified with property, with name, with caste, with a particular government, community, ideology, belief, you are bound to create destruction and misery in the world. So, it is you who are the real cause of his murder; it is you who have brought about this killing of man by man. You accept organized murder on a grand scale as a fair means during war, but when it is done to one person, you are horrified. Is it not true, Sir, that you as an individual have lost all sensitivity, all sense of real values and of the significance of existence? To understand this question, we have to transform ourselves radically, because that is what is needed to revolutionize absolutely our ways of thinking and feeling and acting. You want to bring about a revolution merely in action, which has no meaning at all; because without a revolution in you and in your feeling, you cannot produce a revolution in action; you cannot produce a revolution except individually. Since you are responsible, since you are the cause of this murder, and to prevent future murders, you yourself have to change radically, haven't you?, and not talk about gods and theories, karma and reincarnation; you have to be actually aware of what is taking place within yourself. And since it is extremely difficult and arduous to be aware, you spin out theories, you escape through property, through name and family, and all the rest of the absurdities which bring about destruction. So, since you are responsible for this murder, and for past and future murders, whether of one person or of millions, you have to change. You have to be transformed, not by beginning at a distance, but by beginning very close, by observing the ways of your thinking and feeling and acting every day. Surely, if you are interested, if you are serious-minded, that is the only way to bring about transformation, is it not? But if you are emotionally excited by events, if you have been drugged by political harangues during ever so many years, naturally you will feel little response. But, whether you like it or not, you are responsible for the miseries outside, because in yourself you are miserable, confused, anxious, without love. Question: Is the third war inevitable? Krishnamurti: There is no such thing as inevitability, is there? A country, being aware of its own weakness, of its own strength, can say, `No, we are not going to fight'. It is one of the tendencies of the left to push when there is not much pressure, and to yield when the pressure is too great; so you can always withdraw and wait and organize. There is no inevitability about war, but it looks very much like that because the issues involved are so vast. Ideologies are at war, the right and the left. There is the ideology which says that matter moves of itself, and the ideology which says that matter is moved, acted upon by the divine idea. On the one side there is the idea of God acting upon matter, and on the other, the idea that matter itself is in movement and producing outside circumstances, and that there- fore rigid control of environment is important. I am not discussing the ideologies, whether they are right or wrong. We will go into that question another Sunday. But, these two ideas are diametrically opposed - at least, they think they are opposed. And this brings up a very complex problem; whether the left is not based on the right, is not a continuation of the right; whether every opposite is not the continuation of its own opposite. But when two strong parties are each determined to have position, power, naturally it is going to destroy man, caught in between; and that is what is happening in this country, in your own family. When you dominate your wife or your husband, when you are possessive, when you cling to power in a small circle, aren't you contributing to world chaos? When belief in nationalism dominates you. When your country becomes of supreme importance - which is happening in every nation - , then is not a catastrophe of great destruction inevitable? Surely, Sir, the very existence of an army is an indication of war. It is the function of the general to prepare for war; and when you have developed a weapon like the atomic bomb, where are you going to experiment with it? So, again, war is directly related to us. If you are a nationalist, you are contributing to war. If you have enclosed yourself in property, you are contributing to war. If nationalism, communalism, if your own country or your own group becomes the most important thing, obviously you are contributing to war. Our very existence every day is producing war because we have no peace at all. Surely, if there is to be peace in the world, you yourself have to be peaceful. If I want to be peaceful with you, I must be adaptable, I must be considerate, I must not be dominating; but if neither you nor I are adaptable, if we insist on dominating it is bound to produce a catastrophe. An American lady came to see me a couple of years ago, during the war. She said she lost her son in Italy, and that she had another son aged 16 whom she wanted to save; so, we discussed and talked the thing over. I suggested to her that, to save her son, she had to cease to be an American; she had to cease to be greedy, cease piling up wealth, seeking power, domination, and be morally simple - not merely simple in clothes, in outward things, but simple in her thoughts and feelings, in her relationships. She said, "That is too much. You are asking far too much. I cannot do it, because circumstances are too powerful for me to alter". Therefore, she was responsible for the destruction of her son. Circumstances can be controlled by us, because we have created the circumstances. Society is the product of relationship, of yours and mine together. If we change in our relationship, society changes; but merely to rely on legislation, on compulsion, for the transformation of outward society while remaining inwardly corrupt, while continuing inwardly to seek power, position, domination, is to destroy the outward, however carefully and scientifically built. That which is inward is always overcoming the outward. So, again, Sir, the inevitability or the cessation of war depends upon us, upon you and me. Surely, we can change, can't we? We can transform ourselves - it is not difficult if we put our minds and hearts into it. But we are too sluggish, we leave it to the other fellow; we want easy ways, undisturbed thoughts, inward security. Desiring inward security, we seek it through outward things, through property, belief, temples, churches, mosques. When you seek inward security, you create insecurity. By the very desire to be psychologically secure, you create destruction. That is obvious - it is being repeated in history over and over again. Outward security is essential - food, clothing and shelter. But Man wants to be psychologically secure; so he uses food, clothing, shelter, and ideas, as a means of psychological security - and therefore brings destruction. So, it is again up to you and me to prevent what seems to be inevitable. Wars are inevitable as long as individual human beings are in conflict with each other, which is an indication that they are in conflict within themselves. We want transformation through legislation, through outward revolution, through systems, but yet we are inwardly untransformed. Inwardly we are disturbed, we are confused; and without bringing order, peace and happiness inwardly, we cannot have peace and happiness outwardly in the world. Question: Can we realize on the spot the truth that you are speaking of, without any previous preparation? Krishnamurti: What do you mean by truth? Do not let us use a word of which we do not know the meaning; but we can use a simpler word, a more direct word. Can you understand, can you comprehend a problem directly? That is what is implied, is it not? Can you understand what is immediately, now? Because, in understanding what is, you will understand the significance of truth; but to say that one must understand truth, has very little meaning. So, can you understand a problem directly, fully, and be free of it? That is what is implied in this question, is it not? Can you understand a crisis, a challenge, immediately, see its whole significance and be free of it. Because, what you understand leaves no mark; therefore, understanding, or truth, is the liberator. And can you be liberated now from a problem, from a challenge? Life is, is it not?, a series of challenges and responses; and if your response to a challenge is conditioned, limited, incomplete, then that challenge leaves its mark, its residue, which is further strengthened by another new challenge. So, there is constant residual memory, accumulations, scars; and with all these scars, you try to meet the new, and therefore you never meet the new. Therefore you never understand, there is never a liberation from any challenge. I hope I am making myself clear. So, the problem, the question is, whether I can understand a challenge completely, directly, sense all its significance, all its perfume, its depth, its beauty and its ugliness, and so be free of it. Sir, challenge is always new, is it not? The problem is always new, is it not? The problem is always new - a question like this is always new. I do not know if you follow that. A problem which you had yesterday, for example, has undergone such modification that when you meet it today, it is already new. But you meet it with the old, because you meet it without transforming, modifying your own thoughts. Let me put it in a different way. I met you yesterday. In the meantime, you have changed. You have undergone a modification, but I still have yesterday's picture of you. So, I meet you today with my picture of you, and therefore I do not understand you - I understand only the picture of you, which I acquired yesterday. Sir, if I want to understand you who are modified, changed, I must remove, I must be free of the picture of yesterday. That is, to understand a challenge, which is always new, I must also meet it anew, there must be no residue of yesterday; so, I must say adieu to yesterday. After all, what is life? It is something new all the time, is it not? It is something which is ever undergoing change, creating a new feeling. Today is never the same as yesterday, and that is the beauty of life. So, can I, can you, meet any problem anew? Can you, when you go home, meet your wife and your child anew, meet the challenge anew? You will not be able to do it if you are burdened with the memories of yester- day. Therefore, to understand the truth of a problem, of a relationship, you must come to it afresh - not with an `open mind', for that has no meaning. You must come to it without the scars of yesterday's memories - which means, as each challenge arises, be aware of all the responses of yesterday; and by being aware of yesterday's residue, memories, you will find that they drop away without struggle, and therefore your mind is fresh. So, can one realize truth immediately, without preparation? I say yes - not out of some fancy of mine, not out of some illusion; but psychologically experiment with it, and you will see. Take any challenge, any small incident - don't wait for some great crisis - , and see how you respond to it. Be aware of it, of your responses, of your intentions, of your attitudes, and you will understand them, you will understand your background. I assure you, you can do it immediately if you give your whole attention to it. That is, if you are seeking the full meaning of your background, it yields its significance; and then you discover in one stroke the truth, the understanding of the problem. Surely, understanding comes into being from the now, the present, which is always timeless. Though it may be tomorrow, it is still the now; and merely to postpone, to prepare to receive that which is tomorrow, is to prevent yourself from understanding what is now. Surely, you can understand directly what is now, can't you? But to understand what is, you have to be undisturbed, undistracted, you have to give your mind and heart to it. It must be your sole interest at that moment, completely. Then what is gives you its full depth, its full meaning; and thereby you are free of that problem. Sir, if you want to know the truth, the significance, the psychological significance of property, if you really want to understand it directly, now, how do you approach it? Surely, you must feel akin to the problem, you must not be afraid of it, you must not have any creed, any answer between yourself and the problem. Only when you are directly in relationship with the problem, then you will find the answer. But if you introduce an answer, if you judge, have a psychological disinclination, then you will postpone, you will prepare to understand tomorrow what is always there. Therefore you will never understand. So, to perceive truth needs no preparation; preparation implies time, and time is not the means of understanding truth. Time is continuity, and truth is timeless, it is non-continuous. Understanding is non-continuous, it is from moment to moment, unresidual. I am afraid I am making it all very difficult, am I not? It is easy, simple to understand, if you will experiment with it; but if you go into a dream, meditate over it, it becomes very difficult. Surely, when there is no barrier between you and me, I understand you. If I am open to you, I understand you directly' - and to be open is not a matter of time. Will time make me open? Will preparation, system, discipline, make me open to you? No, sir. What will make me open to you is my intention to be open, I want to be open because I have nothing to hide, I am not afraid; therefore I am open, and therefore there is instant communion, there is truth. To receive truth, to know its beauty, to know its joy, there must be instant receptivity, unclouded by theories, fears and answers. It is quarter past seven. Shall I go on? Yes? Question: Does Gandhiji continue to exist today? Krishnamurti: Do you really want to know? Yes? What is implied in this question? If he continues to live, then you also will continue to live; so, you want to know the truth of continuity. If I die, will I continue? Will I have a being, or will I be destroyed altogether? Now, Sirs, probably most of you believe in reincarnation, in continuity. Therefore, your belief is preventing you from finding the truth of this question. You understand? Here is a challenge. We are going to experiment with what I said in answer to the previous question. We are going to experiment, to find out the truth of this matter - directly, not tomorrow. To understand directly, you must put away your belief in reincarnation, mustn't you? You do not know, it is only a belief. Even though you may think you have proof of continuity, it is still in the field of thought. Mind can deceive itself and fabricate anything it wishes. So, we want to find the truth of this challenge, and to find the truth of it, we must come to it afresh, with a new mind; because, to understand now, not tomorrow, a new mind, a fresh mind, is necessary. Now, in order to find the truth, I must discover what is preventing the mind from being fresh. I am not answering whether Gandhiji lives or not - we will come to that later. But to understand, there must be freshness. So, I am going to find out if my mind is clouded. As I am full of anxiety, full of hope, full of desire for continuity, I am obviously clouded; therefore, I cannot comprehend the new challenge, `Is there continuity?'. To understand it now, immediately, I must understand the various blockades that are preventing the mind from being fresh, new, so that it receives the new. Now, what is continuity? Are you interested in all this, Sirs, or are you merely listening? For the moment, forget that you are merely listening, and experiment with me as I go along, I am thinking aloud with you about this problem. It is your problem as well as mine - I am only giving expression to it. It is your problem, so follow it, experiment with it step by step. Now, what is it that we call continuity? What is it that continues? It is either one of two things: Either it is a spiritual entity, and therefore beyond time, or it is merely memory, giving itself continuity through the residue of experience. Do you follow? Am I making myself clear? That is, if I am a spiritual entity, then I am timeless; therefore there is no continuity. Because, that which is spirituality, truth, godliness, is beyond time; therefore it is not the continuity we know of as tomorrow and the future. Do you follow? If what I am is a spiritual entity. it must be without continuity, it cannot progress, it cannot grow, it cannot become; but actually, what I am thinks that it must become, that is, I am thinking in terms of becoming. Therefore I am not a spiritual entity. Because, if I am a spiritual entity, I am not becoming; then death and life are one, then there is timelessness, there is eternity. But you are thinking in terms of becoming, therefore you are caught in time. Don't go to sleep over this - we are experimenting together. So, if you are a spiritual entity, then you don't have to bother about it, then you don't have to find out if there is continuity or not. It is finished - there is deathlessness. But you are not that; you are afraid, and that is why you want to know if there is continuity. So, you are left with only one thing, which is memory. Do you follow, Sirs? You cannot quibble between the two. If you are a spiritual entity, then you are not concerned about death, about continuity, about time; because, that which is spiritual is eternal, timeless. But you are not in that state of being. You are in the state of becoming, in the state of continuing, wanting to know if there is continuity or not. This very question indicates that you are not in the other state of being - therefore we can leave it alone. So, what is it that continues? What is it that continues in your daily life? Obviously, not the spiritual entity. It is your memory identified with property, name, relationship and ideas, is it not? If you had no memory, property would have no meaning. If you had no memory of yesterday, property would have no meaning whatsoever, nor would relationship, nor would ideas. You are seeking continuity and establishing it through property, through family, through idea, which is the `I', and you want to know if the `I' continues. Now, when you talk of the `I', what is it? It is name, qualities, ideas, your bank account, your position, character, ideation - which is all memory, isn't it? Sir, I am not pushing you to accept anything. I am stating what actually is, not dealing with theories or speculations. We are experimenting to see if we can find the truth of the question and be liberated from the problem of continuity. So, what causes continuity? Obviously, memory. How does memory come into being? Very simply: There is perception, contact, sensation, desire, and identification. I perceive a car, there is the perception of a car; then there is contact, then sensation, then the desire to own, and then it is `mine'. So, the-`I' is the residue of memory; however much it is divided, as the higher self, and the lower self, it is still within the field of memory - which is obvious, whether you accept it or not. When you think of God, it is still in the field of memory. When you talk of the higher self, when you talk about Brahman, it is still within the field of memory; and memory is incomplete understanding. That is, have you not noticed that when you understand a thing, it leaves no scar of memory? That is why love is not memory. Love is a state of being, it is not a continuity. It becomes continuity only when there is no love. So, there is no continuity if there is no memory. That is, thought identified must continue; but if there is no identification, there is no continuity, and memory is the very basis of identification. Through continuity, is there ever renewal? Do you understand? The `I' continues from memory to memory - the memory of my achievements, my faculties, my properties, my family, my ideation, my thoughts, and so on. All that is the `I', the self, whether a higher or a lower self. That is the `I'. Now, will that continuity ever bring a renewal, a rebirth, a freshness, a newness? Will continuity bring the understanding of truth? Surely not. That which continues has no renewal, has no freshness, no newness, because it is merely continuing in a modified form that which was yesterday. It is memory, and memory is not a process of renewal. There is no renewal through memory, through continuity - there is renewal only when there is an ending, there is freshness only when there is a death, when idea ceases. Then each day there is renewal, When `I' ceases to be each day, each minute, there is renewal. Where there is continuity, there is no renewal; and it is continuity that we are all craving. This question as to whether Gandhiji continues means really , `Do I continue?' - `I', identified with him. You will continue, obviously, as long as there is identification, because memory continues; but in that there is no renewal. Memory is time, and time is not the door to reality; through time, you can never come to the timeless. Therefore, there must be an ending, which means that in order to find the real there must be death every minute, death to your possessions, to your position, not to love. Obviously, there is continuity when thought is identified. But continuity can never lead to the real, because continuity is merely thought identified as the `I' which is memory; and there is renewal, rebirth, freshness, newness, a timeless state of being, only when there is a death, an ending, from moment to moment. Truth, reality, God, or what you will, does not come into being through the process of time. It comes into being only when time, when memory, ceases. When you as memory are absent, when you as memory function not, when that activity as the `I' ceases, then there is an ending. In that ending, there is renewal; and in that renewal there is reality.Bombay, India. Public Talk 8th February, 1948
I think it is important to understand that there is being, only when there is no longer the thinker, and it is only in being that there can be radical transformation. Ideas cannot transform; the modification of thoughts cannot bring about revolution, radical revolution. There can be radical revolution only when the thinker comes to a standstill, when the thinker ends, When do you have creative moments, a sense of joy, a sense of beauty? Surely, only when the thinker is absent, when the thought process ceases for a second, for a minute, for a period of time; then, in that space, there is creative joy. That is real revolution, because then the thinker ceases, and thereby there is a possibility of radical transformation, radical rebirth. So, our problem is how to bring about an end to the thinker - it is not a matter of the transformation, the modification of ideas, either of the left or of the right. Only in bringing the thinker to an end is there creativeness. Perhaps you have experienced that while watching a sunset, when there is great beauty: the intensity of it drives the thinker away, and within that moment there is an extraordinary sense of joy. That creative moment brings revolution, which is a state of being. The thinker ceases, not as a result of transforming thoughts, but only by understanding the movements of the thinker and therefore coming to the central issue, the problem itself, which is the thinker. When the thinker is aware of his own movements, when the mind is aware of itself in action - which is not the thinker altering thoughts, but the thinker being aware of himself - , then you will find there comes a period when the mind is absolutely still, when it is meditative, when it is not attracted, not agitated. Then, in that moment, when the thinker is silent, there comes creative being which, if you will experiment, you will find is the foundation of all radical transformation.Now I am going to answer several questions.
Question: Can one love truth without loving man? Can one love man without loving truth? Which comes first?
Krishnamurti: Surely, Sir, love comes first. Because, to love truth, you must know truth; and to know truth is to deny it. What is known is not truth, because what is known is already encased in time; therefore, it ceases to be truth. Truth is in constant movement and therefore cannot be measured in time or in words; it cannot be held in your fist. So, to love truth is to know truth - you cannot love something that you do not know. But truth is not to be found in books, in idolatry, in temples. It is to be found in action, in living, in thinking; and since love comes first, which is obvious, the very search for the unknown is love itself, and you cannot search for the unknown without being in relationship with others. You cannot seek out reality, God, or what you will, by withdrawing into isolation. You can find the unknown only in relationship, only when man is related to man. Therefore, the love of man is the search for reality. Without loving man, without loving humanity, there cannot be search for the real; because, when I know you, at least when I try to know you in relationship, in that relationship I am beginning to know myself. Relationship is a mirror in which I am discovering myself - not my higher self, but the whole, total process of myself. The higher self and the lower self are still within the field of the mind; and without understanding the mind, the thinker, how can I go beyond thought and discover? The very relationship is the search for the real, because that is the only contact I have with myself; therefore, the understanding of myself in relationship is the beginning of life, surely. If I do not know how to love you, you with whom I am in relationship, how can I search for the real and therefore love the real? Without you, I am not, am I? I cannot exist apart from you, I cannot be in isolation. Therefore, in our relationship, in the relationship between you and me, I am beginning to understand myself; and the understanding of myself is the beginning of wisdom, is it not? Therefore, the search for the real is the beginning of love in relationship. To love something, you must know it, you must understand it, mustn't you? To love you, I must know you, I must enquire, I must find out, I must be receptive to all your moods, your changes, and not merely enclose myself in my ambitions, pursuits and desires; and in knowing you, I am beginning to discover myself. Without you, I cannot be; and if I do not understand that relationship between you and me, how can there be love? And surely, without love there is no search, is there? You cannot say that one must love truth; because, to love truth, you must know truth. Do you know truth? Do you know what reality is? The moment you know something, it is already over, is it not? It is already in the field of time, therefore it ceases to be truth.
So, our problem is, how can a dry heart, an empty heart, know truth? It cannot. Truth, sir, is not something distant. It is very near, but we do not know how to look for it. To look for it, we must understand relationship, not only with man but with nature, with ideas; I must understand my relationship with the earth, and my relationship with ideation, as well as my relationship with you; and in order to understand, surely there must be openness. If I want to understand you, I must be open to you, I must be receptive, I must not withhold anything - there cannot be an isolating process. Therefore, in understanding there is truth and to understand there must be love; for without love, there cannot be understanding. So, it is not man or truth that comes first, but love; and love comes into being only in understanding relationship, which means that one is open to relationship, and therefore open to reality. Truth cannot be invited - it must come to you. To search for truth, is to deny truth. Truth comes to you when you are open, when you are completely without a barrier, when the thinker is no longer thinking; producing, manufacturing, when the mind is very still - not forced, not drugged, not mesmerized by words, by repetition. Truth must come; and when the thinker goes after truth, he is merely pursuing his own gain. Therefore, truth eludes him. The thinker can be observed only in relationship; and to understand, there must be love. Without love, there is no search.
Question: You cannot build a new world in the way you are doing it now. It is obvious that the method of training laboriously a few chosen disciples will not make any difference to humanity. It cannot. You may be able to leave a mark like Gandhiji, Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, have done. But, they have not fundamentally changed the world - nor will you, unless you discover an entirely new way of approach to the problem. Krishnamurti: Let us think it out together. The question implies, does it not?, that the wave of destruction, the wave of confusion, is co-existent with life; that the wave of destruction, and life, are always together, running together simultaneously, and there is no interval between them. So, the questioner says, `You may have a few disciples who understand, a few who really perceive and transform themselves, but they cannot transform the world'. And that is the problem: That man should be transformed, not just a few. Christ, Buddha, and others have not transformed the world, because the wave of destruction is always sweeping over mankind; and the questioner says, `Have you a different way of solving this problem? If not, you will be like the rest of the teachers. A few may come out of the chaos, the confusion, but the majority will be swallowed up, destroyed'. You understand the problem, don't you? That is, the few who escape from the burning house hope to draw others from the fire; but since the vast majority are doomed to burn, many who are burning invent the theory of the process of time: in the next life it will be alright. So, they look to time as a means of transformation. That is the problem, is it not? A few of us may be out of this chaos, but the vast majority are held in the net of time, in the net of becoming, in the net of sorrow; and can they be transformed? Can they leave the burning house instantaneously, completely? If not, the wave of confusion, the wave of misery, is continuously covering them up, continuously destroying them. That is the problem, isn't it? I am only explaining, studying the question. So, is there a new approach to the problem? Otherwise, only a few can be saved - which means the wave of destruction, the wave of confusion, is always pursuing man. That is the problem, isn't it, Sirs?
Now, let us try to find the truth of it. Is it not possible for us to step out of time - all of us here, not by some self-hypnotic process, but actually? That is the problem involved. Can you and I, can you who are listening to me, step out of the process of time, so that you are free from chaos? Because, as long as you believe in that process, that is, as long as you say you are becoming free from chaos through the process of time, you and chaos are always co-existent. I do not know if I am explaining myself. That is, if you think that you will become free from chaos, you will never be free, because the becoming is part of the chaos. Either we understand now, or never. If you say, `I will understand tomorrow', you are really postponing; you are really inviting the wave of destruction. So, our problem is to put an end to the becoming process, and therefore put an end to time. As long as you think in terms of becoming - `I will be good', `I will be noble', `I will be something tomorrow which I am not today' - , in that becoming is implied the time process, and in the time process there is confusion. So, there is confusion because you are thinking in terms of becoming. Now, instead of becoming, can you be? - in which alone there is transformation, radical transformation. Becoming is a process of time, being is free from time. And, as I explained earlier, only in being can there be transformation, not in becoming; only in ending is there renewal, not in continuity. Continuity is becoming. When you end something, there is a being; and it is only in being, that there can be fundamental, radical transformation.
So, our problem is to put an end to becoming - not chronological becoming, as yesterday became today and today becomes tomorrow, but - , psychological becoming. Can you put an end instantaneously to that becoming? That is the only new approach, is it not? Every other way is the old approach. Do you understand the question? At present, all forms of approach are gradual. I am this, but I will become that tomorrow; I am a clerk, but I will be the manager in ten years' time; I am angry, but I will slowly become virtuous. That is becoming, which is the process of time; and where there is time, there must be the wave of confusion also. So, our problem is, can we immediately and altogether stop thinking in terms of becoming? That is the only new approach otherwise, we repeat the old approach. I say it is possible. I say you can do it, you can cease to be caught in the net of time, in the net of becoming, you can cease to think in terms of time, in terms of the future, in terms of yesterday. You can do it, and you are doing it now; you do it when you are tremendously interested, when the thought process ceases entirely, when there is complete concentration, complete awareness. That is, Sirs, you do it when you are face to face with a new problem. Now, this is a new problem - how to bring time to an end. As it is a new problem, you must be completely new in regard to it, must you not? Because, if you think in terms of the old, surely you are then translating the new problem into the old and therefore confusing, misinterpreting the problem. When it is a new problem, you must come to it anew; and that which is new is timeless.
So, the point is this: Can you, as you are now sitting here listening to me, free yourself from time? Can you be aware of that state of being in which there is no time? If you are aware of that state of being, you will see that there is a tremendous revolution taking place instantaneously, because the thinker has ceased. It is the thinker that produces the process of becoming. So, time can be brought to an end, time has a stop - not chronological time, but psychological time. Now, look: Many of you are gazing at somebody else - you are more interested in seeing who is coming and who is going. Therefore, what has happened? You are not interested to discover what it is to be without time; and you can discover what it is to be free from the net of time only when you give your whole mind and heart to it, your whole attention - not the attention which is merely exclusive. That, surely, is right meditation, is it not? For thought to end is the beginning of real meditation; and then only is there a revolution, a fundamentally new approach to existence. The new approach is to bring time to an end; and I say it can be done instantaneously, if you are interested. You can step from the river onto the shore at any point. The river of becoming ceases when you understand the time process; but to understand, you must give your heart and mind to it. You are free of time only when there is complete absorption in understanding, - which you are doing now. You are very quiet. You are quiet, because we are discussing, we are forcing the issue. But you cease to be quiet the moment the issue disappears. If you maintain, if you keep that issue clearly in front of you all the time, the stepping out of time becomes an extraordinarily absorbing problem; and I say that for any who are willing to give their mind and heart to it, it is possible to step out of time. That is the only new approach, and therefore it can bring about a radical transformation in society.
Question: When I listen to you, all seems clear and new. At home, the old, dull restlessness asserts itself. What is wrong with me?
Krishnamurti: What is actually taking place in our lives? There is constant challenge and response. That is existence, that is life, is it not? - a constant challenge and response. The challenge is always new, and the response is always old. I met you yesterday, and you come to me today. You are transformed, you are modified, you have changed, you are new; but I have the picture of you as you were yesterday. Therefore, I absorb the new into the old. I don't meet you anew, but I have yesterday's picture of you; so, my response to challenge is always conditioned. Here, for the moment, you cease to be a Brahmin, you cease to be high-caste, or whatever it is - you forget everything. You are just listening, absorbed, trying to find out. But, when you go out of this place, you become yourself - you are back in your caste, your system, your job, your family. That is, the new is always being absorbed into the old, into the old habits, customs, ideas, traditions, memories. There is never the new, for you are always meeting the new with the old - the challenge is new, but you meet it with the old. So, the problem in this question is, how to free thought from the old, so as to be new all the time? When you see a flower, when you see a face, when you see the sky, when you see a tree, when you see a car, when you see a smile, how are you to meet it anew? Why is it that we do not meet it anew? Why is it that the old absorbs the new, and modifies it; why does the new cease when you go home?
Now, the old response arises from the thinker. Is not the thinker always the old? Because your thought is founded on the past, when you meet the new it is the thinker who is meeting it; the experience of yesterday is meeting it. The thinker is always the old. So, we come back to the same problem in a different way: How to free the mind from itself as the thinker? How to eradicate memory, not factual memory, but psychological memory, which is the accumulation of experience? Because, without freedom from the residue of experience, there can be no reception of the new. Now, to free thought, to be free of the thought process and so to meet the new, is arduous, is it not? Because, all our beliefs, all our traditions, all our methods in education, are a process of imitation, copying, memorizing, building up the reservoir of memory. That memory is constantly responding to the new; the response of that memory we call thinking, and that thinking meets the new. So, how can there be the new? Only when there is no residue of memory can there be newness, and there is residue when experience is not finished, concluded, ended, that is, when the understanding of experience is incomplete. When experience is complete, there is no residue - that is the beauty of life. Love is not residue, love is not experience, it is a state of being. Love is eternally new. So, our problem is: Can one meet the new constantly, even at home? Surely, one can. To do that, one must bring about a revolution in thought, in feeling; and you can be free only when every incident is thought out from moment to moment, when every response is fully understood, not merely casually looked at and thrown aside. There is freedom from accumulating memory only when every thought, every feeling is completed, thought out to the end. That is, when each thought and each feeling is thought out, concluded, there is an ending; and there is a space between that ending and the next thought. In that space of silence, there is renewal, the new creativeness takes place. Now, this is not theoretical, this is not impractical. If you will try to think out every thought and every feeling, you will discover that it is extraordinarily practical in your daily life; for then you are new, and what is new is eternal, enduring. To be new is creative, and to be creative is to be happy; and a happy man is not concerned whether he is rich or poor, he does not care to what caste he belongs, or to what country. He has no leaders, no gods, no temples, and therefore no quarrels, no enmity. Surely, that is the most practical way of solving our difficulties in this present world chaos. It is because we are not creative, in the sense in which I am using that word, that we are so antisocial at all the different levels of our consciousness, To be very practical and effective in our social relationship, in our relationship with everything, one must be happy; and there cannot be happiness if there is no ending, there cannot be happiness if there is a becoming. In ending there is renewal, rebirth, a newness, a freshness, a joy. But the new is absorbed into the old, and the old destroys the new, as long as there is background, as long as the mind, the thinker, is conditioned by his thought. To be free from the background, from the conditioning influences, from memory, there must be freedom from continuity; and, there is continuity as long as thought and feeling are not ended completely. Sir, you complete a thought when you pursue the thought to its end, and thereby bring an end to every thought, to every feeling. Surely, love is not habit, memory; love is always new. There can be a meeting of the new only when the mind is fresh; and the mind is not fresh as long as there is the residue of memory. Memory is factual, as well as psychological. I am not talking of factual memory, but of psychological memory. As long as experience is not completely understood, there is residue, which is the old, which is of yesterday, the thing that is past; and the past is always absorbing the new and therefore destroying the new. It is only when the mind is free from the old that it meets everything anew, and in that there is joy.
Question: You never mention God, Has he no place in your teachings?
Krishnamurti: You talk a great deal about God, don't you? Your books are full of it. You build churches, temples, you make sacrifices, you do rituals, perform ceremonies, and you are full of ideas about God, are you not? You repeat the word, but your acts are not godly, are they? Though you worship what you call God, your ways, your thoughts, your existence, are not godly, are they? Though you repeat the word `God', you exploit others, do you not? You have your gods - Hindu, Mussulman, Christian, and all the rest of it. You build temples; and the richer you get, the more temples you build. (Laughter.) Don't laugh, Sir, you would do the same yourself - only you are still trying to become rich, that is all. So, you are very familiar with God, at least with the word; but the word is not God, the word is not the thing. So, let us be very clear on that point: The word is not God. You may use the word `God' or some other word, but God is not the word which you use. Because you use it, it does not mean that you know God; you merely know the word. I don't use that word for the very simple reason that you know it. What you know is not the real. And besides, to find reality, all verbal mutterings of the mind must cease, must they not? You have images of God, but the image is not God, surely. How can you know God? Obviously, not through an image, not through a temple. To receive God, the unknown, the mind must be the unknown. If you pursue God, then you already know God, you know the end; you know what you are pursuing, don't you? If you seek God, you must know what God is; otherwise, you wouldn't seek him, would you? You seek him either according to your books, or according to your feelings; and your feelings are merely the response of memory. Therefore, that which you seek is already created, either through memory or through hearsay, and that which is created is not the eternal - it is the product of the mind Sirs if there were no books, if there were no gurus, no formulas to be repeated you would only know sorrow and happiness, wouldn't you? - constant sorrow and misery, and rare moments of happiness; and then you would want to know why you suffer. You couldn't escape to God - but you would probably escape in other ways, and soon invent gods as an escape. But, if you really want to understand the whole process of suffering, as a new man; a fresh man, enquiring and not escaping, then you will free yourself from sorrow, then you will find out what reality is, what God is. But a man in sorrow cannot find God or reality; reality can be found only when sorrow ceases, when there is happiness, not as a contrast, not as an opposite, but that state of being in which there are no opposites.
So, the unknown, that which is not created by the mind, cannot be formulated by the mind. That which is unknown cannot be thought about. The moment you think about the unknown, it is already the known. Surely you cannot think about the unknown, can you? You can think only about the known. Thought moves from the known to the known; and what is known is not reality, is it? So, when you think and meditate, when you sit down and think about God, you only think about what is known, and what is known is in time; it is caught in the net of time, and is therefore not the real. Reality can come into being only when the mind is free from the net of time. When the mind ceases to create, there is creation. That is, the mind must be absolutely still, but not with an induced, a hypnotized stillness, which is merely a result. Trying to become still in order to experience reality is another form of escape. There is silence only when all problems have ceased; as the pool is quiet when the breeze stops, so the mind is naturally quiet when the agitator, the thinker, ceases. To put an end to the thinker, all the thoughts which he manufactures must be thought out. It is no good erecting a barrier, a resistance, against thought; because, thoughts must be felt out, the mind is still, reality, the indescribable, comes into being. You cannot invite it. To invite it, you must know it, and what is known is not the real. So, the mind must be simple, unburdened by belief, by ideation; and when there is stillness, when there is no desire, no longing, when the mind is absolutely quiet with a stillness that is not induced, then reality comes. And that truth, that reality, is the only transforming agent; it is the only factor that brings a fundamental, radical revolution in existence, in our daily life. And to find that reality is not to seek it, but to understand the factors that agitate the mind, that disturb the mind itself. Then the mind is simple, quiet, still. In that stillness the unknown, the unknowable, comes into being; and when that happens, there is a blessing.
Bombay, India. Public Talk 15th February, 1948
Each Sunday I have been trying to take up a different subject and approach the problem of existence from a different point of view. I am going to try this evening to approach it from the point of view of effort, this constant battle that we make to overcome something, to succeed, to achieve, and see if we can have a brief period to comprehend the full significance of this struggle. There is so much sorrow and so little happiness in our lives. When there is happiness, the problems of power, position, and achievement, come to an end. When there is happiness, the struggle to become ceases, and the divisions between man and man are broken down. We must often have noticed, in those rare moments when we are perfectly happy, quiet, that all conflicts cease to exist. So, happiness comes only with the highest form of intelligence. Intelligence is the understanding of sor- row. We know sorrow, it is always with us, a constant companion; it seems to be without end - sorrow in different forms, at different levels, physical and psychological. We know certain remedies to overcome physical pain; but psychologically it is much more difficult. The psychological problem is much more complex, demanding greater attention and greater study, deeper penetration and wider experience; but sorrow, wherever it be, at whatever level, is still painful.So, the problem is: Does sorrow, suffering, come to an end through effort, through a thought process? You understand, I am not for the moment talking about the physiological suffering, the painful disease, but about the psychological suffering. Does that suffering come to an end through effort, through what we call the thought process? Physical pain can be overcome by effort, by searching out the causes of disease. But psychological suffering, pain, anxiety, frustration, the innumerable aches - can they be overcome by effort, by thought. So we have first to enquire what is suffering, what is effort, and what is thought. It is a very large problem to be solved in a very short time; but if you will follow it attentively, I think it is possible to understand the significance of it; and perhaps in understanding it directly we shall be able to solve it, or rather catch a momentary glimpse of that happiness which destroys this ache, this burning loneliness and pain.
So, what is suffering? Is it not the desire to become, with its varying frustrations? Is not sorrow the outcome of the desire to be other than what one is? Do not actions based on that desire lead to disintegration, to conflict, to the neverending wave of confusion? So, sorrow, suffering, is the desire to become, the desire to be, either positively or negatively. I think we can all agree on that fundamentally. Sorrow comes into being when there is the desire to become. In that becoming, there is action, whether social action or individual action; and that action is constantly expanding itself in disintegration, in futility, in frustration, which we see about us constantly. Now, can this desire to become, which is the cause of sorrow, come to an end through effort? That is what we try to do, is it not? When we are frustrated, when there is pain, when there is sorrow, we try to overcome it, we try to battle against it. This positive or defensive attack is called effort, is it not? That is, effort exists or comes into being when there is the anxiety to change what one is. I am this, and I want to become that. This change, this movement of changing this into that, is called effort. Now, what is change, what is changing - not the dictionary meaning, but the inner significance of it? Surely, change is a modified continuity, I am this, and I want to become that; that is, I want to become the opposite of what I am. But the opposite is the continuity of what I am in a different form. So, the opposite, in which there is always effort, is the modified continuity of its own opposite. Non-greed is the modified continuity of greed; it is still greed, only under a different name, because in it becoming is implied, and this becoming, in which effort is involved, is the cause of sorrow. We see that effort implies continuity in a modified form. And can thought, can the thought process, bring sorrow to an end?
Probably this is all rather abstract and difficult, but we will simplify it as I begin to answer questions about it. But I think we will have to lay the abstract before us, and then build structurally, concretely; and we will do that when we understand the principle of this problem of suffering - whether suffering can be overcome through effort which creates the opposite, and whether suffering, which is the desire to become something here or hereafter, can be brought to an end by thought. Now, what is thinking? When you say,`I am thinking', what does it mean? You are trying to solve the problem of sorrow through thought; and can thought put an end to pain, to psychological anxiety, to fear, and so on? So, what is thinking? Surely, thinking is the response of memory; if you had no memory, you would not be capable of thinking. Memory is the residue of experience - experience which is not completely, fully understood. When you understand something completely, fully, it leaves no mark. Only the undigested, incomplete experience leaves a mark, which we call memory. So, thinking is the response of memory; and when you try to solve the problem of suffering through thought, thought being the response of memory, surely there is no solution; because memory is the continuity of effort. This is not a cleverly worked out puzzle; but if you think about it, you will see that three things are involved in your process of dealing with pain: effort, thought, and memory. Don't memorize it - watch it operating in your daily life, and you will see. You don't have to read philosophical books; but, if you will watch yourself when there is anxiety, when there is pain, you will see these three things at work. And can these things overcome, dissolve, the pain, the sorrow? Obviously they cannot, because the thought process is merely the outcome of incomplete understanding, and change is merely modified continuity, which creates the opposite. So, our problem is to find out what can put an end to sorrow, what can bring about that state of happiness, which is obviously not the result of effort. I don't know if you have ever tried to be happy. Surely, you have never succeeded when you tried to be happy. Happiness comes into being spontaneously, uninvited. So, it cannot be a result of effort and if we seek happiness by getting rid of sorrow, then we will not understand, put an end to sorrow without the thought process, without effort? Because effort implies, as pointed out, the creating of duality, of the opposites; and what is opposite is still within the field of its own opposite. So, what puts an end to sorrow? When you understand the process of thought, the process of effort, the process of memory, when you really understand, as I have explained, when you are aware of these three processes, then what happens? When you are aware of something, what is your exact experience? Surely, when you are aware of something, there is no condemnatory attitude, is there? There is no justifying or identifying. You are simply aware. I am aware of that green, of those birds flying. In that awareness, there is no condemnation, there is no justification. Now, if you are aware of sorrow without the three processes at work trying to overcome it, if you are aware without condemnation then you will see there comes alert passivity, a passive awareness without any demand. You are very alert; there is no part of your being which is asleep, because you have explored, as we said, the whole process of memory, thought, effort, and therefore you are fully aware; and in that awareness there is a perceptivity, a quiet, a stillness, an observation. Without a prejudice, without a demand; and then you will find that sorrow comes to an end. But such awareness demands an extraordinarily persistent watchfulness to see how the mind works when there is suffering, to follow the swift movement of every thought and thereby comprehend the whole process of effort, of thought and of memory.
Question: You say love is chaste. Do you mean it is celibate?
Krishnamurti: Now, we are going to explore this problem and see the implications in it. So, please don't be on the offensive or the defensive; because, to understand you must explore, and exploration ceases when you are biased, when you are tethered to a tradition or to a belief. It is like an animal tied to a stake: it cannot wander far, and you must wander far to discover what is truth. You must go very deeply to find the truth of any problem; but, if you are anchored in a haven of belief, of tradition, or of prejudice, then you will never find the truth of any problem. So, please, for this evening at least, let us explore together without being anchored - which is quite an arduous task in itself. Because, when you are prejudiced, surely the problem is distorted, and therefore the answer is also distorted; and to find the answer, one must study the problem without distortion, either defensive or offensive, either negative or positive. So, we are going to examine the problem together and see where it leads us.
In this question is involved the whole complex issue of sex. Religious teachers, traditional systems, have forbidden sexual intercourse, saying that it prevents man from realizing the highest, that you must be celibate in order to find God, truth, or whatever it be. Now, traditionally, that is what is generally accepted. But, if we want to find the truth of a problem, tradition and authority have no meaning. On the contrary, they become a hindrance - which does not mean that man must become licentious. Truth is not found in the opposite, for the opposite is the continuity of its own opposite. The antithesis is the continuation of the thesis in a different form. So, to find the truth of this matter, we must approach it very carefully, without the bias of tradition, without the fear of authority, and without the sneaking pleasure of indulgence. We must look at it and see its full significance.
First of all, why has sex become a problem to most of us? Why is it that practically everywhere in the world at the present time-it is one of the most extraordinary facts - men and women are caught in this sensate pleasure? Why is it that it has become such an intense, burning problem? If we do not understand that, we shall either condemn it or indulge in it. I am not saying it is right or wrong - that would be a stupid way of regarding the problem. Must you be a celibate because the books say so? Must you lead a riotous life because other books say so? To think out the problem, we must think of it anew; and to think of it anew, we must leave the well-charted lines of the old. So, the problem is: Why is it that sex has become such a burning issue? First, obviously, because it is being stimulated by every possible means in modern society; every newspaper, every magazine, the cinemas and pictures, stimulate eroticism.The tradesman employs a woman to attract your attention, to make you buy a pair of shoes, or God knows what. So, through stimulation we are being bombarded with sex all the time. That is one fact. And society, civilization at the present time, is essentially the outcome of sensate value. Things, mundane things, have become extraordinarily important in our lives; position, wealth, name, have become of vital significance, because they are means to power, means to so-called freedom. Sensory values have become predominantly significant in our lives, and that is also one of the reasons for this overwhelming problem of sex. In thought, in feeling, you have ceased to be creative; you are just imitative machines, aren't you? Your religion is merely habit, following authority, tradition and fear, copying the book, following the rule, the example, the ideal. It has become a routine. Religion is merely mumbling words, going to the temple, or practicing a discipline - -which is all repetitive, copying, imitative, habit forming. And what happens to your mind and to your heart when you are merely imitative? Naturally, they wither, do they not? The mind, which must be swift, capable of deep penetration, deep understanding, has been made into a mere machine, a record-player which imitates, copies, follows. It has ceased to be a mind, and your religion has become a matter of belief. Therefore, emotionally, inwardly, there is no creation, there is no creative response - only dullness, emptiness. The same is true of thought. What is your thinking, what is your existence? A hollow, empty routine, isn't it? - earning money, playing cards, going to cinemas, reading a few cheap books or very, very cultured ones. Again, what is that? Is it not also just a repetitive machine functioning without depth, without thought, without compassion, without vulnerability? How can such a mind be creative? So, what happens to your life? You are uncreative, unthoughtful, unmindful, imitating, copying; so naturally the only pleasure left to you is sex, which becomes your escape; therefore, being your only release, you are caught in it, and so there is the eternal question of how to get out. And your ideals, your disciplines, will not get you out. You may suppress it, you may hold it in, but that is not living creatively, happily, purely, nobly - it is living in constant fear. Sex is one of the ways of self-forgetfulness; in sex you momentarily forget yourself; and because you live so superficially, so imitatively, sex is the only thing left to you, so it becomes a problem. And naturally, when sex is the only thing left, there is no life.
We are not trying to solve the problem, we are trying to understand it; and in understanding it fully, we shall find the answer. To the many serious problems of life, there are no categorical answers, yes or no; but, in understanding the problem itself, we shall find the answer. The answer is that the problem will exist as long as there is no creativeness, as long as you are not free from imitation, from habit, as long as the mind is caught in mere repetition, in the mere earning of money - which is a ruthless existence. In merely repeating, chanting, and all the rest of it there can be no creativeness. There is creativeness only through the release of creative thinking, creative being, creative existence, which means bringing about a radical revolution in our living - not a verbal revolution, but an inward revolution, a complete transformation of our lives. Then only will this problem have a different meaning; then life itself will have a different significance. Those who are trying to be celibate as a means of achieving reality, God - they are unchaste, they are ignoble, because their hearts are dry. Surely, without love, there cannot be purity, and a pure heart alone can find reality - not a disciplined heart, not a suppressed heart, not a distorted heart, but a heart that knows what it is to love. But you cannot love if you are caught in a habit, either religious or physical, psychological or sensate. So, a man who is trying to be a celibate can never understand reality; for to him celibacy is merely the imitation of an example, an ideal; and the imitation of an ideal is merely copying, therefore it is uncreative. But a man who knows how to love, how to be kind, how to be generous, how to give himself over to something completely without thought of self, that man knows love; and such love is chaste. Where there is such love the problem ceases to be.
Question: You say the present crisis is without precedent. In what way is it exceptional?
Krishnamurti: I do all the thinking, and you do all the listening - it is too bad. Sir, there is a danger in all these meetings that you merely become the audience and I become the talker. That is what has happened in the world. You all go to football and cricket games, or to the cinema. Others are acting, others are playing, but never you. You have become uncreative - that is why you have so many destructive problems gnawing at your heart. So, don't please, if I may suggest, become the audience here - that would be too bad, and would have no meaning. It is so easy to listen to somebody else talking, so easy to read books which somebody else has written; but, if there were no books, if there were no preachers, you would have to think out your own problems, and then you would be extremely creative, would you not? That is what we are trying to do here. Fortunately, I have not read books, religious scriptures; but you have, and unfortunately, your minds are stuffed with other people's ideas - and that is your difficulty. Your difficulty is that you are not thinking, or you are thinking through other people's formulas, ideas, sayings, quotations. Therefore, you are really not thinking at all. These talks will be of no significance whatever if you merely become the observers, the listeners; because, you will find that I am not giving any answer to any problem. That would be too easy, that would be too stupid - to say yes or no to any issue. But, if we think out the problem together, easily, sanely, without being anchored to any prejudice, then we shall find the significance of the problem; then there will be creative happiness in the search. Surely, Sir, that search itself is devotion - not to an image, to an idea, but there is devotion in the very search of the problem and its meaning. There is joy, there is creative ecstasy, in finding out what is true; but if we merely listen, words have very little meaning. The word is not the thing; to find the thing, you must go beyond the word.
Surely, the present crisis is exceptional, is it not? Not because I say so - I will say many things, but it will not be true if you merely repeat it. Propaganda is a lie, repetition is a lie. Obviously, the present crisis throughout the world is exceptional, without precedent. There have been crises of varying types at different periods throughout history, social, national, political. Crises come and go; economic recessions, depressions come, get modified, and continue in a different form. We know that, we are familiar with that process. But surely, the present crisis is different, is it not? It is different first because we are dealing, not with money, not with tangible things, but with ideas. The crisis is exceptional because it is in the field of ideation. We are quarrelling with ideas, we are justifying murder; in this country, as everywhere else in the world, we are justifying murder as a means to a righteous end, which in itself is unprecedented. Before, evil was recognized to be evil, murder was recognized to be murder; but now, murder is a means to achieve a noble result. Murder, whether of one person or of a group of people, is justified, because the murderer, or the group that the murderer represents, justifies it as a means of achieving a result which will be beneficial to man. That is, we sacrifice the present for the future - and it does not matter what means we employ as long as our declared purpose is to produce a result which will be beneficial to man. Therefore, the implication is that a wrong means will produce a right end, and you justify the wrong means through ideation. In the various crises that have taken place before the issue has been the exploitation of things or of man; but it is now the exploitation of ideas, which is much more pernicious, much more dangerous, because the exploitation of ideas is so devastating, so destructive. We have learned now the power of propaganda, and that is one of the greatest calamities that can happen: to use ideas as a means to transform man. Surely that is what is happening in the world today. Man is not important - systems ideas, have become important. Man no longer has any significance. We can destroy millions of men as long as we produce a result, and the result is justified by ideas. We have a magnificent structure of ideas to justify evil; and, surely, that is unprecedented. Evil is evil, it cannot bring about good. War is not a means to peace. War may bring about secondary benefits, like more efficient airplanes, but it will not bring peace to man. War is intellectually justified as a means of bringing peace; and when the intellect has the upper hand in human life, it brings about an unprecedented crisis.
There are other causes also which indicate an unprecedented crisis. One of them is the extraordinary importance man is giving to sensate values, to property, to name, to caste and country, to the particular label you wear. You are either a Mohammedan or a Hindu, a Christian or a communist. Name and property, caste and country, have become predominantly important, which means that man is caught in sensate value, the value of things, whether made by the mind or by the hand. Things made by the hand or by the mind have become so important that we are killing, destroying, butchering, liquidating each other because of them. We are nearing the edge of a precipice; every action is leading us there, every political, every economic action is bringing us inevitably to the precipice, dragging us into this chaotic, confusing abyss. So, the crisis is unprecedented, and it demands unprecedented action. To leave, to step out of that crisis, needs a timeless action, an action which is not based on idea, on system; because any action which is based on a system, on an idea, will inevitably lead to frustration. Such action merely brings us back to the abyss by a different route. So, as the crisis is unprecedented, there must also be unprecedented action, which means that the regeneration of the individual must be instantaneous, not a process of time. It must take place now, not tomorrow; for tomorrow is of transforming myself tomorrow, I invite confusion, I am still within the field of destruction. And is it possible to change now? Is it possible to completely transform oneself in the immediate, in the now? I say it is. To do that, to transform oneself immediately, now, demands a certain close following of all that I am saying; because understanding is always in the present, not in the future. I have already talked a little about this, and we will discuss it as we go along during the many Sundays to come.
The point is that, as the crisis is of an exceptional character, to meet it there must be revolution in thinking; and this revolution cannot take place through another, through any book, through any organization. It must come through us, through each one of us. Only then can we create a new society, a new structure away from this horror, away from these extraordinarily destructive forces that are being accumulated, piled up; and that transformation comes into being only when you as an individual begin to be aware of yourself in every thought, action, and feeling.
Question: Are there no perfect gurus who have nothing for the greedy seeker of eternal security, but who guide visibly or invisibly a loving heart?
Krishnamurti: Now, this question, whether one needs a guru, is put over and over again in different forms. Sirs, the vast majority of you have gurus - that is one of the most extraordinary things here. So, for this evening at least, put them aside and let us investigate the problem. The questioner asks: `Does a loving heart need a guide?' Do you understand? Surely, a loving heart needs no guide, for love itself is the real, the eternal. A loving heart is generous, kind, unreserved, withholding nothing, and such a heart knows the real; it knows that which is without a beginning and without an end. But most of us have no such heart. Our hearts are dry, empty, making a lot of noise. Our hearts are filled with the things of the mind. And as our hearts are empty, we go to another to fill them. We go to another seeking that eternal security which we call God; we go to another to find that permanent gratification which we call reality. Because our own hearts are dry, we are seeking a guru who will fill them. Can anyone, whether visible or invisible, fill your heart? Your gurus give you disciplines, practices; they don't tell you how to think, but rather what to think. And what happens? You practise, you meditate, you discipline, you conform yourself, and yet your heart remains dull, empty and unloving; you discipline yourself and tyrannize your family. Do you think that by meditating, disciplining yourself, you will know love? Sir, without love, you cannot find reality, can you? Without being tender, gentle, considerate, how can you know the real? And can anyone teach you how to love? Surely, love is not a technique. Through technique, you cannot know it, can you? You will know every other thing, but not love, So, you can never know reality through any discipline, through any practice, through any conformity; because, conformity, discipline, practice, is repetition, which dulls the mind, freezes the heart - and that is what you want. You want to make your mind dull, because your mind is restless, wandering, active, incessantly striving; and not understanding this restless mind, you want to smother it, you want to discipline it according to your pattern, you want to force it according to a set of rules and regulations, and thereby you strangulate the mind, make the mind utterly dull. That is what is happening, is it not? Look at your mind: How dull it is, how insensitive, because you have pursued the gurus so long. It has become a habit, a routine, to go from one guru to another. Each guru tells you to do something, and you do it till you find it unsatisfactory, and then you go over to somebody else, thereby exhausting your mind by this constant use; for that which is constantly used is worn out. What you are really seeking in a guru is not understanding, but gratification, permanent security, which you call the eternal, God, the real, truth, or what you will. And since you seek gratification, you will find a guru who will gratify you; but surely, that is not understanding, it does not bring happiness, it does not bring love. On the contrary, it destroys love. Love is something new, eternal from moment to moment. It is never the same, never as it was before; and without its perfume, without its beauty and its goodness, to search through a guru for that which you must find out for yourself is utterly useless. So, our problem is not whether a visible or invisible guru will help us, but how to bring about that state of being in which we know what love is. For love is virtue, and virtue is not a practice; but virtue brings freedom. And it is only when there is freedom that the eternal can come into being.
So, our question is, how is it possible for a dull mind, an empty heart, to come to love, to be sensitive, to know the beauty, the richness of love? First, you must be aware that your mind is dull, that your thought process has no significance. You must be aware that your heart is empty without finding excuses for it, without justifying or condemning it. Just be aware, try it, Sirs. Be aware and see if your mind is not dull, if your heart is not empty; though you are married, have children and possessions, is it not empty? Aren't you empty? Your mind is dull, though you know all the religious books; though your mind is an encyclopedia, full of information, it is dull, weary, exhausted. Just be aware, be passively aware without condemning without justifying; be open to dis- cover how dull, how weary your mind is and also that your heart is empty, lonely and aching. I am not mesmerizing you - just be aware of all this and you will see, if you are passively aware, that there comes a transformation, an extraordinarily quick response; and in that response, you will know what it is to love. In that response, there is stillness, there is quiet; and in that quiet you will find the indescribable, the unutterable.
Bombay, India. Public Talk 22nd February, 1948
I shall try today to clarify the extraordinarily complex problem of our existence, very simply and very directly, if that is possible. You are fully aware, I think, that our existence is very complex and extraordinarily vast and subtle; and like all complex problems, I think we ought to approach it very simply. Though I may use ordinary words with a difficult meaning, or put it in a difficult way, you will find, if you care to think about it, that the approach is very simple, like that to all great scientific problems. The problem itself is complex, but it has to be approached very simply; and that is what I hope we will do this evening. Our existence is complex, and we try to solve a particular problem unrelated to other problems. That is, the problem of existence is not at one level only, but at different levels, and these problems at different levels are interrelated. The physiological problem is related to the psychological and spiritual problem, but we try to solve the problem of food, clothing and shelter on its own level, apart from the psychological level. We try to solve the economic problem as though it were completely unrelated to the psychological problem, and this effort to solve each of our human problems on its own level leads to catastrophic results. That is, if we try to solve the economic problem on its own level, not relating it to the psychological problem, it leads us to confusion and further catastrophes. So, departmental thinking can in no way solve the problem of existence. When the economists, the socialists, the communists, the psychologists, try to solve our difficult problems, each purely on its own level, which means departmental thinking, then there is no way out of the mess.So, we have to think of our existence as a whole, as a total process, and not as many unrelated processes at different levels. The different levels are interrelated, and therefore they must be thought of as a total process, not as separate, independent process. Our life, our daily existence, is a series of contradictions. We talk of peace, and try to live at peace, but we are preparing for war; we talk of freedom, but regimentation is taking place all the time. There is poverty and riches, evil and good, violence and non-violence. Our whole life is a series of contradictions. We want to be happy, and we do everything to bring about unhappiness; we want peace in the world, and yet everything we think, feel and do bring about war. So, we live in a series of contradictions, which I think is fairly obvious and with which we are quite familiar.
Now, to choose one of the contradictions is to avoid direct action, because choice at all times is a process of the avoidance of action. That is, if I choose one of the contradictions, peace, and do not understand its opposite, conflict, then such choice leads to inaction. It is not choice, but right thinking, that brings about integration. Where there is right thinking, contradictions are not possible; when we know how to think rightly, contradiction will cease. So, we have to find out what is right thinking, and not be caught in choice between good and evil, between war and peace, between riches and poverty, between freedom and regimentation. When right thinking comes into being, there is no contradiction. Contradiction is the very nature of the self, the seat of desire. So, to understand desire is the beginning of self-knowledge, and without self-knowledge, there is no right thinking. If I don't know myself, the total process of myself, not only at the economic level of everyday existence, but at the different psychological levels, then I live in a state of contradiction; and to choose one of the opposites does not bring about integration. We see contradiction about us and in our lives, there is a constant battle of choice between right and wrong; and we choose one of the opposites, yet that does not bring about peace, integration. So, to choose is to avoid action, and only right thinking can bring about integration.
Our problem, then, is how to think rightly. Now, right thinking and right thought are two different states, are they not? Right thinking has to be discovered, whereas right thought is merely conformity to a pattern. Right thinking is a process, whereas right thought is static. Right thinking is constant movement, constant discovery; that is, only through constant awareness in action, which is relationship, can there be right thinking. But right thought is always static; you can pick up right thought. You can regiment your mind, force your mind, discipline it to think along right lines, but that is not right thinking. Right thinking can come into being only through self-knowledge, and self-knowledge is never static. I am using the word self - knowledge in its full meaning - knowledge of the self, not only the higher but the lower self. To me, the self, the desire, is both the high and the low. We have divided the self for convenience, as a means of escape; but actually, to understand the self, one must understand the whole process of thinking, which is consciousness.
So, right thinking alone can bring about integration and therefore freedom from the conflict of the opposites, freedom from self-contradiction; and to understand self-contradiction, the battle that is going on within each one of us and which is expressed outwardly in the world, there must be an awareness of the process of our own thinking, awareness of every thought and every feeling - not merely the acceptance of pleasurable thoughts and the avoidance of ugly ones, but awareness of all thoughts and all feelings. And, to understand, there must be no condemnation; because the moment you condemn a thing, you cease to understand it. So, self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom, from which comes right thinking; and without right thinking there can be no right action, and therefore no creation of a new social structure.
So, our problem is, is it not?, that, living in a state of contradiction, we are caught in a contradictory society which is the result of our own projection. I want, and I don't want; I want to live at peace, and at the same time I see that I am antisocial. We live in a state of constant contradiction, and therefore there is disintegration; and any action that springs from that state of contradiction is bound to lead to further conflict and disintegration. To bring about integration, there must be right thinking; right thinking can come into being only through self-knowledge; and self-knowledge is a process of constant discovery of the full significance of each thought and each feeling. That is, there must be constant awareness, without condemnation or justification, of every thought, of every movement, of every feeling - awareness, not only of the superficial consciousness, but also of the motives, the intimations, the significance of all our hidden thoughts, pursuits and desires. As you are more and more aware you will find that there comes a deeper and deeper understanding. From this understanding comes right thinking, and only right thinking can bring about the right solution to the many problems that confront each one of us.
Question: Is not the longing expressed in prayer a way to God?
Krishnamurti: First of all we are going to examine the problems contained in this question. In it are implied prayer, concentration and meditation. Now, what do we mean by prayer? First of all, in prayer there is petition, supplication to what you call God, reality. You, as an individual, are demanding, petitioning, begging, seeking guidance from something which you call God; therefore your approach is one of seeking a reward, seeking a gratification. You are in trouble, national or individual, and you pray for guidance; or you are confused, and you beg for clarity, you look for help to what you call God. In this is implied that God, whatever God may be - we won't discuss that for the moment - , is going to clear up the confusion which you and I have created. Because, after all, it is we who have brought about the confusion, the misery, the chaos, the appalling tyranny, the lack of love; and we want what we call God to clear it up. In other words, we want our confusion, our misery, our sorrow, our conflict, to be cleared away by somebody else, we petition another to bring us light and happiness.
Now, when you pray, when you beg, petition for something, it generally comes into being. When you ask, you receive; but what you receive will not create order, because what you receive does not bring clarity, understanding. It only satisfies, gives gratification, but does not bring about understanding; because, when you demand, you receive that which you yourself project. How can reality, God, answer your particular demand? Can the immeasurable, the unutterable, be concerned with our petty little worries, miseries, confusions, which we ourselves have created? Therefore, what is it that answers? Obviously, the immeasurable cannot answer the measured, the petty, the small. But what is it that answers? At that moment, when we pray, we are fairly silent, in a state of receptivity; and then our own subconscious brings a momentary clarity. That is, you want something, you are longing for it, and in that moment of longing, of obsequious begging, you are fairly receptive; your conscious, active mind is comparatively still, so the unconscious projects itself into that and you have an answer. But it is surely not an answer from reality, from the immeasurable - it is your own unconscious responding. So, don't let us be confused and think that when your prayer is answered you are in relationship with reality. Reality must come to you; you cannot go to it.
Then, in this problem of prayer, there is another factor involved: the response of that which we call the inner voice. I said, when the mind is supplicating, petitioning, it is comparatively still; and when you hear the inner voice, it is your own voice projecting itself into that comparatively still mind. Again, how can it be the voice of reality? A mind that is confused, ignorant, craving, demanding, petitioning, how can it understand reality? The mind can receive reality only when it is absolutely still, not demanding, not craving, not longing, not asking, whether for yourself, for the nation, or for another. When the mind is absolutely still, when desire ceases, then only reality comes into being. But a person who is demanding, petitioning, supplicating, longing for direction, such a person will find what he seeks, but it will not be the truth. What he receives will be the response of the unconscious layers of his own mind, which project themselves into the conscious; and that still, small voice which directs him is not the real, but only the response of the unconscious.
Then, in this problem of prayer, there is also the question of concentration. With most of us, concentration is a process of exclusion. Concentration is brought about through effort, compulsion, direction, imitation, and so concentration is a process of exclusion. I am interested in so-called meditation, but my thoughts are distracted. So, I fix my mind on a picture, an image, or an idea, and exclude all other thoughts; and this process of concentration, which is exclusion, is considered to be a means of meditating. That is what you do, is it not? When you sit down to meditate, you fix your mind on a word, on an image, or on a picture; but the mind wanders all over the place. There is the constant interruption of other ideas, other thoughts, other emotions, and you try to push them away, you spend your time battling with your thoughts. This process you call meditation. That is, you are trying to concentrate on something in which you are not interested, and your thoughts keep on multiplying, increasing, interrupting. So, you spend your energy in exclusion, in warding off, pushing away; and if you can concentrate on your chosen thought, on a particular object, you think you have at last succeeded in meditation. Surely, that is not meditation, is it? Meditation is not an exclusive process - exclusive in the sense of warding off, building resistance against encroaching ideas. So, prayer is not meditation, and concentration as exclusion is not meditation.
So, what is meditation? Concentration is not meditation, because where there is interest it is comparatively easy to concentrate on something. A general who is planning war, butchery, is very concentrated. A business man making money is very concentrated - he may even be ruthless, putting aside every other feeling and concentrating completely on what he wants, a man who is interested in anything is naturally, spontaneously concentrated, But, surely, such concentration is not meditation, it is merely exclusion.
So, what is meditation? Obviously, it is not fixing your mind on an object, on a word, on an idea, on a phrase, an image, or a speculative hope. Surely, that is merely concentration on what you want. As a business man concentrates on making money, so you concentrate on what you want and exclude, push aside, battle with the encroaching waves of thought. Surely, that is not meditation, is it?
So, what is meditation? Surely, meditation is understanding - meditation of the heart is understanding. How can there be understanding if there is exclusion? How can there be understanding when there is petition, supplication? In understanding there is peace, there is freedom; that which you understand, from that you are liberated. But, merely to concentrate, or to pray, does not bring understanding. So, understanding is the very basis, the fundamental process of meditation. You don't have to accept my word for it; but if you examine prayer and concentration very carefully, deeply, you will find that neither of them leads to understanding. They merely lead to obstinacy, to a fixation, to illusion. Whereas, meditation, in which there is understanding, brings about freedom, clarity and integration.
So, then, what do we mean by understanding? Understanding means giving right significance, right valuation, to all things. To be ignorant is to give wrong values; the very nature of stupidity is the lack of comprehension of right values. So, understanding comes into being when there are right values, when right values are established. And how is one to establish right values - the right value of property, the right value of relationship, the right value of ideas? For the right values to come into being, you must understand the thinker, must you not? If I don't understand the thinker, which is myself, what I choose has no meaning, that is, if I don't know myself, then my action, my thought, have no foundation whatsoever. So, self-knowledge is the beginning of meditation - not the knowledge that you pick up from my books, from authorities, from gurus, but the knowledge that comes into being through self-inquiry, which is self-awareness. Meditation is the beginning of self-knowledge, and without self-knowledge there is no meditation. Because, if I don't understand the ways of my thoughts, of my feelings, if I don't understand my motives, my desires, my demands, my pursuit of patterns of action, which are ideas - I do not know myself, there is no foundation for thinking; and the thinker who merely asks, prays, or excludes, without understanding himself, must inevitably end in confusion, in illusion.
So, the beginning of meditation is self-knowledge, which means being aware of every movement of thought and feeling, knowing all the layers of my consciousness - not only the superficial layers, but the hidden, the deeply concealed activities. But, to know the deeply concealed activities, the hidden motives, responses, thoughts and feelings, there must be tranquillity in the conscious mind; that is, the conscious mind must be still in order to receive the projection of the unconscious. The superficial, conscious mind is occupied with its daily activities, with earning a livelihood, deceiving others, exploiting others, running away from problems - all the daily activities of our existence. That superficial mind must understand the right significance of its own activities and thereby bring tranquillity to itself. It cannot bring about tranquillity, stillness, by mere regimentation, by compulsion, by discipline. It can bring about tranquillity, peace, stillness, only by understanding its own activities, by observing them, by being aware of them, by seeing its own ruthlessness, how it talks to the servant, to the wife, to the daughter, to the mother, and so on. When the superficial, conscious mind is thus fully aware of all its activities, through that understanding it becomes spontaneous, quiet, not drugged by compulsion or regimented by desire; and then it is in a position to receive the intimations, the hints of the unconscious, of the many, many hidden layers of the mind - the racial instincts, the buried memories, the concealed pursuits, the deep wounds that are still unhealed. It is only when all these have projected themselves and are understood, when the whole consciousness is unburdened, unfettered by any wound, by any memory whatsoever, that it is in a position to receive the eternal.
So, meditation is self-knowledge, and without self-knowledge there is no meditation. If you are not aware of all your responses all the time, if you are not fully conscious, fully cognizant of your daily activities, merely to lock yourself in a room and sit down in front of a picture of your guru, of your Master, to do puja, to meditate, is an escape. Because, without self-knowledge there is no right thinking, and without right thinking, what you do has no meaning, however noble your intentions are. So, prayer has no significance without self-knowledge; but when there is self-knowledge, there is right thinking, and hence right action. When there is right action, there is no confusion, and therefore there is no supplication to someone else to lead you out of it. A man who is fully aware, is meditating; he does not pray, because he does not want anything. Through prayer, through regimentation, through repetition, through japam and all the rest of it, you can bring about a certain stillness; but that is mere dullness, reducing the mind and the heart to a state of weariness. It is drugging the mind; and exclusion, which you call concentration, does not lead to reality, no exclusion ever can. What brings about understanding is self-knowledge, and it is not very difficult to be aware if there is right intention. If you are interested to discover the whole process of yourself - not merely the superficial part, but the total process of your whole being - , then it is comparatively easy. If you really want to know yourself, you will search out your heart and your mind to know their full content; and when there is the intention to know, you will know. Then you can follow, without condemnation or justification, every movement, of thought and feeling; and by following every thought and every feeling as it arises, you bring about tranquillity which is not compelled, not regimented, but which is the outcome of having no problem, no contradiction. It is like the pool that becomes peaceful, quiet, any evening when there is no wind; and when the mind is still, then that which is immeasurable comes into being.
Question: Why is your teaching so purely psychological? There is no cosmology, no theology, no ethics, no aesthetics, no sociology, no political science, not even hygiene. Why do you concentrate only on the mind and its workings?
Krishnamurti: For a very simple reason, Sir. If the thinker can understand himself, then the whole problem is solved. Then he is creation, he is reality; and then what he does will not be antisocial. Virtue is not an end in itself; virtue brings freedom, and there can be freedom only when the thinker, which is the mind, ceases. That is why one has to understand the process of the mind, the `I', the bundle of desires that create the `I', my property, my wife, my ideas, my God. Surely, it is because the thinker is so confused that his actions are confused; it is because the thinker is confused that he seeks reality, order, peace. Because the thinker is confused, ignorant, he wants knowledge; and because the thinker is in contradiction, in conflict, he pursues ethics to control, to guide, to support him. So, if I can understand myself, the thinker, then the whole problem is solved, is it not? Then I will not be antisocial, I will not be rich and exploit the poor, I will not want things, things, things, which brings about a conflict between those who have and those who have not. Then I will have no caste, no nationality, there will be no separation between man and man. Then we shall love each other, we shall be kind. So, what is important, then, is not cosmology, not theology, not hygiene - though hygiene is necessary, and cosmology and theology are unnecessary; but what is important is to understand myself, the thinker.
Now, is the thinker different from his thoughts? If thought ceases, is there the thinker? Can the quality be removed from the thinker? When the qualities of the thinker are removed, is there the thinker, the `I'? So, thoughts themselves are the thinker, they are not separate. The thinker has separated himself from his thoughts in order to safeguard himself; he can then always modify his thoughts according to circumstances, and yet remain aloof as the thinker. The moment he begin to modify the thinker, the thinker ceases. So, it is one of the tricks of the mind to separate the thinker from the thoughts, and then to be concerned about the thoughts, how to change them, how to modify them, how to transform them - all of which is a deception, an illusion. Because, the thinker is not if thought is not, and mere modification of thoughts does not do away with the thinker. That is one of the clever ways the thinker has of protecting himself, of giving himself permanency; whereas thoughts are impermanent. So, the self is perpetuated; but the self is not permanent, whether the higher self or the lower self. Both are still within the field of memory, within the field of time.
So, the reason why I give so much importance and urgency to the psychology of the mind, is that the mind is the cause of all action; and without understanding that, merely to reform, to potter around, to trim the superficial actions, has very little meaning. We have done that for generations, and have brought about confusion, madness, and misery in the world. So, we have to go to the very root of the whole problem of existence, of consciousness, which is the `I', the thinker; and without understanding the thinker and its activities, mere superficial social reforms have no significance - at least, not for the man who is very serious, very earnest. That is why it is important for each of us to find out on that we are laying emphasis - whether on the superficial, the outward, or on the fundamental. Because, Sirs, with the world in such an insane mood of butchering, of destroying, of hurling man against man, surely the time has come for those who are really in earnest, purposeful, to tackle the problem radically and profoundly, and not deal with superficial reforms and trimmings. That is why it is important to know for yourself on what to lay emphasis, and not depend on another to tell you. If you give importance to the psychology of the thinker merely because I do, then you will be imitative and you can be persuaded to imitate somebody else when this does not suit you. So, you must think out this problem very seriously and very profoundly, and not wait for somebody to tell you on what to lay emphasis. Surely, all this is so obvious and clear. Organized religion, party and power politics, socialism, capitalism, communism, all have failed because they are not dealing with the fundamental nature of man. They want to trim the environmental influences; and what value has that when man is inwardly sick, diseased and confused? Surely, a good doctor is not concerned only with the symptoms. Symptoms are merely indicative. He goes to the cause, and eradicates the cause. So, a man who is in earnest has to go to the cause, and not superficially play with words; and the fundamental cause of this misery in the world is the lack of understanding of the process of ourselves. We do not want to bring order within ourselves, but only outward order. There will be outward order when there is inward order, because the inward always overcomes the outer. So, the emphasis obviously must be laid on the psychological process, with all its implications. When one understands oneself, there is happiness, there is peace, and a happy man is not in conflict with his neighbour. It is only the miserable man, the ignorant man, who is in conflict; his actions are antisocial, and wherever he goes he creates misery and more conflict. But a man who understands himself is at peace, and therefore his actions are peaceful.
Question: You have said that all progress is in charity only, and that what we call progress is merely a process of disintegration. What is there to disintegrate? Chaos is always with us, and there is neither progress nor regress in chaos.
Krishnamurti: I said there is technological progress, but otherwise there is no progress at all - which we see, obviously, in the world about us. There is progress, technological progress, from the simple wheel to this extraordinary thing called the airplane, the jet plane; but is there a progress of our minds, of our hearts? Do you love? Surely, Sir, action which is integrating, which is complete, can take place only where there is love, where there is charity; and without charity, without love, all technological progress leads to destruction, to disintegration. That is what is happening in the world at the present time. We are progressing towards chaos, because we are not progressing in charity - which opens up an enormous problem, and I don't think we will have time this evening to go into it fully. It is this: Is there such a thing at all as progress, evolution? I know there is technological progress, the evolution of better machines, and all the rest of it; but do you and I evolve? What is the thing that evolves, and towards what? Ignorance can never evolve into wisdom, greed can never become that which is not greed. Greed will always be greed, though it progresses, evolves. Through time, ignorance can never become wisdom. Ignorance must cease for wisdom to be; greed must cease for that which is not greed to come into being. So, when you talk of evolving, of progressing, you mean becoming something: you are this, and you will become that; you are the clerk, and you will become the manager; you are the priest, and you will become the bishop; you are poor, but you will become rich; you are evil, but you will eventually become good. This becoming is what you call progress, evolution; but it is merely the continuity, in a modified form, of that which is. Becoming is the continuity of what is in a modified form, and therefore there cannot be fundamental change in, what you call progress. We will discuss it another time, because it needs going into very, very carefully.
In becoming, in continuity, can there ever be evolution, can there ever be progress? Only in ending is there rebirth, not in continuity. But progress, surely, can exist only in technological things, and you cannot `progress' in charity - that is, in the comparative sense of becoming more charitable, more loving. Where there is love, there is no comparison. Don't you know? When you love somebody, you love, you give yourself over completely - the you is non-existent. As long as the `you' remains, there is the desire to become, and in becoming there is no rebirth. Becoming is only a modified continuity, and that which continues, decays; that which continues, knows death; but that which is ending is free of death.
Question: We know that thought destroys feeling. How to feel without thinking?
Krishnamurti: Obviously, we know that rationalizing, calculating, bargaining, destroys feeling, love, affection. Have you not noticed that the more you rationalize, the more you bargain, the more you exploit, the more you use the mind, the less feeling there is? Because, feeling is very dangerous, to feel is very dangerous, is it not? To feel very strongly might lead you to what you call chaos, to confusion, to disorder; therefore you control it by rationalizing, and by rationalizing it you cease to be generous. Your feeling is destroyed when there is the thought process, which is naming, terming. You have a feeling of pain, of pleasure, of anger, and by terming it, by giving it a name, which is thinking about it, you modify it, and thereby reduce the feeling. Don't you know? When you feel generous, when you spontaneously want to give your shirt to somebody, your mind comes in and says, `What will happen?'. You begin to rationalize your feeling, and then you become charitable through organizations, not directly - which is avoidance of action. Strong feelings are dangerous, love is very dangerous; therefore you begin to think about love, which minimizes and slowly destroys love.
The next question is, `Is it possible to feel without thinking?'. What do we mean by thinking? Thinking, merely, is the response of memory, either of pain or of pleasure. That is, there is no thinking without the residue of experience; and feeling - when I use the word `feeling' I mean love, not desire, not emotionalism, not all the putrefied stuff which you call feeling - , love cannot be brought within the field of thought. So, the more you respond to memory, which is called thinking, the less love there is. Love is burning, never still, it is from moment to moment, creative, new, fresh, joyous, and therefore it is very dangerous in society, in our relationship; so thought steps in, thought being the response of memory, and modifies love, controls it, tames it, guides it, legalizes it, puts it out of danger. Then it can live with it. Don't you know? When you love somebody, you love the whole of mankind - not just one person, you love man. And it is dangerous to love man, is it not? Because, then there is no barrier, no nationality, there is no craving for money, for position, for things - and such a man is dangerous to society, is he not? But you all want many things. You want fame, you build around yourselves a hood of ideas, of exclusions, and that is why a man who loves is dangerous to society; and so society, which is you, begins to build a thought process, which soon destroys love. For love to be, memory, with all its complex processes, has to come to an end. That is, memory arises only when experience is not fully, completely understood. Memory is only the residue of experience; memory is the result of a challenge which is not fully comprehended. Life is a process of challenge and response, the challenge always being new and the response always being old. So, one has to understand the old, the conditioned response, which means that thought must free itself from the past, from time, from yesterday; it must live each day, each minute, as completely, as fully, and as newly as possible. And you do that when you love, when your heart is full; you cannot do it with words, with things made by the mind, but only when you love. Then memory the thought that is merely the response of memory, ceases; then every minute is a new minute, every movement is a rebirth, and to love the one is to love the whole.
Bombay, India. Public Talk 29th February, 1948
This evening I shall answer questions only, and before I do so I would like to point out one or two things. I think there is an art in listening. Most of us listen through a screen of prejudice. Either we are expecting a definite solution to our problems, or we are not aware of the innumerable prejudices which prevent us from really hearing what another says, or we are not sufficiently interested or concentrated to listen at all, To listen truly is to listen without strain, without struggle, without the effort of hearing; it is to listen as we would to music, to something that we know and enjoy, not merely to the repetition of a record, but to something fresh, new. You know what I mean. When you are enjoying something, a conversation, a piece of music, or when reading literature, you listen, and the words, the music, the sound, the silence between two notes, slips in, enters without your struggling to understand. So, if I may suggest, it will be good if we can listen without making the effort to listen, without accepting or rejecting; if we can listen without erecting a barrier of defence, or trying too eagerly to grasp what is being said. There must be a certain tension, like that of the violin string. When it is at the right tension, it gives the right note. Similarly, if we listen with right tension, with right awareness, then I think we will understand far more deeply and extensively than by merely listening to verbal expression. Then, if you are really aware, the words have a different significance, they penetrate far more deeply. It is like a seed that is sown in rich soil. So, if I may suggest, please listen to these answers, not so much with the intention of grasping the solution to the question, but rather let us consider that you and I are going to think out the problem together aloud and see where it leads us. Because, answering questions must be a rediscovery, to me as well as to you, not merely a repetition of an old record which you and I have learnt by heart. After all, music is the silence between two notes. If it were a continuous sound, there would be no music. It is the silence between two notes that gives emphasis, beauty to the notes. Similarly, it is silence between words, between thoughts, that gives significance, meaning to the thought. So, in listening to the answers to these questions, what is important is neither to accept nor to reject, but to understand what is being said without the barrier of prejudice. This is extremely arduous, because most of us are so grossly prejudiced, and are so unconscious of our prejudice, that it is very difficult to penetrate the thick armour of our own intentions, of our own bias; but if we can, at least for an evening, put this thick armour aside and listen as though we were really enjoying something together, then I think this and other meetings will have a definite significance.Question: Our ideals are the only thing between ourselves and madness. You are breaking a dam which keeps chaos out of our homes and fields. Why are you so foolhardy? The immature and the unsteady minds will be thrown off their feet by your sweeping generalizations.
Krishnamurti: This question is put with regard to what I have said concerning ideals, examples, and the opposites; so, we will have to go over what I have said concerning ideals. And, as I have just said, please listen, not as if through a wall of resistance, but rather with a wish to understand. You have certain traditions and ideals, and perhaps what I am going to say will be contrary to everything that you think; and what I say may or may not be the truth. So, you have to listen with a certain resistance, with a certain freedom, with a certain elasticity; but if you merely enclose yourself within the walls of your own ideals, your own understanding, then, surely, what is being said will have no meaning. What I am going to say may be, and I think probably will be, quite contrary to what you believe; so, please listen to it, not with any dogmatism, or with any defensive mechanism, but with a sense of trying to understand what the other fellow is trying to say.
Now, I have said that ideals in any form are an escape from the understanding of what is; that ideals, however noble, however intriguing, however fine, have no reality. Ideals are fictitious, without significance, because it is more important to understand what is than to pursue an ideal, or follow an ideal or a mode of action. We have innumerable ideals - non-violence, good, non-greed, peace, merit, and so on. You know the innumerable ideals within which our minds are enclosed. Now, are not these ideals fictitious? They are not really factual, they are non-existent, and since they are non-existent, of what value are they? Do they help me to understand my conflict, my violence, my greed, or are they a hindrance to that understanding? Will the screen of ideals help me to understand my arrogance, my violence, my evil? If ideals help me to understand, then they have significance; but if they do not give understanding, then they are valueless. Can a violent man become peaceful through the ideal of non-violence? Can I understand violence through the screen of my own idealism of non-violence? Must I not put aside the screen, the ideal, and examine my violence directly? And will the ideal help me to understand violence? This ia a very fundamental and important question. We ought to spend a little time on it, because the issues arising from it are very significant, and our whole social structure is based on this idealism which has no reality behind it.
So, our problem is: Is evil ever understood through the ideal of good? Is not evil transformed, not through an ideal, not through the pursuit of its opposite, but in the direct understanding of evil itself? And does not the ideal in any form, which is the opposite, prevent the understanding of what is? I am greedy, I am violent, I am arrogant, I am angry, vicious, brutal; and will the ideal of non-violence, non-greed, kindliness, help me to overcome that which I am? Surely, we have tried the pursuit of the ideal, of the opposite, and we are familiar with the conflict thus created between the opposites. We know all that very well. We are entirely familiar with that extraordinary struggle to become something other that what we are. Our religious, social, and moral education is based on this attempt to become something, to transform what is into something which it is not; and we know the struggle, the pain, the constant battle of the opposites, of the thesis and antithesis, hoping to arrive at a synthesis which is beyond both. Though we have not succeeded in arriving at that state, we are familiar with the constant battle of the opposites which is supposed to bring it about.
Now, is that struggle necessary? Is not that struggle fallacious, unreal? Is not the opposite unreal? What is the real, the factual? The fact is, I am arrogant. Humility, the ideal is non-existent, it is fictitious. It is a creation of the mind as a means of escaping from what is. You are violent; and will the opposite help you to overcome that which you are? Obviously not. For centuries you have struggled to overcome it, yet you are violent. So the method of our approach must be wrong, and therefore there must be a new approach, a different way of attacking the problem of greed, of arrogance, of violence. But first we must see the fallacy of the ideal. As it was suggested to me this morning. India is the nation which fabricates ideals. Your pet industry is creating ideals for the world. And do we need ideals? Please, this is really a very important question. If you have no ideals, will you collapse, will you become immoral? Are your ideals acting as a dam against your immoral actions? Is your ideal of non-violence preventing you from being violent? The ideal of not being greedy, of having just enough to live, is that making you less greedy? Obviously not. Sir, we must look at this, mustn't we? The man who is greedy, who wants to pursue riches, goes on doing it in spite of the ideal which he talks about. Obviously, ideals are non-existent except in theory, and therefore they are valueless. So, why pursue them? In other words, an idealist is really a man who is escaping from that which is, who is avoiding action in the present. We are all very familiar with the idealist, how hard they are, how brutal, how resistant with that quality of hardness, because they are really avoiding the central issue, which is what they are. So, by removing the ideals, will the weak-minded be thrown off there feet? The weak-minded are already thrown off there feet by politicians, by the gurus, by there pujas, by there wedding ceremonies; and the man who is strong disregards the ideals anyhow, he pursues what he wants. So, neither party pays any attention to the ideals, which are a very convenient way to cover up a great many false things.
So, is an ideal necessary to understand what is? Will the ideal of non-violence help me to understand violence? That is, if I am violent and want to transcend violence must I have the ideal of non-violence? Surely, I don't have to have it do I? It is a hindrance, a positive hindrance to my direct understanding of the state in which I am, which is violence. So, the ideal, the opposite, the example, is a hindrance, an avoidance of the direct understanding of what is. Being violent, can I not understand it and transcend it? I can tackle it, I can understand it, only when I am not escaping from it, when I haven't this fantasy of the ideal, when I can look at it, examine it, and act upon it directly. But I don't want to act upon it directly, and therefore I invent this marvellous thing called the opposite, the ideal - a state which I can never achieve, because it is merely a postponement. So, the problem is: how to transcend, how to go beyond what is, which is violence, and not how to achieve the opposite. There is no opposite. There are the opposites of man and woman, a biological fact; but the opposite that the mind has created is non-existent. It is a convenient ruse, a trick of the mind to avoid acting directly upon what is. Can I transcend that which is, and not transform it, not make it into something else? I am greedy, violent; and can that violence, greed, come to an end? Obviously, it comes to an end when I can examine it and be completely aware of its whole social and psychological significance; but I can examine it only when there is no escape from what is - which none of us want to do, and that is the difficulty. None of us are honest enough to acknowledge that we are what we are, and then do something about it. To know that I am a liar, to know that I am greedy, is already the beginning of freedom from greed, from falsehood. But to acknowledge it requires a certain honesty, and as we are so dishonest in our thinking, in our relationships, in almost everything that we do, we are incapable of facing what is. So, in this question is involved seeing the truth in the false, that is seeing the truth of the falseness of the ideal; and the moment one is capable of seeing the truth in the false, one is also able to see that which is true as being true. It is that truthfulness, the acknowledgment that you are greedy, that you are violent, seeing the fact - of what you are without any pretence, that brings about liberation from it, and not the pursuit of the opposite.
Question: Will the sexual urge disappear when we refuse to name it?
Krishnamurti: I am afraid the question needs considerable explanation. It arises, apparently, from what we discussed yesterday evening. Now, the process of naming, terming, is quite a complex problem, and we must go into it very carefully and precisely; that is, we must understand the process of consciousness. I am sorry that in this question, though it is very simply put, a great deal is involved; and if I answer it too directly and briefly, those who were not at the discussion yesterday may misunderstand. So, I must go into it carefully, explaining the whole issue,
Now, what do we mean by consciousness? I am not asking this question irrelevantly. It is directly connected with the question itself. What do we mean by consciousness? Consciousness, surely, is challenge and response, which is experiencing. That is the beginning of consciousness - challenge, response, and experiencing. The experience is named, termed, given a label as pleasant or unpleasant, and then it is recorded, put away in the mind. So, consciousness is a process of experiencing, naming and recording. Though complex, it is very simple. Please don't needlessly complicate it. Without the three processes at work, which are really a unitary process - experiencing, naming or terming and record- ing, pigeonholing, putting experience away in the framework of memory - , without this process, there is no consciousness. Now, this process is going on all the time, instantaneously, at different levels, and that is what you call consciousness. The song is repeated in different moods, with different themes, profoundly, in the deep layers of the unconscious, or superficially, on the surface of consciousness, in our everyday life; but it is always the same process of challenge and response, experiencing, naming or terming, and recording or memory. This is the theme, this is the record that is being played. Now, what would happen if the middle process, which is naming or terming, were not done, if the middle process were put an end to? Why do we term, why do we give a name to a feeling or to an experience calling it pleasant or unpleasant, anger, violence, good, bad, and so on? Why do we term an experience?
Please, to some of you all this may appear to be technical. It is not technical. It is very simple, though it demands a little concentration. Most of us are used to political lectures, being told what to do or what to think, and we may find it difficult to pursue, evenly, easily, a thought of this kind; but as this is not a political lecture, we will have to be a little concentrated.
So, consciousness is a process of experiencing, naming, and recording; and why is it that we give a name to an experience, to a feeling? We give it a name, either to communicate it to another; or else to fix it in memory, which is to give it continuity,. If there is no continuity, then mind is not, consciousness is not. I must give continuity to an experience, otherwise consciousness ceases. Therefore, I must give it a name. The giving of a name to a feeling, to an experience, is instantaneous; because the mind, which is the record-keeper, memory, labels a feeling in order to give it substance, in order to give it continuity, in order to be able to examine it - which means the continuation of thought. After all, the thinker is the thought; and without the process of thought, without giving continuity to the process of thought, there is no permanency for the thinker. So, naming a feeling, an experience, gives permanency to the thinker, to the record-keeper, which is the mind. That is, you give a name to a feeling, to an experience, and thereby give it continuity; and upon this, the mind feeds and feels itself to be existent. Take any experience, any feeling or sensation that you have - anger, hatred, love; by giving it a name, you have stabilized it, you have put it within the framework of reference. So, the very nature of terming an experience is the giving of continuity to consciousness, to the `I'. This process is going on all the time, so swiftly that we are unconscious of it. This record is being played ceaselessly at different levels, in different themes, with different words, whether waking or sleeping.
Now, what happens if you don't term, if you don't give a name to an experience? If you are not naming the various sensations, if you have no background, where is the `you'? That is, when it is not named, the feeling or the experience withers away, it has no continuity. Experiment with yourself, and you will see. If you have a very strong feeling of nationalism, what happens? You give it a name, the thought arises of idealism, love, `my country; that is, you term it and thereby give it a continuity. It is very difficult not to term it, because the process of naming a feeling is so automatic, so instantaneous. But suppose you do not name a feeling, what happens to that feeling? Surely, the record-keeper cannot identify himself with that feeling. He does not give it substance, he does not give it strength, he does not give it vitality. Therefore, it withers away. The next time you are feeling the sensation which you term irritation, don't give it a name. Don't say, `I am irritated', don't term it, and see what happens. You will discover an extraordinary thing happening. The mind is bewildered, because the mind dislikes to be in a state of uncertainty. Then bewilderment becomes more important than the feeling, and the feeling is forgotten and bewilderment remains. But the mind does not like to be bewildered, puzzled; therefore, it demands security, and it seeks security, certainty, in the record, in memory, thereby strengthening the record-keeper.
It is really quite fascinating, if you observe the process of your own consciousness. But you cannot learn all this in a book. No book can teach it, and what a book teaches is not worthwhile. You can only repeat what a book teaches; but if you experiment and discover for yourself, then you are both the teacher and the pupil, and you no longer want the gurus, the books, and all the rest of it. Then you know how to tackle the problem, any problem that arises, for yourself, because you are both the teacher and the pupil, you know the ways of the working of your own consciousness. You discover that in not terming a sensation, in not giving it a name, that feeling, that sensation comes to an end.
And now you will say `I have learned a very good trick. I know how to deal with unpleasant feelings, how to make them come to an end quickly: I won't term them'. But will you do the same with regard to pleasant feelings? I am afraid you won't. Because, you want pleasant feelings to continue, you want to give substance to pleasant sensations, you want to maintain them. Therefore, you will keep on giving them names. But that does not lead anywhere; because, the moment you give a name, a term, to a feeling which is pleasant, you are inevitably creating the opposite, and therefore you will always have the conflict of the opposites. Whereas, if you don't name, term, label, a sensation, whether pleasant or unpleasant, they both wither away; and therefore the thinker, who is the creator of the opposites, comes to an end. Then only shall we know what love is, because love is not a sensation. You can name it, but when you name it, you are naming the sensation of love, which is not love. When you love somebody, what happens? When you think about a person, what happens? You are really dealing with the sensation of that person; you are concerned with that sensation, and the more you give emphasis to sensation the less there is of love.
Now, the question is, "will the sexual urge disappear when we refuse to name it?" It will disappear, obviously; but if you don't understand the whole process of consciousness, as I have carefully explained, merely putting an end to a particular urge, pleasant or unpleasant, does not bring about that eternal quality of love. Without love, merely putting an end to an urge has no meaning, and you will become as dry as the idealist whose passions are very carefully held in check. Because, if you do not understand the whole process of consciousness, the passions are always there, though you refuse to name them. To understand the whole process, is very arduous. You may have understood the verbal expressions of what I have explained, but the living significance, the inward meaning, you will understand only through experimentation. As I have said, where there is love, there is chastity. But the man, the idealist who is passionate and wants to be chaste, who wants to become dispassionate - such a man will never know love, because he is only concerned with becoming something, which is another form of selfishness. He is only concerned with his struggle to achieve, to reach the ideal, which is non-existent. Therefore such a man has an empty heart, and he fills his empty heart with the things made by the mind. And how can he know love, when his heart is filled with the ideal, which is a thing made by the mind?
So, it is a very complex and subtle problem, this question of terming, giving a name; but you will understand it if you experiment with it. There are enormous riches, an enormous depth, in understanding this process of terming, naming a feeling a sensation. Once you open the door to it, you will discover vast riches; but to discover, there must be freedom to experiment, and freedom comes through virtue - not in becoming virtuous, but in being virtuous.
Question: Why can't you influence the leaders of a party, or members of a government, and work through them?
Krishnamurti: For the simple reason that leaders are factors of degeneration in society, and governments are the expression of violence. And how can you, how can any man who really wants to understand truth, work through instruments which are opposed to reality? Now, why do we want leaders, political or religious: For the obvious reason that we want to be directed, we want to be told what to do or what to think. Our education, our social and religious organizations, are based on that: they tell us, not how to think, but what to think. Naturally, then, you must have leaders. Because you are confused, disintegrating, because you are in misery and do not know what to do, you look to somebody else, to political, religious, or economic leaders, to help you out of this chaotic condition of existence. Now, can any leader, political or religious, lead you out of this misery, out of this confusion? Please, this is a very important question. Because, in leadership is implied power, position, prestige; in leadership is implied exploitation - by the follower as well as by the leader. The leader comes into being because the led want to be led. That is, the follower exploits the leader, and the leader exploits the follower. Without the follower, where is the leader? He is frustrated, he feels lost. And without the leader, where is the follower? So, it is a process of mutual exploitation; and where there is a desire for power, for position, for dominance, for guidance, there is no understanding. Where the leader becomes the authority, the person to whom everything is referred, politically or religiously, then you as the follower become merely the record-player, the automaton; and as most people want to repeat, to look on while the leaders play, the result is that you become unproductive, thoughtless. That is exactly what has happened in the world.
So, our problem is, why do we need leaders? Can anybody, lead you out of your confusion, which you yourself are creating? Others may point out the causes of your confusion - but surely, they don't become leaders. For example, I am pointing out the cause of confusion, but I am not becoming your leader or your guru. It is for you to perceive and act upon it, or to leave it. But if I made you join an organization, if I became your authority, then I would become important; therefore your confusion would still exist, and you would merely be running away from your confusion and giving emphasis to me; whereas, the emphasis should be laid on your confusion, and not on me. So, I am out of the picture. What is important is to understand your own suffering, your own confusion, your own pain, your own disastrous existence. And to understand, do you need anybody's help? What you need is to look truly, to look with clarity, with eyes that are not biased. And you have to do that for yourself, you have to look within yourself to find out whether you are biased, whether you are prejudiced. That means, you have to be aware of your own process, of your idiosyncracies; but as most of us are unwilling to discover ourselves and go into the process of self-knowledge, we look to a leader - or rather, we create a leader. So, the leader becomes important, because the leader helps us to run away from ourselves. The leader can be worshipped, put away in a cage and whispered about. So, the leader is really a degenerating factor. Surely, when the individual, when a society, when a culture looks to a leader, it indicates a state of disintegration. A society that is creative has no leader, because each individual is a light unto himself. Such a society is the result of relationship between people who are seeking deep, fundamental self-knowledge, understanding; and such people don't require a static society with its leaders, with its authoritarian social organizations.
Question: By what mechanism do we change the world when we change ourselves?
Krishnamurti: I have said that the individual problem is the world problem; that the individual, with his inner conflicts, with his psychological struggles, with his frustrations, with his anxieties, pursuits, motives, projects these into the world, and in this way the problem of the individual becomes the world problem. Therefore, the world and the individual are not two separate entities; the mass and the individual are interrelated, they are inseparable. When we consider the individual, we are considering the world, the mass, the whole. They cannot be separated. The world is not apart from you, the world is you - not mystically, but actually; biologically and psychologically, in relationship, the world is you. Because, whatever you are - your greeds, your ambitions, your frustrations - , is projected into the world; and however cunningly and subtly the social system may be devised, the inner man always overcomes the outer. Therefore, there must be transformation of the inner - not in opposition to the outer, not in antagonism to the mass, not in separation from the world, but as a total process. The individual and the world are a total process, and to transform the world, you must begin near, with yourself. You cannot transform the world - that has no meaning. The world has no referent; but the individual has a referent, which is me, which is you. Therefore, I can begin with myself - which does not mean opposing individual perfection to the mass. It is very important to understand that we are not discussing individual perfection at all. To seek individual perfection leads to isolation, to segregation; and nothing can exist in isolation. We are not discussing self-improvement. On the contrary, self-improvement is merely another form of self-enclosure. We are discussing, we are trying to understand, the individual process, which is not separate from the world process. But to understand the world, I must begin somewhere, and I can begin only with that which is near, which is me. So, if that is clear, then we can see the mechanism of change - how, by changing myself, I can transform the world. That is, as long as I am greedy, as long as I am nationalistic, as long as I am acquisitive, I create a society in which greed, acquisitiveness, and nationalism are rampant, which means conflict, ultimately leading to war. Obviously, there can be no mechanism of change as long as I am greedy, as long as I am seeking power, for my actions will inevitably bring about a state of power, political, religious and social power, leading ultimately to conflict. Therefore, being the total process of society" I am responsible for war; and if I wish ardently for peace, if I would concern myself with peace, then I must cease to be greedy, acquisitive, I must have no nationality, I must not belong to any organized religion or to any ideology. I am the total process of the world, and if I change, if I transform myself, I bring about radical transformation in society; but to be free of ideology, to be free from belief - which separates man from man, as the Hindu and the Muslim, the Christian and the Buddhist - , to be free from acquisitiveness, to be free from envy, is very arduous. And a man who wants to understand the whole significance of existence, has to understand himself - not as the individual opposed to society or the mass, but as a total process. That is, he has to be aware of every thought, every feeling, every action; and in understanding greed - which, as I have explained, is not naming, is not thinking about greed - he puts an end to greed. Such a man will know love; being free from the elements that create antagonism - belief, nationalism, acquisitiveness - , he will be a factor in bringing about a transformation in the world.
Question: What is true and what is false in the theory of reincarnation?
Krishnamurti: I hope that after listening for two hours and ten minutes your minds are still fresh. Are they, Sirs and Ladies? Alright. What we are trying to do here is to think out the problem together - you are not merely listening to a gramophone. I refuse to be a gramophone; but you are accustomed merely to listen, which means that you are really not following at all. You are listening superficially, being charmed by words, and therefore you are not the regenerators or creators of new society. You are the disintegrating factor, Sirs, and that is the calamity; but you don't see the tragedy of it. The world, India included, is on the verge of a precipice, burning, disintegrating rapidly; and a man who merely listens to the leader, accustoming himself to words and remaining a spectator, is contributing to the disaster. So, if I may suggest, don't get accustomed to what I am saying. I don't repeat; I am thinking anew each time I answer a question. If I merely repeated, it would be frightfully boring to me. As I don't want to bore myself with repetition, I am thinking it out afresh - and so must you, if you have the curiosity and the intensity to discover.
Now, what is involved in this question of reincarnation? It is an enormous problem, and we cannot settle it in a few minutes. So, in examining this question, let us look at it without any bias - which does not mean keeping a so-called open mind. There is no such thing as an open mind: what is needed is an enquiring mind. We must both enquire into this question. Now, in enquiring into it, what is it that we are looking for? We are looking for the truth, not according to your belief or my belief; because, to find the truth of any matter, I can have no belief. I want to find the truth; therefore I am enquiring, laying bare everything involved in this question, not taking shelter behind any particular form of prejudice. That is, I am enquiring honestly, my mind is very honestly trying to find out, therefore it won't be sidetracked either by the Bhagavad Gita, or by the Bible, or by my pet guru. I want to know, and to know I must have the intensity to pursue; and a man who is tethered to a belief, however long the rope, is still held, and therefore he cannot enquire. He can enquire only within the radius of his own bondage, and therefore he will never find truth.
So, what is the thing implied in reincarnation? What is the thing that reincarnates? You understand what is meant by reincarnation: coming back over and over again in different forms at different times. What is this continuous quality that comes into rebirth? There are only two possibilities: either that thing called the soul, the `I', is a spiritual entity, or it is merely a bundle of my memories, my characteristics, my tendencies, my unfulfilled desires, my achievements, and so on. We are looking into the problem, we are not taking sides; therefore we are not defending anything. A man who is on the defensive will never know what is truth. He will find that which he defends, and that which he defends is no longer the truth; it is his own inclination, his own bias, his own prejudice.
Now, we are going to examine that which we call the spiritual entity. The spiritual entity, obviously, cannot be created by me. It is not the outcome of my mind, of my thought, of my projection. It must be independent of me. The spiritual entity, if it is spiritual, cannot be created by me. It must be other than me. Now, if it is other than me, it must be timeless, it must be the eternal, it must be the real; and that which is the real, that which is timeless, that which is immeasurable, cannot evolve, grow. It cannot come back. It is beyond time, therefore it is deathless. Now, if it is deathless, if it is beyond me, then I have no control over it, it is not within the field of my consciousness; therefore I cannot think about it, I cannot enquire if it can or cannot reincarnate. Obviously, that which is beyond my control, I cannot enquire into. I can enquire only into that which I know, which is my own projection; and if the spiritual entity, which I call Krishnamurti, is beyond me, then it is timeless, then I cannot think about it; and what I cannot think about has no reality for me. Therefore, since it is timeless and deathless, and as I am concerned with death, with time, I cannot enquire into it. Therefore, I need not be bothered. But we are bothered. What we are bothered about is not the continuance of a spiritual entity, but whether the `I' continues, the everyday `I' of my achievements, my failures, my frustrations, my bank account, my characteristics and idiosyncracies, my property, my family, my beliefs - will all that continue? That is what we want to know - not whether the spiritual entity continues, which, as I pointed out, is an absurd question, Because, reality, timeless being, cannot be known to a person who is caught in the net of time. As thought is the process of time, as thought is founded on the past, for thought to speculate about the timeless is utterly meaningless. It is an escape. That which is the result of time can only know itself, can only enquire into itself.
So, I want to know if the `I' continues. The `I', which is a total process, a psychological as well as physiological process, which is with the body and also apart from the body - I want to know if that `I' continues, if it comes into being after this physical existence ends. Now, what do we mean by continuity? We have examined more or less what we mean by the `I: my name, my characteristics, my frustrations, my achievements - you know, all the varieties of thought and feeling at different levels of consciousness. So, we know that. Then, what do we mean by continuity; to continue, what does it mean? What is it that gives continuity? What is it that says, `I shall or shall not continue'? What is it that is clinging to continuity, permanency, which is security? After all, I seek security here in possessions, in things, in family, in beliefs; and when the body dies, the permanency of things, the permanency of family, has gone, but the permanency of idea continues. So, it is the idea that we want to continue. We see that property is going to disappear, that there will be no family; but we want to know whether the idea continues, whether the idea of `I', the thought `I am', is continuous. Please, it is important to see the difference. I know that I shall be burnt, that the body will be destroyed. I know that I shall not see you, that I shall not see my family; but does not the idea of the `me' continue to exist? Is not the idea of `me' continuous - continuous meaning becoming, moving from time to time, from period to period, from experience to experience. So, that is the real enquiry: whether the `I', the idea or formulation of the `me', will continue. Are you not tired? Alright, Sirs.
So, what is the `I'? We have enquired into that, and you know what it is. Obviously, thought identifies itself with a belief, and that belief continues like an electric wave. Thought, identified with a belief, has continuity, has substance; that thought is termed, is named, it is given recognition as the `I', and that `I' obviously has movement, it continues, becomes. Now, what happens to that which continues? Do you understand the problem? What happens to a thing that is continuous constantly becoming? That which continues has no renewal; it is merely repeating itself in different forms, but it has no renewal. That is, thought identified with an idea has continuance as the `I; but a thing that continues is constantly decaying, it knows birth and death. In that sense it continues, but the thing that continues can never renew itself. There is renewal only when there is an ending. Again, it is very important to discover and to understand this. Say, for example, I am worried over a problem which I am trying to solve, and I keep on worrying. What happens? There is no renewal, is there? The problem continues day after day, week after week, year after year. But when the worry is ended, there is a renewal, and then the problem has a different significance. Only in ending is there renewal, only in death is there a rebirth - which means death to the day, to the moment. But when there is merely the desire to continue and therefore identification with a belief, or with a memory , which is the `I', in such continuance there is no renewal - which is an obvious fact. A man who has a problem, who is continuously worried for a number of years, is dead, for him there is no renewal; he is of the living dead, he merely continues. But the moment the problem ends, there is a renewal. Similarly, where there is ending, there is rebirth, there is creation; but where there is continuity, there is no creation. Sirs, see the beauty of it, the truth of it, that in ending there is love. Love is new from moment to moment, it is not continuous, it is not repetitive. That is its greatness, that is its truth. A man who seeks continuity will obviously find it, because he identifies himself with an idea, and idea or memory continues; but in mere continuity there is no renewal. Only in death, in ending, is there renewal, not in continuity.
Now, you will say that I have not answered the question whether there is reincarnation or not. Surely, I have answered your question. Sir, to the problems of life there are no categorical answers `yes' and `no'. Life is too vast. It is only the thoughtless who seek a categorical answer. But, analyzing this question, we have discovered a great many things. There is beauty only in ending, there is renewal, creation, a beginning, only in death, in dying every minute - which means not hoarding, not laying up, physically or psychologically. So, life and death are one, and the man who knows they are one is he who dies every minute. This means not naming, not letting the record-keeper play over and over again that which is his particular consciousness. Immortality is not the continuance of an idea, which is the `I'. Immortality is that which is constantly dying and therefore constantly renewing.
Bombay, India. Public Talk 7th March, 1948
We must often have wondered why life from birth to death is a process of constant struggle. Why is it that life, everyday existence is such a struggle, a constant battle with oneself, with one's neighbour, with one's ideas? Why this constant battle, this constant struggle? Is it necessary, or is there a different process? This conflict and struggle, this travail and battle with oneself and with one's neighbour, is it necessary for existence, for living? We see that life as we know it is an endless process of becoming, moving from what is to what is not, from anger to non-anger, from violence to peace, from hatred to love. Surely, becoming is a process of repetition in which there is always strife. We see that whatever we do in life, the struggle of becoming is continually repeating itself. This becoming is the cultivation of memory, is it not; and the cultivation of memory is called righteousness, Righteousness is a process of self-enclosure. This constant becoming - the clerk becoming the manager, the ignoble becoming the noble - , this constant strife, is a form of self-perpetuation.. We know this battle to become something: being attached, we want to become detached; being poor we want to become rich; being small, we want to become great; being petty, we seek to be deep, profound, worthwhile. There is this constant battle of becoming, and in becoming there is obviously the cultivation of memory. Without memory there is no becoming. I am angry, and I want to become non-angry; I want to possess the state of non-anger, and I struggle. This struggle is considered righteous. So, righteousness, this process of becoming, is obviously one of self-enclosure. The moment I wish to become something or to be something, emphasis is laid on the becoming, on the being; and hence there is this struggle. To this struggle we have given significance. We say it is righteous, it is noble. So, from birth to death we are caught in an endless struggle, and we have accepted this battle of becoming as worthwhile, as noble, as an essential part of existence.Now, is life, existence, inevitably a process of struggle, pain, sorrow, a continuous battle? Surely, there is something wrong in this action of becoming, There must be a different approach, a different way of existence. I think there is; but it can be understood only when we understand the full significance of becoming. In becoming there is always repetition, and therefore the cultivation of memory, which is emphasis on the self, and the self in its very nature is travail, strife, battle. Now, virtue can never be a becoming. Virtue is being, in which there is no struggle. You cannot become virtuous; either you are, or you are not virtuous. You can always become righteous, but you can never become virtuous; because, virtue brings freedom, and you will notice that a righteous man is never free. This does not mean that a virtuous man is self-indulgent; but virtue, by its very nature, brings freedom, If you attempt to be virtuous, what happens? You merely become, righteous. Whereas, virtue necessarily brings freedom; because the moment you understand the process, the struggle of becoming, there is being, and therefor there is virtue.
Take, for example, mercy. You can never become merciful, can you? If you do, what happens? If you struggle to become merciful, if you try to become generous, kindly, what happens? In trying to become merciful, emphasis is laid on becoming, which means that emphasis is laid on the self - the `me' becoming something, and the `me' can never be merciful, can it? It can be clothed in righteousness, but it can never be virtuous. So, virtue is not righteousness; the righteous man can never be a virtuous man. Righteousness is always a process of self-enclosure; whereas virtue, in which there is no becoming, but being, is always free, open and orderly. Experiment with yourself and you will see that the moment you strive to become virtuous, merciful, generous, you are merely building a resistance; whereas, if you really understand the process of becoming, which is giving emphasis to the self, then you will find that there comes a confidence, a freedom, a being in which there is virtue.
Now, how is one to transform, to bring about this radical change from becoming to being? A person who is becoming and therefore striving, struggling, battling with himself - how is such a person to know that state of being which is virtue, which is freedom? I hope I am making the question clear. That is, I have been struggling for years to become something, not to be envious, to become non-envious; and how am I to shed, to drop the struggle, and just be? Because, as long as I struggle to become what I call righteous, I am obviously setting up a process of self enclosure; and there is no freedom in enclosure. So, all that I can do is to be aware, passively aware of my process of becoming. If I am shallow, I can be passively aware that I am shallow, without the struggle to become something. If I am angry, if I am jealous, if I am unmerciful, envious, I can just be aware of that and not contend with it. The moment we contend with a quality, we give emphasis to the struggle, and therefore strengthen the wall of resistance. This wall of resistance is considered righteousness; but for a righteous man, truth can never come into being. It is only to the free man that truth can come; and to be free, there cannot be the cultivation of memory, which is righteousness.
So, one has to be aware of this struggle, of this constant battle. Just be aware without contention, without condemnation; and if you are truly watchful, passively yet alertly aware, you will find that envy, jealousy, greed, violence and all these things, drop away, and there comes order - quietly, speedily, there comes order that is not righteous, that is not enclosing. For virtue is freedom, it is not a process of enclosure. It is only in freedom that truth can come into being. Therefore, it is essential to be virtuous, not righteous, because virtue brings order. It is only the righteous man that is confused, that is in conflict, it is only the righteous man that develops his will as a means of resistance; and a man of will can never find truth, because he is never free. Being, which is recognizing what is, accepting and living with what is - not trying to transform it, not condemning it - , brings about virtue; and in that there is freedom. Only when the mind is not cultivating memory, when it is not seeking righteousness as a means of resistance, is there freedom; and in that freedom there comes reality, the bliss of which must be experienced.
Question: Are not religious symbols the expression of a reality too deep to be false? The simple name of God moves us as nothing else. Why should we shun it?
Krishnamurti: Why do we need symbols? Symbols exist, obviously, as a means of communicating with others; through language, a painting, a poem, you communicate something which you feel or which you think. But why need we crowd our lives with religious symbols - either the cross, the crescent, or the Hindu symbols? Why do we need them? Are not symbols a hindrance? Why can't we experience what is, directly, immediately and swiftly? Why do we seek the medium of symbols? Are they not distractions? An image, a painting, a thing made by the hand, of wood or stone, though it is a symbol, is it not a hindrance? You will say, I need an image as a symbol of reality. Now, what happens when you have symbols? The Hindus have their symbols, the Christians theirs, and the Muslims theirs - the temple, the church, the mosque, with the result that the symbols have become much more important than the search for reality. And surely, reality is not in the symbol. The word is not the thing; God is not the word. But the word, the symbol, has become important. Why? Because we are really not seeking reality: we merely decorate the symbol. We are not seeking; what is beyond and above the symbol, with the result that the symbol has become extraordinarily important, vital in our lives - and we are willing to kill each other for it. Also, the word `God' gives us a certain stimulation, and we think that that stimulation, that sensation, has some relation to the real. But has sensation, which is a thought process, any relationship to reality? Thought is the outcome of memory, the response to a condition; and has such a thought process any connection with reality, which is not a thought process? Therefore, has a symbol, which is the creation of the mind, any relationship to reality? And is not a symbol an easy escape, a fanciful distraction from the real? After all, if you are really seeking truth, why do you want the symbol? It is the man who is satisfied with an image that clings to the symbol; but if he wants to find what is real, obviously he must leave the symbol. We crowd our lives, our minds, with symbols, because we have not the other. If we love, surely, we do not want the symbol of love, or the example of love - we just love. But the man who holds an example, a symbol, a picture, an ideal in his mind, is obviously not in a state of love. Therefore, symbols, examples, are hindrances, and these hindrances become so important, that we are killing others and maiming our minds and hearts because of them. Sir, why not appreciate things directly? One loves a person, or a tree, not because of what it represents, not because it is the manifestation of reality, of life, or of anything else - that is merely an easy explanation. One just loves. Surely, when one is able to love life itself, not because it is the manifestation of reality, then in that very love of life one will find what is real. But if you treat life as a manifestation of something else, then you abominate life; then you want to run away from life, or you make life a hideous business, which necessitates your escape from the actual. Besides, a mind that is caught in symbols is not a simple mind. And you must have a very simple, clear mind, an unpolluted, uncorrupted mind, to find the real. A mind that is caught in words, in phrases, in mantrams, in patterns of action, can never understand that which is real. It must strip itself of everything to be free, and only then, surely, can the real come into being.
Question: What do you advise us to do when war breaks out?
Krishnamurti: Instead of seeking advice, may I suggest that we examine the problem together? Because, it is very easy to advise, but it does not solve the problem. But if we examine the problem together, then perhaps we shall be able to see how to act when a war breaks out. It has to be a direct action, not action based on somebody else's advice or authority, which would be too stupid in a moment of crisis. In moments of crisis, to follow another leads to our own destruction. After all, in critical times like war, you are led to destruction; but if you know all the implications of war and see its action, how it comes into being, then when the crisis does arise, without seeking advice, without following somebody, you will act directly and truly. This does not mean that I am trying to avoid the problem by not answering your question directly. I am not dodging it: on the contrary. I am showing that we can act virtuously - which is not `righteously' - when this appalling catastrophe comes upon man. Now, what would you do if there was a war? Being a Hindu, or an Indian, or a German, being nationalistic, patriotic, you would naturally jump to arms, wouldn't you? Because, through propaganda, through horrible pictures and all the rest of it, you would be stimulated, and you would be ready to fight. Being conditioned by patriotism, by nationalism, by economic frontiers, by the so-called love of country, your immediate response would be to fight. So, you would have no problem, would you? You have a problem only when you begin to question the causes of war - which are not merely economic, but much more psychological and ideological. When you begin to question the whole process of war, how war comes into being, then you have to be directly responsible for your actions. Because, war comes into being only when you, in your relationship with another, create conflict. After all, war is a projection of our daily life - only more spectacular and more destructive. In daily life we are killing, destroying, maiming thousands through our greed, through our nationalism, through our economic frontiers, and so on. So, war is the continuation of your daily existence, made more spectacular; and the moment you directly question the cause of war, you are questioning your relationship with another, which means that you are questioning your whole existence, your whole way of living. And if you enquire intelligently, not superficially, when war comes you will respond according to your enquiry and understanding. A man who is peaceful - not because of an ideal of non-violence, which we have gone into, but - , who is actually free of violence, to him war has no meaning. He will obviously not enter it; he may be shot because he does not enter into war, but he accepts the consequences. At least he will not take part in the conflict - but not out of idealism. The idealist, as I have explained, is a person who avoids immediate action. The idealist who is seeking non-violence is incapable of being free from violence; because, as our whole life is based on conflict and violence, if I don't understand myself now, today, how can I act truly tomorrow when there is a calamity? Being acquisitive, being conditioned by nationalism, by my class - you know the whole process - , how can I, who am conditioned by greed and violence, act without greed and violence when there is a catastrophe? Naturally I will be violent. Also, when there is a war, many like the bounties of war: the government is going to look after me, it is going to feed my family; and it is a break from my daily routine, from going to the office, from the monotonous things of life. Therefore, war is an escape, and to many it offers an easy way out of responsibility. Have you not heard what many soldiers say? `Thank God. It is a beastly business, but at least it is something exciting.' Also, war offers a release to our criminal instincts. We are criminal in our daily life, in our business world, in our relationships, but it is all underground, very carefully hidden, covered over by a righteous blanket, a legalised acceptance of this criminality; and war gives us a release from that hypocrisy - at last we can be violent.
So, how you will act in time of war depends upon you, upon the condition, the state of your being. To say, `You must not enter war' to a man who is conditioned to violence, is utterly useless. It is a futile waste of time to tell him not to fight, because he is conditioned to fight, he loves to fight. But those of us who are seriously intentioned can investigate our own lives, we can see how we are violent in daily life, in our speech, in our thoughts, in our actions, in our feelings, and we can be free of that violence, not because of an ideal not by trying to transform it into nonviolence, but by actually facing it, by merely being aware of it; then when war comes, we shall be able to act truly. A man who is seeking an ideal will act falsely, because his response will be based on frustration. Whereas, if we are capable of being aware of our own thoughts, feelings and actions in daily life - not condemning them, but just being aware of them - , then we will free ourselves from patriotism, from nationalism, from flag-waving, and all that rot, which are the very symbols of violence; and when we are free, then we will know how to act truly when that crisis comes which is called war.
Question: Can a man who abhors violence take part in the government of a country?
Krishnamurti: Now, what is government? After all, it is, it represents, what we are. In so-called democracy, whatever that may mean, we elect, to represent us, those who are like ourselves, those whom we like, who have got the loudest voice, the cleverest mind, or whatever it is. So, obviously, government is what we are, isn't it? And what are we? We are, arn't we?, a mass of conditioned responses - violence, greed, acquisitiveness, envy, desire for power, and so on. So, naturally, the government is what we are, which is violence in different forms; and how can a man who really has no violence in his being belong, either in name or in fact, to a structure which is violent? Can reality co-exist with violence, which is what we call government? Can a man who is seeking or experiencing reality have anything to do with sovereign governments, with nationalism, with an ideology, with party politics, with a system of power? The peaceful person thinks that by joining the government he will be able to do some good. But what happens when he enters government? The structure is so powerful that he is absorbed by it, and he can do very little. Sir, this is a fact, it is actually happening in the world. When you join a party, or stand for election to parliament, or whatever it is, you have to accept the party line. Therefore, you cease to think. And how can a man who has given himself over to another - whether it is to a party, to a government, or to a guru - , how can he find reality? And how can he who is seeking truth have any relation to power politics?
You see, we ask these questions because we like to rely on outside authority, on environment, for the transformation of ourselves. We hope leaders, governments, parties, systems, patterns of action, will somehow transform us, bring about order and peace in our lives. Surely, that is the basis of all these questions, is it not? Can another, be it a government or a guru or a devil, give you peace and order? Can another bring you happiness and love? Surely not. Peace can come into being only when the confusion which we have created is completely understood, not on the verbal level, but inwardly; when the causes of confusion, of strife, are removed, obviously there is peace and freedom. But without removing the causes, we look to some outward authority to bring us peace; and the outward is always submerged by the inner. As long as the psychological conflict exists, the search for power, for position, and so on, whatever the outward structure, however well built, however good and orderly it may be, the inward confusion always overcomes it. Surely, therefore, we must lay emphasis on the inner, and not merely look to the outer.
Question: You don't seem to think that we have won our independence. According to you, what would be the state of real freedom?
Krishnamurti: Sir, freedom becomes isolation when it is nationalistic; and isolation inevitably leads to conflict, because nothing can exist in isolation. To be, is to be related; and merely to isolate yourself within a national frontier invites confusion, sorrow, starvation, conflict, war - which has been proved over and over again. So, independence as a State apart inevitably leads to conflict and to war, because independence for most of us implies isolation. And when you have isolated yourself as a national entity, have you gained freedom? Have you gained freedom from exploitation, from class struggle, from starvation, from conflicting religiosity, from the priest, from communal strife, from leadership? Obviously, you have not. You have only driven out the white exploiter, and the brown has taken his place - probably a little more ruthlessly. We have the same thing as before, the same exploitation, the same priests, the same organized religion, the same superstitions and class wars. And has that given us freedom? Sir, we don't want to be free. Don't let us fool ourselves. Because, freedom implies intelligence, love; freedom implies non-exploitation, non-submission to authority; freedom implies extraordinary virtue. As I said, righteousness is always an isolating process, for isolation and righteousness go together; whereas, virtue and freedom are co-existent. A sovereign nation is always isolated, and therefore can never be free; therefore it is a cause of constant strife, of suspicion, antagonism and war.
Surely, freedom must begin with the individual, who is a total process, not antagonistic to the mass. The individual is the total process of the world, and if he merely isolates himself in nationalism or in righteousness, then he is the cause of disaster and misery. But if the individual - who is a total process, not opposed to the mass, but who is a result of the mass, of the whole - if the individual transforms himself, his life, then for him there is freedom; and because he is the result of a total process, when he liberates himself from nationalism, from greed, from exploitation, he has direct action upon the whole. The regeneration of the individual is not in the future, but now; and if you postpone your regeneration to tomorrow, you are inviting confusion, you are caught in the wave of darkness. Regeneration is now, not tomorrow, because understanding is only in the present. You don't understand now because you don't give your heart and mind, your whole attention, to that which you want to understand. If you give your mind and heart to understand, you will have understanding. Sir, if you give your mind and your heart to find out the cause of violence, if you are fully aware of it, you will be non-violent now. But unfortunately, you have so conditioned your mind by religious postponement and social ethics that you are incapable of looking at it directly - and that is our trouble.
So, understanding is always in the present, and never in the future. Understanding is now, not in the days to come. And freedom, which is not isolation, can come into being only when each one of us understands his responsibility to the whole. The individual is the product of the whole - he is not a separate process, he is the result of the whole. After all, you are the result of all India, of all humanity. You may call yourself by whatever name you like, but you are the result of a total process, which is man. And if you, the psychological you, are not free, how can you have freedom outwardly; of what significance is external freedom? You may have different governors - and good God, is that freedom? You may have the multiplication of provinces, because each person wants a job; but is that freedom? Sir, we are fed by words without much content; we darken the councils with words that have no meaning; we have fed on propaganda, which is a lie. We have not thought out these problems for ourselves, because most of us want to be led. We don't want to think and find out, because to think is very painful, very disillusioning. Either we think and become disillusioned and cynical - or we think and go beyond. When you go beyond and above all thought process, then there is freedom. And in that there is joy, in that there is creative being, which a righteous man, an isolated man, can never understand.
Question: My mind is restless and distressed. Without getting it under control, I can do nothing about myself. How am I to control thought?
Krishnamurti: Sir this is an enormous problem; and, as with all other problems of life, we will not find a method for its solution. But we will try to understand the problem itself, and out of that understanding we shall know how to deal with the question. First, we must understand thought, which the thinker wants to control. I hope this is not too serious a subject. What do we mean by thought? What do we mean by thinking? And, is the thinker separate from his thought? Is the meditator different from his meditation? Is the observer different, separate from the observed? Is the quality different from the self? So, before thought can be controlled, whatever that may mean, we must understand the process of thinking and who it is that thinks, and find out whether these are two separate processes, or one unitary process.
Does the thinker exist when he ceases to think? When there are no thoughts, is there a thinker? Obviously, if you have no thoughts, there is no thinker. And why is there the separation between the thinker and the thought? With most of us, there is this separation. Why is there this separation? Is it factual, is it true, or merely a fictitious thing which the mind has created? We must be very clear on this point, because then we shall enquire into what the thought process is. First, we must be very clear as to whether the thinker is separate, and why he has separated himself from his thoughts. Then we shall go into the problem of thinking and controlling, and all the rest of it.
Arn't you under the belief that your thoughts are separate from yourself? This very question implies that, doesn't it? - that there is the controller and the controlled, the observer and the observed. Now, do we know this process to be a fact, that there is the observer and the observed, the controller and the controlled? Is this separation real? It is real in the sense that we are indulging in it. But is it not a trick of the mind? Please, in this question a great deal is involved, so don't accept or deny, don't defend or put aside what I am suggesting. Most of you believe that the thinker is separate, the higher self, the Atman, the watcher, dominating the lower self, and so on. Why is there this separation? Isn't this separation still within the field of the mind? When you say the thinker is the Atman, the watcher, and the thoughts are separate, surely that is still within the field of the mind. Now, is it not that the mind, the thinker, has separated himself from his thoughts in order to give himself permanency? Because he can always modify his thoughts, he can always change his thoughts, put a new frame around them, while he remains apart and therefore gives himself permanency. But without the thoughts, the thinker is not. He may separate himself from his thoughts, but if he ceases to think, he no longer exists, does he? So, this separation of the thinker from his thoughts is a trick of the thinker to give himself security, permanency. That is, the mind perceives that thoughts are transient, and therefore it adopts the cunning trick of saying that it is the thinker apart from its thoughts, it is the Atman, the watcher, apart from action, from thought. But, if you observe the process very closely, putting aside all your acquired knowledge of what others have said, however great, then you will see that the observer is the observed, that the thinker is the thought. There is no thinker apart from thought; however widely, deeply and extensively he may separate himself or build a wall between himself and his thoughts, the thinker is still within the field of his thinking. Therefore, the thinker is the thought; so when you ask, `How can thought be controlled?', you are putting a wrong question. When the thinker begins to control his thoughts, he does so merely to give himself continuity, or because he finds his thoughts are painful to him. Therefore, he wants to modify his thoughts, while he remains permanent behind the screen of words and thoughts. When once you admit that, which is true, then your disciplines, your pursuit of the higher, your meditations, your controls, all collapse. That is, if you are willing to look at the obvious fact that the thinker is the thought, and when you become fully aware of that fact, then you no longer think in terms of dominating, modifying, controlling, or canalizing your thoughts. Then the thought becomes important, and not the thinker. The emphasis then is not on the controller and how to control, but the thought which is controlled becomes important in itself. Understanding the thought process is the beginning of meditation, which is self-knowledge. Without self-knowledge, there is no meditation; and meditation of the heart is understanding. To understand, you cannot be tethered to any belief.
So, we are now concerned, not with controlling thought, which is a false question, but with the understanding of thought; we are concerned with the thought process itself. Therefore, we are free of the idea of discipline, of the idea of control - which is an extraordinary revolution, isn't it? You can be free only when you see the truth of the falseness of the belief that the thinker is separate from his thoughts. That is, when you see the truth about the false, then there is freedom from the false. We have for a long period accepted the idea that the thinker is separate from his thoughts; and now we see that the separation is false. Therefore, seeing the truth about the false, you are free of the false, with all its implications - disciplining, controlling, guiding, canalizing thought, putting thought into a definite pattern of action. When you do all that, you are still concerned with the thinker; therefore the thinker and the thought will remain separate, which is a false thing. But when you see the falseness of all that, it drops away from you, and there is only thought left. Then you can enquire into thought, then the mind is merely the machine of the thought process, and the thinker is not apart from the thought.
Now, the mind is the recorder, the experiencer, and therefore the mind is memory, sensuous memory; because the mind is the result of the senses. So, thought which is the product of the mind, is sensuous; obviously, thought is the result of sensation. Mind is the recorder, the accumulating factor, the consciousness which is experiencing naming, and recording. That is, the mind experiences, then names the experience as pleasant or unpleasant, and then records it, puts it in the pigeon-hole which is memory. That memory responds to a new challenge. Challenge is always new, and memory, which is merely a record of the past, meets the new. This meeting of the new by the old is called experiencing. Now, memory has no life in itself. It has life, it is revivified, only in meeting the new. Therefore, the new is always giving life to the old. That is, when memory meets the challenge, which is always new, it derives life, it strengthens itself from that experience. Examine your own memory and you will see that it has no vitality in itself; but when memory meets the new and translates the new according to its own conditioning, then it is revivified. So, memory has life only as it meets the new, always revivifying, always strengthening itself. This revivification of memory is called thinking. Please, it is very important to understand all this, but I don't know how much you want to go into it.
So, thinking is always a conditioned response, thinking is a process of response to a challenge. The challenge is always new; but thinking, which is a response derived from memory, is always the old revivified. It is very important to understand this. Thinking can never be new, because thinking is the response of memory, and this response of memory becomes vital when it meets the new and derives life from the new. But thinking in itself is never new. Therefore, thinking can never be creative, because it is always the response of memory. Now, our minds, our thoughts, are wandering all over the place, and we want to bring about order. As I have explained, this cannot be done by control; because, the moment you control it, your mind becomes exclusive, isolated. If you merely emphasize one thought and exclude all others, there is an isolating process going on. Therefore, such a mind can never be free. It can isolate itself, but isolation is not freedom. A controlled mind is not a free mind.
So, our problem is that our thoughts wander all over the place, and naturally we want to bring about order; but how is order to be brought about? Now, to understand a fast evolving machine, you must slow it down, must you not? If you want to understand a dynamo, it must be slowed down and studied; but if you stop it, it is a dead thing, and a dead thing can never be understood. Only a living thing can be understood. So, a mind that has killed thoughts by exclusion, by isolation, can have no understanding; but the mind can understand thought if the thought process is slowed down. If you have seen a slow motion picture, you will understand the marvellous movement of a horse's muscles as it jumps. There is beauty in that slow movement of the muscles; but as the horse jumps hurriedly, as the movement is quickly over, that beauty is lost. Similarly, when the mind moves slowly because it wants to understand each thought as it arises, then there is freedom from thinking, freedom from controlled, disciplined thought. Thinking is the response of memory, therefore thinking can never be creative. Only in meeting the new as the new, the fresh as the fresh, is there creative being. The mind is the recorder, the gatherer of memories; and as long as memory is being revivified by challenge, the thought process must go on. But if each thought is observed, felt out, gone into fully, and completely understood, then you will find that memory begins to wither away. We are talking about psychological memory, not factual memory.
Thought, which is the response of memory, arises only when an experience has not been completely understood, and therefore leaves a residue. When you understand an experience completely, it leaves no memory, no psychological residue. Thought is the response of the residue, which is memory; and if you can complete a thought, think it out, feel it out to its fullest extent, then its residue is done away with. To fully think out a thought, a feeling, is very arduous; because when you begin to think out one thought, other thoughts creep in. So, you go round, pursuing one thought after another hopelessly, because of the rapidity of each thought. But if you are interested to think out one thought fully, experiment with writing out the thoughts that arise; just put them down on paper, and then observe what you have written. In that observation, your mind is slowed, because to study, it has to slow down - which is not a compulsion, not a discipline. When you write down only a few of your thoughts and observe them, study them, your mind is immediately slowed. Watch your own mind now as you listen, see what it is doing. It is moving very slowly. You have not innumerable thoughts, you are merely pursuing one thought, which I am explaining. Therefore, your mind is slowed down, and being slowed down, it is capable of pursuing one thought to the end. When all thought is pursued to the end and the mind denuded of memory, the mind becomes tranquil, it has no problem. Why? Because the creator of the problem, which is memory, ceases; and in that tranquillity, which is absolute, reality comes into being. This whole process, which we have discovered this evening with regard to this particular question, is meditation. Meditation is self-knowledge, which is the basis of true thinking; and when there is true thinking, there is understanding, and so right action. But meditation becomes imitative, it has no meaning, when the thinker is not understood. When the thinker separates himself from his thoughts and seeks to control them, he is progressing towards illusion; whereas, seeing the truth in the false liberates you from the false. Then there is only thought left and in understanding thought fully, there comes tranquillity. In that tranquillity, there is creation; that is, when the mind ceases to create, there is a creation which is beyond time, which is immeasurable, which is the real.
Bombay, India. Public Talk 13th March, 1948
(Although open to all, today's meeting was convened especially for the benefit of educationists and teachers. It was presided over by a member of the New Education Fellowship, who welcomed Krishnamurti on behalf of his institution and thanked him for doing them the honour to attend. He then requested him to give them the benefit of his advice in the matter of education.)Krishnamurti: Mr. Chairman and friends: I have been sent many questions, and I propose to answer as many of them as possible this evening. All these questions have been rewritten, but their substance has been kept. Some questions were repeated, and we thought it would be better to combine and rewrite them, and there are about 15 or 16 questions here. But before I answer them, I would like to say something.
Throughout the world, it is becoming more and more evident that the educator needs educating. It is not a question of educating the child, but rather the educator, for he needs it much more than the pupil. After all, the pupil is like a tender plant that needs guiding, helping; but if the helper is himself incapable, narrow, bigoted, nationalistic and all the rest of it, naturally his product will be what he is. So, it seems to me that the important thing is not so much the technique of what to teach, which is secondary; but what is of primary importance is the intelligence of the educator himself. You know that, throughout the world, education has failed, because it has produced the two most colossal and destructive wars in history; and since it has failed, merely to substitute one system for another seems to me to be utterly futile. Whereas, if there is a possibility of changing the thought, the feeling, the attitude of the teacher, then perhaps there can be a new culture, a new civilization. Because, it is obvious that this civilization is likely to be destroyed completely; the coming war will probably settle Western civilization as we know it. Per- haps we shall be profoundly affected by it in this country also. But in the midst of all this chaos, misery, confusion and strife, surely the responsibility of the teacher, whether he is a government employee, whether he is a religious teacher or a teacher of mere information, is extraordinarily great; and those who merely fatten on education as a means of livelihood seem to me to have no place in the modern structure of society if a new order is to be created. So, our problem is not so much the child, the boy or the girl, but the teacher, the educator, who needs educating much more than the pupil. And to educate the educator is far more difficult than to educate the child, because the educator is already set, fixed. He merely functions in a routine, because he is really not concerned with the thought process, with the cultivation of intelligence. He is merely imparting information; and a man who merely imparts information when the whole world is crashing about his ears, is surely not an educator. And do you mean to say that education is a means of livelihood? To regard it as a means of livelihood, to exploit the children for one's own good, seems to me so contrary to the real purpose of education.
So, in answering all these questions, the principal point is the educator, and not the child. You can provide the right environment, the necessary tools, and all the rest of it; but what is important is for the educator himself to find out what all this existence means. Why are we living, why are we striving, why are we educating, why are there wars, why is there communal strife between man and man? To study this whole problem, and to bring our intelligence into operation, is surely the function of a real teacher. The teacher who does not demand anything for himself, who does not use teaching as a means of acquiring position, power, authority; the teacher who is really teaching, not for profit, not along a certain line, but who is giving, growing, awakening intelligence in the child because he is cultivating intelligence in himself - surely such a teacher has the primary place in civilization. Because, after all, all great civilizations have been founded on the teachers, not on engineers and technicians. The engineers and technicians are absolutely necessary, but those who awaken the moral, the ethical intelligence, are obviously of primary importance; and they can have moral integrity, freedom from the desire for power, position, authority, only when they don't ask anything for themselves, when they are beyond and above society and are not under the control of governments; and when they are free from the compulsion of social action, which is always action according to a pattern.
So, a teacher must be beyond the limits of society and its demands, so as to be able to create a new culture, a new structure, a new civilization. But at present we are merely concerned with the technique of how to educate a boy or girl, without cultivating the intelligence of the teacher - which seems to me so utterly futile. We are now mostly concerned with learning a technique and imparting that technique to the child, and not with the cultivation of intelligence which will help him to deal with the problems of life. So, when I answer these questions, I hope you will bear with me if I don't go into any particular detail, but deal primarily, not with technique, but with the right approach to the problem.
Question: What part can education play in the present world crisis?
Krishnamurti: First of all, to understand what part education can play in the present world crisis, we must understand how the crisis has come into being. Without understanding that, merely to build on the same values, on the same ground, on the same foundation, will bring about further wars, further disasters. So, we must first investigate how the present crisis has come into being, and in understanding the causes we will inevitably understand what kind of education we need.
Obviously, the present crisis is the result of wrong values - wrong values in man's relationship to property, to people, and to ideas. The expansion and predominance of sensate values necessarily creates the poison of nationalism, economic frontiers, sovereign governments and the patriotic spirit, all of which excludes man's cooperation with man for the benefit of man, and corrupts his relationship with people, which is society. And if the individual's relationship with others is wrong, the structure of society is bound to collapse. Similarly, in his relationship to ideas, man justifies an ideology - whether of the left or of the right, whether the means employed are right or wrong - in order to achieve an end. So, mutual distrust, lack of goodwill, the belief that a right end can be achieved by wrong means, the sacrificing of the present for a future ideal - all these are obviously causes of the present disaster. One cannot take time to go into all the details, but one can see at a glance how this chaos, this degradation, has come into being. Surely, it all arises from wrong values and from dependence on authority, on leaders, whether in daily life, in the small school, or the big university. Leaders and authority are deteriorating factors in any culture. The moment you depend on another, there is no self-dependence, and where there is no self-dependence, obviously there must be conformity, eventually leading to the dictatorship of totalitarian states.
So, realizing all these things, realizing the causes of war, of this present catastrophe, of the present moral and social crisis, seeing both the causes and the results, naturally one begins to perceive that the function of education is to create new values, not merely to implant existing values in the mind of the pupil, which merely conditions him without awakening his intelligence. But when the educator himself has not seen the causes of the present chaos, how can he create new values, how can he awaken intelligence, how can he prevent the coming generation from following in the same steps leading ultimately to still further disaster? Surely, then, it is important for the educator, not merely to implant certain ideals and convey mere information, but to give all his thought, all his care, all his affection, to creating the right environment, the right atmosphere, so that when the child grows up into maturity he is capable of dealing with any human problem that confronts him. So, education is intimately related to the present world crisis; and all the educators, at least in Europe and America, are realizing that the crisis is the outcome of wrong education. Education can be transformed only by educating the educator, and not merely creating a new pattern, a new system of action.
Question: Have ideals any place in education?
Krishnamurti: Certainly not. Ideals and the idealist in education prevent the comprehension of the present. This is an enormous problem, and we are going to try to deal with it in 5 or 10 minutes. It is a problem upon which our whole structure is based. That is, we have ideals, and according to those ideals we educate. Now, are ideals necessary for education? Don't ideals actually prevent right education, which is the understanding of the child as he is and not as he should be? If I want to understand a child, I must not have an ideal of what he should be. To understand him, I must study him as he is. But to put him into the framework of an ideal is merely to force him to follow a certain pattern, whether it suits him or not; and the result is that he is always in contradiction to the ideal, or else he so conforms himself to the ideal that he ceases to be a human being and acts as a mere automaton without intelligence. So, is not an ideal an actual hindrance to the understanding of the child? If you as a parent really want to understand your child, do you look at him through the screen of an ideal? Or do you simply study him, because you have love in your heart? You observe him, you watch his moods, his idiosyncrasies. Because there is love, you study him. It is only when you have no love that you have an ideal. Watch yourself and you will notice this. When there is no love, you have these enormous examples and ideals, through which you are forcing, compelling the child. But when you have love, you study him, you observe him and give him freedom to be what he is; you guide and help him, not to the ideal, not according to a certain pattern of action, but to bring him to be what he is.
In this question there arises the problem of the so-called bad boy - if I may use that word to define quickly and strongly a certain point. To change him into not being bad, surely you don't have to have an ideal. If a boy is a liar, you don't have to give him the ideal of truth. You study why he is telling lies. There may be various reasons - probably he is frightened, or is avoiding something. We need not go into the various reasons for lying. But obviously, when a child lies, to make him conform to a pattern of truth, which is your ideal, does not help him to free himself from the causes of lying. You have to study him, you have to observe him, and to do that takes a long time; it demands patience, care, love; and because you have not got it, you force him into a pattern of action which you call an ideal. Obviously, an ideal is a very cheap escape. The school which has ideals, or the teacher who follows ideals is obviously incapable of dealing with a child.
You don't have to accept automatically what I am saying, or deny it. Just observe. After all, the function of education is to turn out an integrated individual who is capable of dealing with life intelligently, wholly - not partially, not as a technician or an idealist. But the individual cannot be integrated if he is merely pursuing an idealistic pattern of action. Obviously, Sirs and Ladies, the teachers who become idealists, who are pursuing a pattern of action, the so-called ideal, are pretty useless. If you observe you will see that they are incapable of love, they have hard hearts and dry minds. Because, it demands much greater observation, greater affection, to study, to observe the child, than to force him into an idealistic pattern of action. And I think that mere examples, which are another form of the ideal, are also a deterrent to intelligence.
Probably what I am saying is contrary to all that you believe. You will have to think it over, because this is not a matter of denial or acceptance. One has to go into it very, very carefully. I am not being dogmatic; but as there are many questions, I have to be very brief and concise. The implications of an ideal are obvious. When the teacher is pursuing an ideal, he is incapable of understanding the child, because then the future, the ideal, is far more important than the child, the present. He has a certain end in view which he thinks is right, and he is forcing the child to conform to that ideal. Surely, that is not education, is it? That is like turning out motor cars. You have the pattern, and you put the child through the mould, with the result that you create human beings who are mere technicians, who have no human relationship with others, but are out for themselves, for their own gain, politically, socially, or in the family. Obviously, it is much easier to follow an ideal than to observe, to take care, to awaken love for the children and humanity. And that is one of the calamities of modern education: the so-called ideal, the end in view, whether it is an ideology of the extreme left or of the right, has become a pattern of action, and has brought about this present world catastrophe.
Question: Is education in creativeness possible, or is creativeness purely accidental, and therefore nothing can be done to facilitate its emergence?
Krishnamurti: The question is, to put it differently, whether by learning a technique, you will be creative? That is, by practicing, say, the piano, the violin, by learning the technique of painting, will you be a musician, will you be an artist? Does creativeness come into being through technique, or is creativeness independent of technique? You may go to a school and learn all there is to know about painting, about the depth of colour, the technique of how to hold the brush, and all the rest of it; but will that make you a creative painter? Whereas, if you are creative, then anything that you do will have its own technique. I went once to see a great artist in Paris. He had not learned a technique. He wanted to say something, and he said it in clay and then in marble. Most of us learn the technique, but have very little to say. We neglect, we overlook the capacity to find out for ourselves; we have all the instruments of discovery, without finding anything directly. So, the problem is, how to be creative, which brings its own technique. Then, when you want to write a poem, what happens? You write it; and if you have a technique, so much the better. But if you have no technique, it does not matter - you write the poem, and the delight is in the writing. After all, when you write a love letter, you are not bothered about the technique; you write it with all your being. But when there is no love in your heart, you search out a technique, how to put words together. Sirs, if you do not love, you miss the point. You think you will be able to live happily, creatively, by learning a technique, and it is the technique that is destroying creativeness - which does not mean that you must not have a technique. After all, when you want to write a poem beautifully, you must know the meter, the rhythm, and all the rest of it. But if you want to write it for yourself and not publish it, then it does not matter. You write. It is only when you want to communicate something to another that proper technique is necessary, the right technique, so that there will be no misunderstanding. But surely, to be creative is quite a different problem, and that demands an extraordinary investigation into oneself. It is not a question of gift. Talent is not creativeness. One can be creative without having a talent. So, what do we mean by creativeness? Surely, a state of being in which conflict has completely ceased, a state of being in which there is no problem, no contradiction. Contradiction, problem, conflict, are the result of too much emphasis put on the `I', the `mine' - `my success', `my family', `my country'. When that is absent, then thought itself ceases, and there is a state of being in which creativeness can take place. That is, to put it differently, when the mind ceases to create, there is creation. One of the causes of problems is your belief, your greed, and so on; and the mind creates as long as it has a problem, as long as it is the originator of problems. A mind that is chained to a problem, that is tethered to the creation of its own problem, can never be free. Only when the mind is free from creating its own problems, can there be creation. Sir, to go into it fully and really deeply, one has to go into the whole problem of consciousness; and I say that everyone of us can be creative in the right sense of the word, not merely producing poems and statues, or procreating children. Surely, to be creative means to be in that state in which truth can come into being; and truth can come into being only when there is a complete cessation of the thought process. When the mind is utterly still, without being compelled, forced into a certain pattern of action; when the mind is still because it understands all the problems as they arise and therefore no longer has any problem; when the mind is really quiet, not compelled; then in that state, truth can come into being. That state is creation, and creation is not for the few; it is not the talent of the few or the gift of the few; but that creative state can be discovered by each one who gives his mind and heart to search out the problem.
Question: Is not the imparting of sex experience a necessary part of education? Is it not the only rational solution to the troubles of adolescence?
Krishnamurti: Sir, to understand sex demands intelligence, not the ideal of something or other; and it is an extremely difficult subject, like every other human problem. If the educator himself has not understood that problem, how can he educate somebody else? If he is himself caught in the net, in the turmoil, in the extraordinarily complex problem of sex, how can he teach another? And why is it a problem to him? Obviously, because he himself is uncreative. Then sex becomes a mere tool of pleasure, an experience which gives momentary joy, momentary absence of self; and therefore it becomes a problem. Whereas, to be free from it, one has to investigate the various hindrances that are preventing creativeness. Obviously, one of the factors is imitation, the social compulsion to be something in society. Following an ideal is obviously a form of compulsion, a form of imitation; therefore, there is no creative thinking. After all, when you are thinking really creatively, when you have strong feeling, sex is of very little importance. It is only when you are not alert to the whole significance of existence, to the movement of the birds, to the trees, to smiles, to the joy of living, whether you are rich or poor - only then sex becomes a problem.
There are other things involved in this question. Can the significance of the sexual experience be imparted to an adolescent child? Naturally, he is curious, he wants to know what it is all about. Again, it depends on the teacher or the parents. Generally, they are so ashamed of it themselves, they are so shy, the whole thing becomes absurd. They have such dirty minds. Sirs, you should watch yourselves, how you look at people, how you look at men and women. And you think you are capable of telling adolescent children what it is all about!
And there is another problem: Our whole emphasis is laid on sensate values, the values of the senses, in which the radio, the cinema and magazines, play an important part. pick up any magazine or newspaper; all the advertisements are attracting you, creating sensation. So, on the one side, you encourage sensation, sex, sensuality; and on the other, you say, `You must not, you must become holy, you must follow the ideal of celibacy', It is all nonsense. You create contradiction in the mind, and in that state of contradiction you are incapable of understanding anything. Whereas, if you yourself approach the problem directly, as an obvious biological thing, without all the imputations, all the traditions, all the ugliness behind it, then you can be helpful by your own understanding of it.
As I explained in the previous question, creation is not the mere sexual act, but creation is far more significant, profound; and there can be creation only when the mind is not consumed with its own gratification. Sirs, when one loves, love is chaste; and when there is no love, sex becomes a problem, it becomes an ugly habit. So, our difficulty in all these questions is that we ourselves, the educators, have become so dull, so weary. Life has been too much for us. We want to be comforted, we want to be loved. So, being insufficient, being poor in ourselves, how can we, who are the educators, give right education? Obviously, as I said, the problem is first the teacher, the educator, and not merely the education of the pupil. Sirs, our own hearts and minds must be cleansed, to be really capable of educating others. You may say that this is very goody stuff, without any practical information; but if the instrument that is teaching is itself crooked, how can it impart right information, right knowledge, right wisdom, right understanding?
Question: Is not State education a calamity? If it is, how to raise funds for schools which are not controlled by the government?
Krishnamurti: Obviously, State education is a calamity - with which governments won't agree. They don't want people to think, they want people to be automatons, because then they can be told what to do. So, our education, especially in the hands of governments, is becoming more and more a means of teaching what to think and not how to think; because, if you were to think independently of the system you would be a danger. Therefore, it is a function of government, not to make you think, but to accept what is told you. So, as you see throughout the world, every government is stepping into education. Education and food have become the means of controlling man. And what do governments care, whether of the left or of the right as long as you are perfect machines to turn out merchandise and bullets? There are a few private schools in England and other places, but they are all being watched carefully, investigated, controlled, because government does not want free institutions which might turn out pacifists, people who think contrary to the regime, to the system. Right education is obviously a danger to government, so it is a function of government to see that is right education is not imparted. There are about 80,000 pacifists in England. If their numbers increase, are they not a danger to the government? Therefore, control people from childhood. Don't let them think in terms of non-war, non-country, non-systems, or a different ideology. This means government supervision, the control of education through the Educational Minister. Sirs, this is what is happening in the world, whether you like it or not; and it means that you, who are the citizens and who are responsible for government, don't want freedom. You don't want a new state of being, a new culture, a new structure of society. If you have something new it may be revolutionary, it may be destructive of what is; and because you want things as they are, you say, `Well, let there be a government which will control education'. You want a little modification here and there, but you don't want a revolution in thought; and the moment you want a revolution in thought, government steps in, puts you in prison, or liquidates you quickly behind doors, and you are forgotten. Sirs, a country becomes more and more organized, there is more and more authority and external compulsion, when man himself has no inward vision, inward light, understanding. Then he becomes a mere tool of the authorities, whether in a totalitarian state or in a so-called democracy. Because, in moments of crisis, the so-called democratic states become like the totalitarian, forgetting their democracy and making men conform to a pattern of action.
Now, the second part of the question is, "How to raise funds for schools which are not controlled by the government?". Sir, surely that is not the problem, is it? The moment you have funds, you are ruined. Look at all the schools that start in the most idealistic way. Look at their headmasters. They grow fat on it. But you can start a little school round the corner of your street. I know several schools that have been started that way, and they are still working, because they were prepared, they have the enthusiasm, the feeling for it. One of our difficulties is that we want to transform the whole of mankind the day after tomorrow - or affect the masses, as you call it. Who are the masses, poor humanity? You and I. And if you feel deeply, if you really think about these problems, not just superficially for an afternoon to while away the time, then you will see that a right school is started somewhere, round the corner or in your own house; because then you are interested in your own children, and in the children about you. Then money will come, Sir, don't bother about money. Money is the least important thing. Leave money to the idealists, who want to start an ideal school. But if you and I are aware of the whole problem of human existence, what it means, why we live, why we suffer, why we go through all these tortures, if we really want to understand it and help the child to understand, then we will start a school without funds, without beating drums and collecting lakhs. Because, the moment you have money, what happens? Don't you know what happens, Sir? You have your own private resources, and you have to watch your money, who is using it, whether you, or your secretary, or the committee, and all the rubbish, the idiotic stuff begins. But if you have little money and real clarity of thought and feeling behind it, then you will create a school. And, in creating the school, obviously you will be opposed by the government, or will have the interference of the government. If you teach your children not to be nationalistic and not to salute the flag because nationalism is a factor which brings about war, if you teach them not to be communal, if you help them to understand this whole problem of existence, do you think governments are going to stand for it? If you really turn out revolutionaries, not in the sense of killing, but real revolutionaries in thought and feeling, do you think society will put up with it for a minute?
So, Sirs, as parents and teachers, you are responsible, you have to find out whether you are merely complying with the dictates of government, whether you have merely learned a technique which gives you a certain capacity to earn money and are content to carry on the present social structure as it is; or whether you are concerned with right living and right means of livelihood. If you see that governments are built on violence and are the product of violence, and realize that through wrong means a right end cannot possibly be achieved; and if you are interested in really educating your children, obviously you will start a school anywhere - just round the corner, in your backyard, or in your own room. Because, Sirs, I don't think many of us realize to what an abyss, to what degradation, we have come. If there is a third war, that will be the end of things, You may escape; but your problem will be the fourth world war, because we have not solved this problem of man's antagonism to man. and you can solve it only through right means, which is right education - not through an ideal of non-war, but by understanding the causes of war which lie in our attitude toward life, our attitude toward our fellow-beings. Without a change of heart, without goodwill, mere organizations are not going to bring about peace - which is shown by the League of Nations and UNO. To rely on governments, to look to outward organizations for the transformation which must begin with each one of us, is to look in vain. What we have to do is to transform ourselves, which is to become aware of our own actions, thoughts and feelings in everyday life.
So, don't bother about raising funds. You won't be bothered now, and for a few minutes, while you are pressed into a corner at this meeting, you may see the significance of all this. But afterwards you will slip back into your daily routine, you will go back to your teaching and professions, because you have to earn money. So, there will be very few who are serious. But it is those of you who are serious that will bring about a revolution in thought. Sir, revolution must begin in thought, not in blood; and if there is right revolution in thought, there will be no blood. But if there is no right thinking, no true thinking, there will be blood, more and more of it. The wrong means can never produce the right end, because the end is in the means.
Question: What have you to say about military drill in education?
Krishnamurti: It all depends on what you want the human being to be. If you want him to be efficient cannon fodder, then military drill is marvellous. If you want to discipline him, if you want to regiment his mind, his feelings, then military drill is a very good way to do it. If you want to condition him in a certain way and make him irresponsible to society, then military drill is a very good instrument. It all depends on what you want your son to be. Surely, Sir, if you want him to live, military drill is the wrong way to proceed; but if you like death, then military drill is excellent. And as modern civilization is seeking death, obviously the military with its generals, soldiers, lawyers, and all the rest of it, is considered very good. In that way you will have death, sure death. But if you want peace, if you want right relationship between man and man - whether he is Christian, Hindu, Mussulman or Buddhist, all these labels being barriers to right relationship - , then military education is an absolute hindrance. Sir. it is surely the function of a general to prepare for war, it is the function of a soldier to maintain war; and if life is meant to be a constant battle between yourself and your neighbour, then by all means have more generals. Then let us all become soldiers - which is what is happening. Conscription was fought in England for generations, while the rest of Europe was being conscripted; and now England has given in. England is part of the whole world structure, and it is an indication of what is happening. In this country, because it is so huge, conscription is not possible immediately; but it will come when you are all thoroughly organized. Then war, more wars, more bloodshed, more misery. Is that what we are living for - constant battle within ourselves and with others? Surely, Sir, to discover truth, reality, the bliss of the unknowable, there must be freedom, freedom from strife within yourself and with your neighbour. After all, when a man is not in strife within himself, then he does not create strife outwardly. The inward strife, projected outwardly, becomes the world chaos. After all, war is a spectacular result of our everyday living; and without a transformation in our daily existence, there is bound to be the multiplication of soldiers, drills, the saluting of flags and all the rubbish that goes with it, inevitably prolonging destruction, misery and chaos. I was told by an anthropologist that two or three thousand years ago a politician said, `I hope this will be the last war' - and we are still at it. I think we really want arms. We want all the fun of military instruments, the decorations, the uniforms, the salutes, the drinks, the murder. Because, our everyday life is that. We are destroying others through our greed, through our exploitation. The richer you get, the more exploiting you are. You like all this, and you also want to be rich. As long as the three professions of soldier, police, and lawyer, are dominant in society, civilization is doomed; and that is what is happening in India, as well as the world over. These three professions are becoming stronger and stronger. I don't think you know what is going on about you, and in yourself, what catastrophes you are preparing. All that you want to do is to live a day as rapidly and as stupidly and as distintegratingly as possible, and you leave to the governments, to the politicians, to the cunning people, the direction of your lives.
So, it all depends on what you want life to be. If life is meant to be a series of conflicts, then military expansion is inevitable. If life is meant to be lived happily, with thought, with care, with affection, then the military, the soldier, the police, the lawyer, are a hindrance. But the lawyer, the police, and the military, are not going to give up their professions, any more than you are going to give up your exploiting ways, whether psychologically or outwardly. So, it is very important, Sir, to find out for yourself what is the purpose of living - not to learn it from somebody else, but to discover it for yourself, which means being aware of your daily actions, of your daily feelings and thoughts; and when you are fully aware, that awareness will reveal the true purpose.
Question: What is the place of art in education?
Krishnamurti: I don't quite know what you mean by art. Do you mean hanging pictures in your school room, or do you mean helping the child to draw a picture according to a pattern, because you have learnt a little technique? Or do you mean teaching the child to be sensitive - not to you as the teacher or to what you say, but sensitive to the miseries, to the confusions, to the sorrows of life? Do you want merely to teach him how to paint, or do you want him to be awake to the influence of beauty - not of any particular picture or statue, but beauty itself? Sir, in modern civilization, beauty is apparently only on the surface of the skin: how you dress, how you paint your face, how you comb your hair, how you walk. We are discussing art, whether beauty is on the surface, or whether it is a matter of love; whether it is outward, or understanding the inward process of thought.
As our society is constructed, we are more concerned with the outward expression, with the looks, with the sari, than with that which is inward. It does not matter what you are within, but you must present a respectable appearance - put on rouge, lip-stick. It does not matter what you are inside. So, we are more concerned with technique than with living, with mere expression than with love. Therefore, we use outward things as a means of covering up our inner ugliness, our inward confusion. We listen to music to escape from our own sorrow. In other words, we become spectators, and not the players. To be creative, you must know yourself, and to know yourself is extremely difficult; but to learn a technique is comparatively easy. So, when you talk about art in education, I don't know exactly what you mean. Obviously, the outward environmental influences have their place; but when the outer is emphasized, the inner confusion is not understood, and so the inward understanding, the inward beauty, is denied; and without inward beauty, how can there be the outward expression of it? And to cultivate inward beauty, you must first be aware of the inward confusion, the inward ugliness, because beauty does not come into being by itself. To be sensitive to beauty, you must understand the ugly and the confused; and it is only when there is order out of confusion that there is beauty.
Question: Whom would you call a perfect teacher?
Krishnamurti: Obviously, not the teacher who has an ideal, nor he who is making a profit out of teaching, nor he who has built up an organization, nor he who is the instrument of the politician, nor he who is bound to a belief or to a country; but the perfect teacher, surely, is one who does not ask anything for himself, who is not caught up in politics, in power, in position. He does not ask anything for himself, because inwardly he is rich. His wisdom does not lie in books; his wisdom lies in experiencing, and experiencing is not possible if he is seeking an end. Experiencing is not possible to him for whom the result is far more important than the means; to him who wants to show that he has turned out so many pupils who have brilliantly passed exams, who have come out as first class M.A.s, B.A.s, or whatever it is. Obviously, as most of us want a result, we give scant thought to the means employed, and therefore we can never be perfect teachers. Surely, Sir, a teacher who is perfect must be beyond and above the control of society. He must teach and not be told what to teach, which means, he must have no position in society. He must have no authority in society, because the moment he has authority, he is part of society; and since society is always disintegrating, a teacher who is part of society can never be the perfect teacher. He must be out of it, which means, he cannot ask anything for himself; therefore, society must be so enlightened that it will supply his needs. But we don't want such an enlightened society, nor such teachers. If we had such teachers, then the present society would be in danger. Religion is not organized belief. Religion is the search for truth, which is of no country, which is of no organized belief, which does not lie in any temple, church, or mosque. Without the search for truth, no society can long exist; and while it exists, it is bound to bring about disaster. Surely, the teacher is not merely the giver of information, the teacher is one who points the way to wisdom; and he who points to wisdom is not the guru. Truth is far more important than the teacher. Therefore you, who are the seeker of truth, have to be both the pupil and the teacher. In other words, you have to be the perfect teacher to create a new society; and to bring the perfect teacher into being, you have to understand yourself. Wisdom begins with self-knowledge; and without self-knowledge, mere information leads to destruction. Without self-knowledge, the airplane becomes the most destructive instrument in life; but with self-knowledge, it is a means of human help. So, a teacher must obviously be one who is not within the clutches of society, who does not play power politics or seek position or authority. In himself he has discovered that which is eternal, and therefore he is capable of imparting that knowledge which will help another to discover his own means to enlightenment.
Question: What is the place of discipline in education?
Krishnamurti: I should say, none. Just a minute, I will explain it further. What is the purpose of discipline? What do you mean by discipline? You, being the teacher, when you discipline, what happens? You are forcing, compelling; there is compulsion, however nice, however kind, which means conformity, imitation, fear. But you will say, `How can a large school be run without discipline?'. It cannot. Therefore, large schools cease to be educational institutions. They are profitable institutions, for the boss or for the government, for the headmaster or the owner. Sir, if you love your child, do you discipline him? Do you compel him? Do you force him into a pattern of thought? You watch him, don't you? You try to understand him, you try to discover what are the motives, the urges, the drives, that are behind what he does; and by understanding him, you bring about the right environment, the right amount of sleep, the right food, the right amount of play. All that is implied, when you love a child; but we don't love children, because we have no love in our own hearts. We just breed children. And naturally, when you have many, you must discipline them, and discipline becomes an easy way out of the difficulty. After all, discipline means resistance. You create resistance against that which you are disciplining. Do you think resistance will bring about understanding, thought, affection? Discipline can only build walls about you. Discipline is always exclusive, whereas understanding is inclusive. Understanding comes when you investigate, when you enquire, when you search out, which requires care, consideration, thought, affection. In a large school, such things are not possible, but only in a small school. But small schools are not profitable to the private owner or to the government; and since you, who are responsible for the government, are not really interested in your children, what does it matter? If you loved your children, not just as toys, as playthings to amuse you for a little while and a nuisance afterwards, if you really loved them, would you allow all these things to go on? Wouldn't you want to know what they eat, where they sleep, what they do all day long; whether they are beaten, whether they are crushed, whether they are destroyed? But this would mean an enquiry, consideration for others, whether for your own child or your neighbour's; and you have no consideration, either for your children, or for your wife or husband.
So, the matter lies in your hands, Sirs, not in the hands of any government or system. If all of us really cared for children, we would have a new society tomorrow; but we really do not care, and so we have no time. We have time for puja, we have time for earning money, we have time for clubs, we have time for amusements, but no time to give thought or care to the child. I am not being rhetorical. This is a fact, and you don't want to face the fact. Because, to face the fact means that you would have to give up your amusements and distractions; and do you mean to say you are going to give them up? Certainly not. So, you throw the children into the schools, and the teacher cares no more for them than you do. Why should he? He is there for his job, for his money, and so it goes on; and we come together for an evening to discuss education! It is really a marvellous world we have got. It is such a phoney super- ficial world, so ugly if you look behind the curtain; and we are decorating the curtain and hoping that everything will be right behind it. Sirs, I don't think you, the educators and the parents, realize how serious things are. The catastrophe that is going on in this country is obvious; but you don't want to strip it all bare and begin again, anew. You want to do patch-work reforms, and that is why all these questions arise. Sirs, you have to start anew, there can be no patch-work reform; because, the building is crumbling, the walls are giving way, there is a fire destroying it. You must leave the building and start anew in a different place, with different values, with different foundations. But those who are making a profit out of education, whether the State or the individual, will go on, because they do not see the destruction, the deterioration, the degradation. But those who really see the whole catastrophe, not just in a few spots, but the world over, have to strip themselves of everything and start anew. I don't mean stripping off the outward knowledge, the technical knowledge. I know it can never be stripped off; but you can strip yourselves inwardly, see yourselves as you are, your ugliness, your brutality, your ruthlessness, your deceptions, your dishonesty, your utter lack of love. Seeing all that, you can start anew, and become honest, clear, simple, direct. Surely, only then is there a possibility of a new world and a new order. Peace does not come through patch-work reform. Peace does not come through mere adjustment of things as they are. Peace comes only when we understand what is, beyond the superficial. Peace can come into being only when the wave of destruction, which is the wave of our own action, is stopped. Sirs, how can we have love? Not through the pursuit of the ideal of love, but only when there is no hatred, when there is no greed, when there is consideration, when there is generosity; but a man who is occupied with exploitation, with greed, with envy, can never know love. When there is love, systems become of very little importance. When there is love, there is care, there is consideration, not only for the children, but for every human being.
Bombay, India. Public Talk 14th March, 1948
I would like this afternoon to discuss the problem of action, which might be rather abstruse and difficult at the beginning, but I hope by thinking it over, we will be able to see the issue clearly. Because, our whole existence, our whole life, is a process of action. It is an action at different levels of consciousness. Please, I am afraid you will have to pay a little attention to this, because it is going to be extremely difficult if you do not follow it very closely, if your attention is distracted by those who are passing behind me. I shall not be distracted; but you will be, unfortunately, and therefore you will not be able to follow it and will miss its beauty; because, it is quite a difficult problem and needs very close attention.Most of us live in a series of actions, of seemingly unrelated, disjointed actions, leading to disintegration, to frustration. It is a problem that concerns each one of us, because we live by action; and without action, there is no life, there is no experience, there is no thinking. Thought is action; and merely to pursue action at one particular level of consciousness, which is the outer, merely to be caught up in outward action without understanding the whole process of action itself, will inevitably lead us to frustration, to misery. Therefore, if I may suggest, and though the problem is quite simple, one has to be a little concentrated - not with the concentration of exclusiveness, but with the interest which brings, not exclusion, but attention. That is what is needed: to be attentive with interest. Then you and I will go together; then I won't take the journey alone, and you won't become a mere spectator. And if we can take the journey together, it will be much more creative, much more interesting, more vital and significant, and therefore you will be able to follow it for yourself in daily action.
So, our life is a series of actions, or a process of action at different levels of consciousness. Now, consciousness, as I explained the other day, is experiencing, naming, and recording. That is, consciousness is challenge and response, which is experiencing, then terming or naming, and then recording, which is memory. This process is action, is it not? Consciousness is action; and without challenge, response, without experiencing, naming or terming, and recording, which is memory, there is no action. Whether you are a big executive, a big business man, raking in money and piling up a bank account, or a writer, or just an ordinary man earning an ordinary livelihood, this is the process that is going on: experiencing, naming or terming, and recording; and this whole process is consciousness, which is action.
Now, action creates the actor. That is, the actor comes into being when action has a result, an end in view, If there is no result in action, then the actor is not; but if there is an end or a result in view, then action brings about the actor. So, actor, action, and end or result, is a unitary process, a single process, which comes into being when action has an end in view. Action towards a result, is will. otherwise, there is no will, is there? The desire to achieve an end brings about will, which is the actor - I want to achieve, I want to write a book, I want to be a rich man, I want to paint a picture. Will is action with an end in view, a result to be gained, which brings about the actor, So, the actor or will, the action, and the end or result, is one process. Though we can break it up and observe these factors separately, it is a total, unitary process.
Now, we are familiar with these three states: the actor, the action, and the end. That is our daily existence. I am just explaining what is; but we will begin to understand how to transform what is, only when we examine it clearly, so that there is no illusion, prejudice, no bias with regard to it. Now, these three states, which constitute experience - the actor, the action, and the result - , these three states, surely, are a process of becoming. Otherwise, there is no becoming, is there? If there is no actor, and if there is no action toward an end, there is no becoming; but life as we know it, our daily life, is a process of becoming. I am poor, and I act with an end in view, which is to become rich. I am ugly, and I want to become beautiful. Therefore, my life is a process of becoming something. The will to be is the will to become, at different levels of consciousness, in different states, in which there is challenge, response, naming, and recording. Now, this becoming is strife, this becoming is pain, is it not? It is a constant struggle: I am this, and I want to become that. The becoming is a constant battle - the rich man competing with the richer to maintain his position, the poor man trying to become rich, the artist trying to achieve a result, write a book or a poem, paint a picture. There is always an end in view, a result to be achieved, and in that process of becoming there is a ceaseless battle, a strife, a pain. With that we are familiar - I have not described anything other than what is.
So, then, the problem is: Is there not action without this becoming? That is, is there not action without this pain, without this constant battle? If there is no end, there is no actor, because action with an end in view creates the actor. But can there be action without an end in view, and therefore no actor? Because, the moment there is action with the desire for a result, there is the actor, and therefore the actor is always becoming; therefore the actor is the source of strife, pain, misery. And, to eliminate that strife, can there be action without the actor, that is, without the desire for a result? Only such action is not a becoming, and therefore not a strife. There is a state of action, a state of experiencing without the experiencer and the experience. This sounds rather philosophical, but it is really quite simple. We know that in our daily actions, in our everyday life, there is always the actor or experiencer, the process of experiencing, and the experience; the actor is acting in order to achieve an end, and I know that that process always produces strife, because I live in strife with my wife, with my husband, with my neighbours, with my boss. I know the life of strife and conflict, and I want to eliminate conflict, because I recognize that conflict does not lead anywhere. It is only creative happiness that brings about a revolutionary state. So, to find action without strife, there must be no actor; and there is no actor only when there is no end in view. Can I live in a state of experiencing all the time, without the desire for a result? That is the only way to solve this problem, is it not? As long as action has an end in view, there must be the actor, the experiencer, the observer, and therefore a process of becoming which creates strife, and therefore a state of contradiction. Can one live in action without a state of contradiction? There can be freedom from contradiction only when there is no actor and no end to be achieved, which means a state of constant experiencing without the object of experience, and therefore without the experiencer. Now, we live in that state when the experiencing in itself is intense. Take, for example, any intense experience that you have. In the moment of experiencing, you are not aware of yourself as the experiencer apart from the experience; you are in a state of experiencing. Take a very simple example: you are angry. In that moment of anger, there is neither the experiencer nor the experience; there is only experiencing. But the moment you come out of it, a split second after the experiencing, there is the experiencer and the experience, the actor and the action with an end in view - which is to get rid of or to suppress the anger. So, we are in this state repeatedly, in the state of experiencing; but we always come out of it and give it a term, naming and recording it, and thereby giving continuity to becoming.
Now, the problem is, how can there be freedom from conflict in action? As I said, only when experiencing is lived completely, wholly, all the time. You can live completely, wholly, only when there is no terming, when there is no naming, and therefore no recording, which is memory. Memory is the recorder of the outcome of action with an end in view. Sir, when you have an experience and you are in that moment of experiencing, if you don't term it, f you don't give it a name and therefore record it, put it in the frame of reference which is memory, then that experiencing is joy, that experiencing is creation.
Experiment with what I have said. It is very simple. We know the first process, which is action seeking an end, a result, and bringing into being the actor. The actor, or action with an end in view, is the process of becoming, and this process is constant strife, constant pain. With that we are familiar. To be in strife is essentially a state of contradiction, and in a state of contradiction there can never be the capacity to live fully, because there must always be a struggle, there must always be pain, To be free of pain, there can be only one state, that of experiencing - which is action without the actor, and without a result, an end in view. It is not as crazy as it sounds. If you observe very closely, you will see that, in moments of great ecstasy, you do live in that state of experiencing, without the actor or experiencer, and the object of experience. Most of us have known that state of experiencing; and having known it, we want to continue it, and thereby we give birth again to becoming. That is, we want a result, which is action with an end in view; and therefore we strengthen the framework of reference, which is memory. So, to bring about a state of constant experiencing, which is really extraordinarily revolutionary, we must be aware of this process of action which is always seeking an end, a result, and therefore giving birth to the actor. We must be fully aware of that process; and when we are aware of that and see the truth, the significance, the pain of it, then in that passive awareness we will know the state of experiencing in which there is neither the experiencer nor the experience.
I have about eight questions, and it has been suggested that I answer them briefly, not at length; because, when I answer a question at length, it becomes a lecture, and many of us cannot keep a sustained thought for a long period of time. If I answer each question briefly, perhaps you will be able to grasp it better. So, I am going to try this evening to answer as many of these questions as possible, and see what the result is.
Question: What is the relation between the thinker and his thought?
Krishnamurti: Now, is there any such relation, or is there only one thing, which is thought, and not the thinker? Because, if there are no thoughts, there is no thinker. When you are thinking, when you have thoughts, is there a thinker? If you have no thoughts at all, where is the thinker? Now, having thoughts, seeing the impermanency of thoughts, the thinker comes into being. That is, thought creates the thinker; and because thoughts are transient, the thinker becomes the permanent entity. There is first the process of thought, and then thought creates the thinker, obviously. The thinker then establishes himself as a permanent entity, apart from thoughts. That is, thoughts are transient, they are always in a state of flux, and thought objects to its own impermanency; therefore, thought creates the thinker. It is not the other way round, the thinker does not create thought, If you have no thoughts, there is no thinker; so it is thought that creates the thinker. Then we try to establish a relationship between the thinker, and the thought which has created him. That is, we try to establish a relationship between that which seeks to be permanent, which is the thinker created by thought, and the thought itself, which is transient. But obviously both are transient, Since thought, which is transient, creates the thinker, and though the thinker may imagine himself to be permanent, he also is transient; because the thinker is the outcome of thought.
This is not a conundrum. It is an obvious fact. Pursue a thought completely, go through with it to the end, think it out fully, and you will see what happens. You will find that there is no thinker at all, because it is the thought which creates the thinker. Therefore, there are not two states as the thinker and the thought. The thinker is a fictitious entity, an unreal state. There is only thought; and the bundle of thoughts creates the 'I', the thinker. And the thinker, having given himself permanency, tries to transform thought and thereby maintain himself, which is false; and if you can think out every thought fully, completely, that is, let each thought go right through to the end without resistance, then you will see there is no thinker at all. Therefore, the mind becomes extraordinarily pliable, quiet. And that quiet, that tranquillity, is the state of experiencing. As there is neither the actor nor the end in view, neither the experiencer nor the experience, it is a state of experiencing, which is pure action. Try this and you will see that thought is constantly giving birth to further thought, and therefore maintaining the thinker. But when there is no thinker - which there is not, only a thought process - , that is, when the thought process is completely understood, in that passive awareness when every thought is allowed full scope, full depth, then there is freedom from all thought; and in that freedom, there is experiencing.
Question: I would like to help you by doing propaganda for your teachings. Can you advise the best way?
Krishnamurti: To be a propagandist is to be a liar. (Laughter.) Don't laugh, Sirs. Because, propaganda is merely repetition, and repetition of a truth is a lie. When you repeat what you consider to be the truth, then it ceases to be the truth. Say, for instance, you repeat the truth concerning man's relationship to property, the truth which you have not discovered for yourself; what value has it? Repetition has no value; it merely dulls the mind, and you can only repeat a lie. You cannot repeat truth, because truth is never constant. Truth is a state of experiencing, and what you can repeat is a static state; therefore it is not the truth. Please do see the importance of this. We are so used to being propagandists, to reading newspapers, to telling others about everything. The propagandist is a mere repeater, not a teller of truth; therefore, propaganda does infinite damage in the world. The lecturer who goes out doing propaganda for an idea is really a destroyer of thought, because he just repeats his own or somebody else's experience. But truth cannot be repeated, truth must be experienced from moment to moment by each one. Now, with that understanding, what can you do to help this teaching, to further this teaching? All that you can do is to live it; however little you understand, however tiny a part, live it completely - not superficially, but deeply, fully, as vitally, as intrinsically, as enthusiastically as possible. Then, like a flower in a garden, that very living spreads its perfume. You don't have to do propaganda for the jasmine. The jasmine itself does the propaganda; its beauty, its perfume, its loveliness, tells the story. When you have not that loveliness, that beauty, you do propaganda for it, but the moment you have understood a little, you talk about it, preach it, shout it; because of your own understanding, you help another to understand, and therefore understanding spreads more and more, it moves further and further afield. Surely, that is the only way to do what you call `propaganda' - which is an ugly word. Sir, how does a new thought spread, a living thought, not a dead thought? Surely, not through propaganda. Systems spread through propaganda, but not a living thought. A living thought is spread by a living person, one who lives that thought. Without living it, you cannot spread a living thought; but the moment you live it, you will see. It is like the bees coming to the flower. The flower need not do propaganda for its honey - the bees know it, they come because there is nectar. But without that nectar, to do propaganda is to deceive people, to exploit people, to cause division among people, to create envy and antagonism. But if there is that nectar of understanding, however little, then it spreads like fire. You know how honey is secured, how many journeys a bee makes from the beehive to the flower, how it collects honey a little at a time. Similarly, if there is nectar, if there is beauty, if there is understanding in our hearts, that itself will perform the miracle of completely revolutionizing the world. Understanding is instantaneous, not tomorrow, because there is no understanding tomorrow; there is understanding only today, now. Love is not in the future; you don't say, `I shall love you tomorrow'. You either love now, or never.
Question: The fact of death stares everybody in the face, yet its mystery is never solved. Must it ever be so?
Krishnamurti: Sir, this is an enormous problem, and we have to deal with it in a few minutes. Now, why is there fear of death? There is fear of death because we cling to continuity. I am writing a book, and I might die tomorrow without finishing it; I am accumulating money, and I might die without achieving what I want; I long to be something which I am not. So, there is fear of death. There is fear of death as long as there is a desire for continuity - continuity of action, continuity of character, continuity of achievement, continuity of faculty, continuity of a bank account, of a name, of a family. As long as there is the actor, which is action seeking a result, there must be continuity, and therefore fear that there will be no continuity; because, death may put an end to my writing a book, to my bank account, to the qualities, the various characteristics, which I have cultivated. All that is going to come to an end, therefore there is fear. So, there is fear of death as long as there is continuity.
Now, what happens when there is this sense of continuity? We are not discussing whether there is continuity or not, but what the idea of continuity does to the mind. Have you ever noticed what happens to a thing that continues? Surely, that which continues is in a state of constant disintegration, is it not? If you have a problem that continues over a period of years, causing you constant worry, there is disintegration, is there not? Any form of continuity, however noble or ignoble, is a process of disintegration. If we see the truth of that - that any form of continuity is a process of disintegration - , then we see the truth about the false. Therefore, there is liberation from the false, which means that one is living constantly in the present, not in continuity; therefore, there is no longer the fear of death. It is only when the mind is caught in the net of continuity that there is the fear of death; and when the mind recognizes that anything that continues can never renew itself, then there is freedom from the fear of death. How can there be renewal when there is continuity? There can be renewal only when there is an ending, which means when there is death. I don't know if you have noticed that when you have brought an end to a problem, there is a renewal; but while the problem continues, there is decay. Is it not possible to live every day, every minute, seeing each thought through to the end, so that it is not continued? That means, is it not possible to live with death, dying from moment to moment? Then only is there renewal; because, only in ending is there renewal, not in continuity. Renewal and continuity are contradictions. In continuity there is no rebirth, no renewal, no creativeness, but only in ending. When one problem ends, a new problem may arise; but in the interval between two problems, there is renewal. Therefore, there is no fear of death.
To put it differently, death is the state of non-continuity, which is the state of rebirth. Death is the unknown because it is an ending, in which there is renewal. But a mind which is continuous cannot know the unknown; it can only know the known, because it can only act and move in the known, which is the continuous. Therefore, the known, the continuous, is always in fear of the unknown, of death, in which alone there is renewal. In ending there is renewal, not in continuity. So, the unknown can never be known through the continuous. Therefore, death remains a mystery, because we are approaching it all the time through the known, through the continuous. If you can end this continuity from day to day, from moment to moment, you will see there is a renewal; there is death, in which there is renewal. Death, then, is not a thing to be feared; for in ending there is rebirth, and in continuity there is decay, there is disintegration. Think it out, Sirs, and you will see the beauty of it, the truth of it. It is not a theory, but a fact. That which has an ending, has a rebirth; that which is continuous can never know renewal. Death is the unknown, and that which is continuous is the known. The continuous can never know the unknown, and therefore it is afraid, mystified by the unknown. Immortality is not the `I' continued. The `I' is of time, it is the result of time. That which is immortal is beyond time. Therefore, there is no relationship between the `I', and the timeless. We like to think so, but that is another deception of the mind. That which is immortal cannot be encased in the mortal, it cannot be caught in the net of time. Only when the `I', which is continuity, time, comes to an end, is there that state which is imperishable, immortal. After all, we are frightened of death from force of habit, because desire seeks continuity in fulfilment. But fulfilment has no end, because fulfilment is constantly seeking other forms of fulfilment. Desire is constantly seeking further objects of fulfilment, and therefore gives birth to continuity, which is time. But if each desire is understood as it arises, and so comes to an end, then there is a renewal. It may be the renewal of a new desire - it doesn't matter. Go on finishing, give each desire an ending, and you will see that out of this ending from moment to moment there comes a renewal which is not the renewal of desire, but the renewal of truth. And truth is not continuous; truth is a state of being which is timeless. That state can be experienced only when each desire, which gives birth to continuity, is understood and thereby brought to an end. The known cannot know the unknown. The mind, which is the result of the known, of the past, which is founded upon the past, cannot know the immeasurable, the timeless. The mind, the thought process, must come to an end; then that which is the unknowable, the immeasurable, the eternal, comes into being.
Question: I have plenty of money. Can you tell me what is the right use of money? Only don't ask me to squander it by distributing coppers to the poor. Money is a tool to work with, not just a nuisance to be got rid of.
Krishnamurti: Sir, first, how do you have money? How do you ac- cumulate money? Obviously, through exploitation, through cruelty, through barbarity. In the modern world, in which man is out for himself, obviously he must be clever, cunning, dishonest, ruthless, to accumulate money. Don't let us fool ourselves with all this; to be rich implies cruelty. Sir, don't you know that the rich man cannot enter the kingdom of heaven? It is as difficult for him as for the camel to pass through the eye of a needle. When you have accumulated money, what happens? You want to know how to use it; either you become a philanthropist, or you want to use it rightly. That is, you accumulate money wrongly, and then try to use it rightly. (Laughter.) Sirs, this is not a laughable matter. This is what we are doing. Don't laugh at the rich. You want to be rich too. You accumulate, and then want to know how to use money rightly. How can it be done, Sir?
But suppose I have been left money - thank God, I haven't - , suppose I have been left some money. What shall I do with it? What am I to do after getting money, how shall I use it? That is the problem. Shall I give it all away to the poor and become poor also, and be dependent on somebody else? Shall I keep a little, and give the rest away? Shall I use it as a right means to a right end? Shall I become a trustee of it? So, my problem is, having acquired or been left with that thing which is called money, what shall I do with it? Sir, it all depends on your heart, not on your mind; and a mind that has accumulated money is not a generous mind. It is a hard mind, and such a mind cannot deal with that which is material, except on its own level. Therefore, only a heart that knows love can solve this problem, not the mind, not a system. If you have love in your heart, you will know what to do with money - whether to give it all away, because you see it is a nuisance, or to act otherwise, according to the dictates of your heart. But to know the prompting of an affectionate heart is very difficult, especially for those who are rich, because you have never thought in those terms of action. You have always been accustomed to ruthlessness, to hardness; and to look at the problem with affectionate consideration is very difficult. So, more important than money, is love; and when you have money without love, then woe to you. Having money, and realizing that your heart is empty, the problem then is not money, but to awaken the spring, the perfume, the beauty of the heart; and when that is awakened, you will know how to act. Without love, merely to become a philanthropist is another form of exploitation. When there is love, then love will show the way to the rich man and also to the poor man. Because, Sir, love is the solvent; love is the only way out of this contradiction of being rich and knowing what to do with the riches. Without love, mere consideration of what to do with wealth becomes another form of escape from our own misery, our own strife, our own emptiness.
Question: I am a writer, and am faced with periods of sterility when nothing seems to come. These periods begin and end without any apparent reason. What is the cause and cure?
Krishnamurti: That is, Sir, to put the problem differently, there are moments of creativeness, and moments of dullness; moments of sensitivity, and moments of insensitivity. Now, why is there this gap? Why is there not one constant stretch of creativeness? Why is there not constant sensitivity? Obviously, the problem is not how to be creative all the time, but why there is insensitivity. The creative state comes into being, it cannot be invited, it cannot be held by concentration, it cannot be maintained. What we can deal with is insensitivity, those moments of dullness, those moments of uncreativeness. Now, why do they come into being? Why is there no creativeness, why is there insensitivity? Obviously, because we are doing things, thinking things, feeling things, which are in themselves insensitive. How can there be greed, ruthlessness, crudeness, and yet be sensitivity? I write a book. It becomes popular, it is accepted by one of the Hollywood studios, and I have plenty of money. I have lost sensitivity because I am after money, position; or I want to be elected to Parliament as a member of some party. So, obviously, greed brings about insensitivity; and without tackling the causes of insensitivity, we cling to creativeness, we long for creativeness, which is another escape from what is. From the moment I understand and tackle what is, there comes creative being; when I understand what are the many causes that bring about insensitivity and dullness, and liberate thought from those, then there is a creative state.
So, the problem is, first of all, to recognize, to be aware of insensitivity, and of its cause - not to probe into it, but to be passively aware of your insensitivity. That is, Sir, be passively aware of it, recognize it, live with it without contradiction, without denial, without condemnation. In that state of passive awareness, you will see that the cause of dullness is revealed; and when the cause is revealed, there is immediately the state of sensitivity. You can experiment with it and you will see. There is the state of dullness, and you are aware of it. The moment you are passively aware of it, there is a pause, there is a period in which there is no contradiction, no condemnation. Then, in that period, if you don't condemn, the unconscious which holds the cause, is shown; and by being passively aware, the cause and the effect are destroyed. Therefore, there is a state of sensitivity. You don't have to accept my word for it. You can experiment with it, and you will see this actually takes place. If there is passive awareness in which the dullness is perceived, and immediately after the perception there is a period of silence without condemnation, then in that period of observation without condemnation, the cause of insensitivity, of dullness, is revealed. The truth of that perception frees the mind from insensitivity. Therefore, there is a state of creativeness. But, unfortunately, the writer, the painter, the sculptor, has to live. He is not merely satisfied with the beauty of the marble, with the expression of beauty, with the garland of words. He wants a result, he wants cash, he wants food, clothing and shelter. If he merely wanted clothing, food and shelter, then it would be comparatively simple. But he uses food, clothing and shelter as a psychological means to expand himself; his art, his writing, becomes a means of self-expansion, and thereby brings about strife, misery, that dullness which prevents creative being. But if I write a book, though it may be a means of livelihood, if I do not use it as a psychological process of self-expansion, then there can never be a moment of dullness. Then there is a constant renewal, because I am not asking anything; then the `I' is absent. Where there is the absence of the `I', there is no continuity, therefore there is constant ending; therefore there is renewal, there is eternal creation. Question: Is not the direct effect of your person helpful in understanding your teachings? Do we not grasp better the teaching when we love the teacher?
Krishnamurti: No Sir. You understand better when you love people, when you love your neighbour, not the teacher. When you love your wife, your child, your neighbour, white or brown - for there is no class distinction in love - , when there is a perfume, a song in your heart, then it brings an understanding. Obviously, when you are listening to me, my explaining does help; because I am making myself very clear, and you are listening attentively. You are being forced to listen for a couple of hours, whether you like it or not. You are giving your mind and heart to find out; you would not come here if you didn't want to find out. Therefore, it is mutual. You are seeking, and I am helping. But if you were not seeking, you would not be here, you would not listen to me. Surely, Sir, when a person understands something clearly, and you talk to that person, your own mind becomes clear. But if you make of that person your guru and love him, if you merely love the teacher, then you will have contempt for your servant. Have you not noticed, Sirs, how very respectful you are to me, and how very cruel you are to your servant, to your wife, to your neighbours? Is that not a state of contradiction? I really don't care whether you are respectful or insolent to me; it doesn't matter much. But it matters an awful lot how you treat your wife, your servant. When you respect one and deny that respect to everybody else, then you are in a state of hypocrisy, and such respect, offered to one and denied to others, can never lead you to truth. What brings understanding is respect for man, the love of man. When your own heart is full, then you look for truth everywhere, then you listen to the song of the birds, to the raindrops, you see the smiles, the sorrows of man. In every leaf, in a dead leaf, there is that which is eternal; but we do not know how to look for it because our minds are so full of other things besides this search.
So, mere respect for one is of very little significance when you have no respect for everyone - respect being affection, kindliness, consideration; but when there is love, consideration, generosity, causing no enmity, then you are already very near. Then you are in a state of sensitivity, and that which is sensitive is capable of receiving. You cannot go to truth, you cannot go to the unknown; truth, the unknown, must come to you. But it cannot come to you if your mind is burdened, heavy, forced, ruthless, hard. So, in listening to me, if you are merely being stimulated through hearing, then it will have no significance, because all stimulation is sensual. It can have significance only in your daily action, in your relationships with people, with ideas, and with things. Then you will find out, Sir, whether any of these things have meaning - not by listening to me for a couple of hours. What matters is how you are with your servant, with your wife, with your husband, with your neighbour; because, the moment there is thought, an awakened, intelligent enquiry, then there is devotion; for the very search for truth is devotion. And where there is devotion, where there is love, there is understanding.
Bombay, India. Public Talk 21st March, 1948
I think I will answer questions mostly this evening, but before I do so I would like to make one or two remarks. Next Sunday will be the last talk, and there will be no talks thereafter. The discussions will end on the 28th.There is a tendency, I think, especially among those who have read a great deal and have experienced according to their reading, to translate what I say in terms of their old knowledge. It is like putting new wine in old bottles. When one puts new wine in old bottles, the new wine ferments and breaks the bottle. That is generally what happens. Similarly, perhaps, those who have read along a particular line are apt to translate what I say according to their previous knowledge, and I think it is a mistake merely to translate or put into the old language what one hears. Because, merely to translate what you hear into old terminologies does not bring about understanding. It makes one classify, pigeonhole what one hears, which really prevents understanding. What brings understanding is direct comprehension - not comprehension through the old language, the old terminology, the old words, with their specific meanings. So, if I may suggest, it will be beneficial and worthwhile to listen and comprehend directly, without translating what is said into your particular terminology of usage of words. Most of us have accumulated knowledge, and according to that knowledge, we act. But self-knowledge is different; self-knowledge is not accumulative, residual knowledge, but it demands constant alertness, watchfulness. The moment we accumulate knowledge, it becomes a burden; and where there is a burden, a weight, travelling becomes impossible or very difficult. Whereas, self-knowledge, the knowledge of the whole total process of oneself, does not demand any previous knowledge at all. On the contrary, where there is previous knowledge, there is bound to be misunderstanding, misinterpretation, and mistranslation. It is like taking a journey: as you proceed, you begin to understand the country, the scenery. Or, you dig a well, and drink the waters of that well. Similarly, self-knowledge is not accumulative, it is a constant movement, it is knowledge from moment to moment, always living, always a discovery, always creative. It is only when there is accumulation, when there are residual remains which become memory, that knowledge is an impediment to creative living, creative being. After all, the knowledge that we have is technical, is it not? We do not accumulate knowledge about ourselves. If we do, it is the memory of what other people have said, or what we have learnt in books, or it is a repetition of words, merely the hearsay of another. Very few of us have self-knowledge, the knowledge of what one actually is. Most of us live superficially. It may be likened to an iceberg: only one tenth of it shows on the surface, the rest is below the water. Similarly, we live one-tenth on the surface, and we are very agitated; our activities, our social, political, religious existence, is all on the surface. We never go below and enquire into the depths, where most of our existence really is. But to enquire deeply, profoundly, there must be this constant discovery. First, obviously, there must be the knowledge of our superficial daily actions, daily thoughts, daily feelings. When those are understood, then one can penetrate deeper and deeper into that total process which is the `I', the `you'. And that discovery does not demand previous knowledge; on the contrary, previous knowledge becomes a hindrance. The more you dig, the more you understand, and the art of understanding does not lie in accumulation, in memory. Surely, understanding comes from moment to moment, when the mind is fresh, pliable, alert, passive. In that state, understanding comes silently and swiftly - or slowly, depending on the pliability, the sensitivity, the quickness of the mind.
So, self-knowledge is not knowledge which is accumulated. Where there is accumulation, there cannot be discovery and therefore right thinking, true thinking, which is from moment to moment. True action is from moment to moment, not disciplined according to a pattern, an example, or according to an ideal with an end or a result in view. If you will experiment with this, you will discover that self-knowledge is a constant renewal, not an end to be gained or achieved. It is a constant movement in the journey of self-discovery. The deeper, the more swiftly, the mind is able to penetrate, the more it is capable of discovery, and the more there is bliss, there is joy, in that discovery.
I have several questions, and I will answer as many of them as possible.
Question: What is it that comes when nationalism goes?
Krishnamurti: Obviously, intelligence. But I am afraid that is not the implication in this question. The implication is, what can be substituted for nationalism? Any substitution is an act which does not bring intelligence. If I leave one religion and join another, or leave one political party and later on join something else, this constant substitution indicates a state in which there is no intelligence,
Now, how does nationalism go? Only by understanding its full implications, by examining it, by being aware of its significance in outward and inward action. Outwardly it brings about divisions between people, classifications, wars and destruction, which is obvious to anyone who is observant. Inwardly, psychologically, this identification with the greater, with the country, with an idea, is obviously a form of self-expansion. That is, living in a little village, or a big town, or whatever it be, I am nobody; but if I identify myself with the larger, with the country, if I call myself a Hindu, it flatters my vanity, it gives me gratification, prestige, a sense of well being; and that identification with the larger, which is a psychological necessity for those who feel that self-expansion is essential, also creates conflict, strife, between people. So, nationalism not only creates outward conflict, but inward frustrations; and when one understands nationalism, the whole process of nationalism, it falls away. The understanding of nationalism comes through intelligence. That is, by carefully observing, by probing into the whole process of nationalism, patriotism, out of that examination comes intelligence, and then there is no substitution of something else for nationalism. The moment you substitute religion for nationalism, religion becomes another means of self expansion, another source of psychological anxiety, a means of feeding oneself through a belief. Therefore, any form of substitution, however noble, is a form of ignorance. It is like a man substituting chewing gum, or betel nut, or whatever it is, for smoking. Whereas, if one really understands the whole problem of smoking, of habits, sensations, psychological demands, and all the rest of it, then smoking drops away. You can understand only when there is a development of in- telligence, when intelligence is functioning; and intelligence is not functioning when there is substitution. Substitution is merely a form of self-bribery, to tempt you not to do this but to do that. Nationalism, with its poison, with its misery and world strife, can disappear only when there is intelligence, and intelligence does not come merely by passing examinations and studying books. Intelligence comes into being when we understand problems as they arise. When there is understanding of the problem at its different levels, not only of the outward part, but of its inward, psychological implications, then, in that process, intelligence comes into being. So, when there is intelligence, there is no substitution; and when there is intelligence, then nationalism, patriotism, which is a form of stupidity, disappears.
Question: What is the difference between awareness and introspection? And who is aware in awareness?
Krishnamurti: Let us first examine what we mean by introspection. We mean by introspection, looking within oneself, examining oneself. Now, why does one examine oneself? In order to improve, in order to change, in order to modify. That is, you introspect in order to become something, otherwise you would not indulge in introspection. You would not examine yourself if there were not the desire to modify, change, to become something other than what you are. Surely, that is the obvious reason for introspection. I am angry, and I introspect, examine myself, in order to get rid of anger, or to modify or change anger. Now, where there is introspection, which is the desire to modify or change the responses, the reactions of the self, there is always an end in view; and when that end is not achieved, there is moodiness, depression. So, introspection invariably goes with depression. I don't know if you have noticed that when you introspect, when you look into yourself in order to change yourself, there is always a wave of depression. There is always a moody wave which you have to battle against; you have to examine yourself again in order to overcome that mood, and so on. Introspection is a process in which there is no release, because it is a process of transforming what is into something which it is not. Obviously, that is exactly what is taking place when we introspect, when we indulge in that peculiar action. In that action, there is always an accumulative process, the `I' examining something in order to change it. So, there is always a dualistic conflict, and therefore a process of frustration. There is never a release; and realizing that frustration, there is depression.
Now, awareness is entirely different. Awareness is observation without condemnation. Awareness brings understanding, because there is no condemnation or identification, but silent observation. Surely, if I want to understand something, I must observe, I must not criticize, I must not condemn, I must not pursue it as pleasure or avoid it as non-pleasure. There must merely be the silent observation of a fact. There is no end in view, but awareness of everything as it arises. That observation and the understanding of that observation cease when there is condemnation, identification, or justification. Introspection is self-improvement, and therefore introspection is self-centredness. Awareness is not self-improvement. On the contrary, it is the ending of the self, of the `I', with all its peculiar idiosyncrasies, memories, demands and pursuits. In introspection, there is identification and condemnation. In awareness, there is no condemnation or identification; therefore, there is no self-improvement. There is a vast difference between the two. The man who wants to improve himself can never be aware, because improvement implies condemnation and the achievement of a result. Whereas, in awareness, there is observation without condemnation, without denial or acceptance. That awareness begins with outward things, being aware, being in contact with objects, with nature. First, there is awareness of things about one, being sensitive to objects, to nature, then to people, which means relationship, and then there is awareness of ideas. This awareness, being sensitive to things, to nature, to people, to ideas, is not made up of separate processes, but is one unitary process. It is a constant observation of everything, of every thought and feeling and action as they arise within oneself. And as awareness is not condemnatory, there is no accumulation. You condemn only when you have a standard, which means there is accumulation, and therefore improvement of the self. Awareness is to understand the activities of the self, the `I', in its relationship with people, with ideas, and with things. That awareness is from moment to moment, and therefore it cannot be practiced. When you practise a thing, it becomes a habit; and awareness is not habit. A mind that is habitual is insensitive, a mind that is functioning within the groove of a particular action is dull, unplayable; whereas, awareness demands constant pliability, alertness. This is not difficult. It is what you all do when you are interested in something, when you are interested in watching your child, your wife, your plants, trees, birds. You observe without condemnation, without identification; therefore, in that observation, there is complete communion, the observer and the observed are completely in communion. This actually takes place when you are deeply, profoundly interested in something. So, there is a vast difference between awareness, and the self-expansive improvement of introspection. The one, which is introspection, leads to frustration, to further and greater conflict; whereas, awareness is a process of release from the action of the self; it is to be aware of your daily movements, of your thoughts, of your actions, and to be aware of another, to observe him. You can do that only when you love somebody, when you are deeply interested in something; and when I want to know myself, my whole being, the whole content of myself and not just one or two layers, then there obviously must be no condemnation. Then I must be open to every thought, to every feeling, to all the moods, to all the suppressions; and as there is more and more expansive awareness, there is greater and greater freedom from all the hidden movement of thoughts, motives and pursuits. So, awareness is freedom, it brings freedom, it yields freedom. Whereas, introspection cultivates conflict, the process of self-enclosure; therefore in it there is always frustration and fear.
The questioner also wants to know who is aware. Now, when you have a profound experience of any kind, what is taking place? When there is such an experience, are you aware that you are experiencing? When you are angry, at the split second of anger or of jealousy or of joy, are you aware that you are joyous or that you are angry? It is only when the experience is over that there is the experiencer and the experienced. Then the experiencer observes the experienced, the object of experience. But at the moment of experi- ence, there is neither the observer nor the observed: there is only the experiencing. Now, most of us are not experiencing. We are always outside the state of experiencing, and therefore we ask this question as to who is the observer, who is it that is aware. Surely, such a question is a wrong question, is it not? The moment there is experiencing, there is neither the person who is aware nor the object of which he is aware. There is neither the observer nor the observed, but only a state of experiencing. Most of us find it is extremely difficult to live in a state of experiencing, because that demands an extraordinary pliability, a quickness, a high degree of sensitivity; and that is denied when we are pursuing a result, when we want to succeed, when we have an end in view, when we are calculating - all of which brings frustration. But a man who does not demand anything, who is not seeking an end, who is not searching out a result with all its implications, such a man is in a state of constant experiencing. Everything then has a movement, a meaning, and nothing is old; nothing is charred, nothing is repetitive, because what is, is never old. The challenge is always new. It is only the response to the challenge that is old; and the old creates further residue, which is memory, the observer, who separates himself from the observed, from the challenge, from the experience. You can experiment with this for yourself very simply and very easily. Next time you are angry or jealous or greedy or violent or whatever it be, watch yourself. In that state, `you' are not. There is only that state of being. But the moment, the second afterwards, you term it, you name it, you call it jealousy, anger, greed. So, you have created immediately the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experienced. When there is the experiencer and the experienced, then the experiencer tries to modify the experience, change it, remember things about it, and so on, and therefore maintains the division between himself and the experienced. But if you don't name that feeling - which means, you are not seeking a result, you are not condemning, you are merely silently aware of the feeling - , then you will see that in that state of feeling, of experiencing there is no observer and no observed; because, the observer and the observed are a joint phenomenon, and there is only experiencing. So, introspection and awareness are entirely different. Introspection leads to frustration, to further conflict, for in it is implied the desire for change, and change is merely a modified continuity. Whereas, awareness is a state in which there is no condemnation, no justification or identification, and therefore there is understanding; and in that state of passive, alert awareness, there is neither the experiencer nor the experienced.
Sir, what I am saying is not very difficult, though you may find it verbally difficult. But you will notice, when you yourself are interested in something very gravely and very deeply, this actually takes place. You are so completely submerged in the thing in which you are interested that there is no exclusion, no concentration. Introspection, which is a form of self-improvement, of self-expansion, can never lead to truth, because it is always a process of self-enclosure; whereas, awareness is a state in which truth can come into being, the truth of what is, the simple truth of daily existence. It is only when we understand the truth of daily existence that we can go far. You must begin near to go far; but most of us want to jump, to begin far without understanding what is close. As we under- stand the near, we will find the distance between the near and the far is not. There is no distance - the beginning and the end are one.
Question: Is marriage a need or a luxury?
Krishnamurti: Now, let us examine the problem, the question. Why do we marry? First, obviously, because of biological necessity, the sexual urge, which society has legalized by marriage. Society wants to protect the children and not have them illegitimate, because it looks upon illegitimate children with horror. Therefore, marriage is legalized. But surely, that is not the only reason why we marry. We marry because of psychological demands. I need a companion, somebody I can posses, dominate, somebody I can call mine. I can do with my wife what I like, she is subordinate to man - in this country, not in America. Here, the marriage system has made the woman a slave, to be protected, controlled, dominated, possessed. Don't look at somebody else, Sirs; you are all involved in it. Woman is a possession; as I possess property, so I possess my wife. I possess her sexually and dominate her outwardly. Psychologically, possession gives me comfort, security: my property, my wife, my children - the horror of it all. We treat human beings as we treat material goods, without any consideration; because, once I possess you legally, you are under me. So, society legalizes marriage in order to perpetuate the race, to hold it within limits; but psychologically, inwardly, I can do what I like. And you know the whole business of existence, the horrors, the agonies, the miseries, of those who are married and who don't love each other. How can there be love when there is possessiveness? And if you don't marry, what happens? I have seen that in several countries; there is what is called companionate marriage. Don't look shocked. Again, if there is no love, companionate marriage becomes an easy way out for your sexual appetite and irresponsibility. So, without love, both are a horror. But society does not care two pins whether there is love or not; and as most of us are so concentrated, so engrossed in our business life, in making money or whatever it be, as we are ruthless in our business and cruel in the world, how can we possibly have love for anyone at home? You cannot on the one hand exploit your neighbour, starve him out, suck the blood out of him, and then go home and have affection for your wife. No, Sirs, you cannot do both. But that is what you are trying to do, and that is why you have no love. That is why marriage throughout the world is such a miserable affair.
Marriage is also a form of self-perpetuation. I want continuity through my children. Therefore, children become very important, not in themselves, but for my own continuity - my name, my class, my caste. You know the whole business. And naturally, when you are merely using children for your own continuity, there is no love. How can there be when you are more interested in your own continuity through them, than in loving them, whatever they are? Therefore, tradition and name become very important, because they are the means of perpetuating yourself through your children.
So, to understand this problem, to find out what it involves, we must study it, go into it. In studying there comes intelligence, and only intelligence and love can deal with this problem, not legislation. The moment I possess a person, he becomes a prostitute; that is, the per- son becomes important, not for himself, but because in myself I am empty, starving, ugly, I am insufficient, poor, so I use another - my wife, my employer, or whoever it be - to cover my inward emptiness. Therefore, the possessed becomes important as a means of escape from my own loneliness; and naturally I grow jealous, envious, when the other, who is helping me to escape from myself, looks at somebody else. So to understand all this human process, which is extremely complex and subtle, one must have intelligence. Intelligence is also love, not mere intellect; and we cannot have love if, on the one hand, we are ruthless in our business, in everyday life, and on the other, try to be gentle, tender and merciful. You cannot do both, you cannot be an ambitious rich man and yet be loving and tender. You cannot be a captain of industry, or a big politician, and yet be merciful. The two don't go together. And it is only when there is love, mercy - which is intelligence, the highest form of intelligence - that this problem can be solved. We are human beings, whether men or women; we are alive, sensitive, we are not doormats to be trampled upon, used sexually or mentally for self-gratification. The moment we regard each other as human beings, as individuals, not as something to be possessed, then there is a possibility of understanding and of going beyond this conflict that exists between two people in marriage,
Question: Who is he that feeds you if not an exploiter? How are you free from exploitation, since you exploit an exploiter?
Krishnamurti: Now, what do we mean by exploitation? Obviously, using another for one's own gratification, which is principally psychological. When I use another psychologically, then I am really exploiting him; and most of our exploitation in the world - the rich exploiting the poor, the leader exploiting the led, the follower exploiting the leader, and so on - is essentially based on inward demands, on psychological poverty of being. There will be no outward exploitation of man by man when there is a cessation of the inner and entirely psychological demand to use another - whether it be your wife, a labourer, or the man in the office - as a means to enrich yourself. After all, you gather money, prestige, as a means of self-expansion; but you are content with little, with the necessities of life, when you are inwardly rich, when you don't depend upon another as a means of covering up your own psychological demands and emptiness. So, exploitation obviously begins when we use another psychologically as a means of self expansion.
Now, the questioner asks me if I am not exploiting the exploiter. I don't think I am. I am fed by him, as I would be if I went out and earned money. I am not using him as a psychological necessity, nor am I using you, the audience, the individual, in order to expand myself. Therefore, I am not your leader and you are not my follower. I don't need you psychologically, and I have tested this out for myself by not getting on a platform and by ceasing to talk. So, as I would go out and earn money for my needs, I am talking; and for that I am clothed and fed. But as society is constructed at the present time, its whole structure is based on exploitation, which is using another psychologically as a means of self-expansion; and there are only a very few thoughtful people who don't care to use another as a means of self-expansion, and who therefore cease to exploit. Surely, exploitation means far more than exploiting the labourer. The basis of all exploitation is the psychological demand to use another as a means of self-expansion, as a means of aggression and self-perpetuation. So, where there is no self-expansion, where there is not the use of another psychologically, there is no exploitation. That means you are content with little, not because of an ideal, but because inwardly there is a treasure, there is beauty, ecstasy. But without that inward simplicity, merely to don a loin cloth means nothing; because, you may outwardly have but one cloth, while inwardly you are using and therefore exploiting people. We give so much importance to outward exploitation; the communist, the socialist, everybody is trying to stop outward exploitation. It does not mean that that is wrong; but we should attack the inward causes of exploitation, which are much more complex, much more subtle, and that cannot be done through mere legislation. That is why it is very important for the individual to transform himself. And the transformation of the individual, you and me, is not a question of time. It must be done now. Because, when you transform yourself, the world will be transformed. The world is the place where you live, it is your relationships, your values; and it can be affected immediately when there is a deep, inward revolution in you. And this inward revolution can take place only when you as an individual are not using another for your self-expansion, for your gratification, for your comfort.
Question: Is not stilling the mind a prerequisite for the solution of a problem, and is not the dissolution of a problem a condition of mental stillness?
Krishnamurti: There are two questions involved in this, so we will take them one by one. "Is not stilling the mind a prerequisite for the solution of a problem?" It all depends on what you call the mind. The mind is not just the superficial layer; consciousness is not merely that dull action of the mind. Obviously, when there is a problem which is created by the superficial mind, the superficial mind has to become quiet in order to understand it. You do that anyhow, it happens in daily life. When you have a business problem, what do you do? You switch off the telephone, you stop your secretary if you have one, and you observe, study the problem - which means your mind is free from other worries. Your superficial mind is concerned with the problem, which means that it has become still. But the superficial mind does not include the whole content of the mind. Your whole consciousness has not become still; only the superficial layer, which is constantly in agitation, has become temporarily quiet.
"And is not the dissolution of a problem a condition of mental stillness?" Obviously. It is only when every problem is completely understood - which means that the problem leaves no residue, no scar, no memory - that the mind becomes still. Consciousness, as we have said, is a process of experiencing, naming or terming, and recording, which is memory. So, consciousness is a process of challenge and response, naming and recording, or memory. That is the whole process of consciousness. The recording, the naming, the experiencing, can be suppressed, held down in one of the deep layers of consciousness; but until that suppression is raised, either through dreams, through action, or through unearthing that hidden thing, there cannot be stillness of the mind. A mind which has many hidden drawers, hidden cupboards with innumerable skeletons held down by will, by denial, by suppression, how can such a mind be still? It can be driven, willed to be still; but is that stillness? A man who is hanging on to passion, who is lustful and has suppressed it, held it down, how can such a man have a calm, still, rich mind? A man who is tortured by ambition and therefore frustrated, and who tries to fly from that frustration through every means of escape, how can such a man have a still mind? It is only when ambition is understood, when the problems of ambition, with its frustrations, with its conflicts, with its ruthlessness, have been understood, that the mind becomes quiet. By looking into oneself deeply, opening all the cupboards, all the drawers, unearthing all the skeletons and understanding them, then the mind becomes quiet. You cannot have stillness of mind with locked doors. You may still the mind by will, which is an easy escape; but a mind that is made still by the action of will is a dead mind, it is insensitive, it has been brutalized by the action of the will. It is only by giving full freedom to every movement of thought and understanding it - which does not mean licentiousness, evil actions, and so on - , only by understanding the whole content of your being, that the mind becomes still. Then it is not made still; tranquillity comes to it naturally, easily, swiftly. It is like a pond which becomes serene, without a ripple, when the breezes stop. Similarly, the mind becomes extraordinarily quiet, without a movement, absolutely still, when the problems are dissolved.
Now, problems are created by the thinker separating himself from his thought, the actor from his action, thereby giving importance to the actor, to the thinker. And stillness comes to the mind only through self-knowledge - not through denial of the self or acceptance of the self, but through understanding every movement, every thought, every feeling of the self, both the high and the low. The high and the low is a false division the mind has indulged in. There is only thought, which divides itself as the high and the low; and to understand thought, the whole process of thought, one must have self-knowledge. That means every thought must be understood, felt out, without condemnation. There must be silent, swift awareness; and out of that self-knowledge there comes an extraordinary quietness, a stillness that is creative, a stillness in which reality comes into being. But to pursue stillness and to cultivate stillness destroys that creative reality, because you are pursuing stillness, exercising your will to become still. as a means of getting a result, of obtaining something. A man who is seeking a result, an end, who is trying to acquire truth by forcing the mind, by making it still, will never find that reality. He is only dulling himself, escaping from the cupboards, from the skeletons that are holding him. It is only by inviting sorrow that you can understand reality, not by escaping from tribulations.
Question: Since the motive power in the search for truth is interest, what creates interest? What creates interest in a relevant question? Is it suffering?
Krishnamurti: Obviously, where there is no interest, there is no search. Where there is no interest, there may be control, domination, effort; but there is search, enquiry, only where there is interest. That very search is devotion. Devotion is not a separate path to reality. Where there is search, there is action; and there is no separate path of karma yoga. Because, where there is enquiry, there is action, and that very search brings wisdom. So, interest is essential; and how does interest come into being? Interest comes into being, obviously, when you are suffering, when you want to know what are the causes of suffering because you are caught in it, or because you see another caught in it. Surely, there is no other way but the way of sorrow. But when you suffer, you seek remedies, palliatives, escapes, gurus, which dissipates your enquiry into suffering. When you are worried, when you are suffering, your instinct is to run away from it, to take flight from it, to seek a verbal explanation or any other means to get away from it. Whereas, if you observe suffering without escaping, without condemning it - which is extremely arduous - , then you will find that it begins to tell you extraordinary things, it begins to reveal untold treasures. So, your difficulty is not that you don't suffer, but that you dissipate your energies in trying to overcome suffering. What is overcome has to be overcome again and again, and therefore you go on suffering. Suffering does not lead to intelligence when you try to overcome it; whereas, if you begin to understand it, then it leads you to intelligence. And if you examine is yourself, you will see that when there is suffering you want a hand to hold you, a guru to tell you what to do; or you turn on the radio, you escape to the cinema or the racecourse, or you do innumerable things - you pray, you do puja, to get away from the suffering, from the actual throbbing pain. These are all means of dissipating your energies; but if you don't do any of them, what happens? There is suffering, and the paralysis of that suffering; then, in the silence of that suffering, when the mind is no longer escaping, you are living with suffering. You are not condemning it, you are not identifying yourself with it, therefore it begins to reveal its causes. You have not searched out its causes - to search out the cause of suffering is another form of escape. Whereas, if you are simply aware of suffering without condemnation, the cause of that suffering is revealed. Then suffering begins to unfold its story chapter by chapter, and you see all the implications; and the more you read the book of suffering, the greater the wisdom. Therefore, when you escape from suffering, you are really escaping from wisdom. Wisdom can be found in any sorrow; you don't have to have great crises. Wisdom is there for him who seeks, who does not shun, who does not escape, who does not take flight, but who is passively, alertly, aware of what is. In that alert, passive awareness, the full meaning of what is, is understood. When it is understood, truth comes into being; and it is truth that frees one from sorrow, it is truth that gives bliss, it is truth that gives freedom, and in that state, sorrow is completely dissolved. As sorrow is negative, sorrow must be approached negatively; any positive action towards sorrow is an escape. It is only through the highest form of thinking, which is negative thinking, that there is understanding; and where there is understanding, there is stillness, there is tranquillity. Then truth frees thought from all problems.
Bombay, India. Public Talk 28th March, 1948
As this is the last talk, I will try to make a brief resume of what we have all been discussing and talking about during the last three months. Natu- rally, it has to be rather concise and may perhaps be puzzling at first; but if you will kindly think it over, I believe certain things will be clear, even though others may need further explanation, more going into - which we have been trying to do during the discussions. But I think the obvious fact remains that most of us have many problems, many anxieties and conflicts, and we appear not to be able to solve them. I think it is because we don't see the picture clearly, we don't read the problem deeply and carefully, without prejudice, whatever it be - whether emotional, psychological, intellectual, social, or economic. The problem itself contains the answer; the answer is not away from the problem. Our whole question, then, is how to read the problem very clearly and swiftly, because the problem is never the same. It is constantly varying, moving, never still. It is like a swift-running river. And to understand such a problem, we must understand the creator of the problem, which is the mind, the self, the `I'. But most of us are made happy by things created by the hand or by the mind; we are content with things, produced either by the machine, or by ideation, by thought, by belief. But things made by the hand or by the mind are all sensate; they soon wear out and pass away, as by constant use a machine wears itself out. So, things made by the hand wear themselves out; and so do things produced by the mind - the idea, the opinion, the belief, the tenet. The value of these things made by the mind soon wears away, and so there is a constant struggle to maintain permanency in those things which are inherently impermanent. The things made by the hand are misused by the mind. Food, clothing, and shelter, are given wrong values by the mind; and a mind that gives wrong values creates misery. Our conflict, then, arises from the values which the mind establishes for the things made by the hand; and in their misuse lies our misery.So, the mind, which is the intellect, with its will and its capacity for evaluation, must be understood; because, as long as the mind is not understood, with its desires, with its pursuits and the capacity to evaluate according to its prejudices, notions, knowledge - as long as the mind is not understood, obviously there is conflict, there is misery. Will, after all, is the expression of desire, the outcome of craving, of the desire to be; and as long as that will - with the capacity to evaluate, which is the function of the intellect - is not gone into deeply, understood, and given its full significance, there is bound to be conflict, there is bound to be misery. So, if there is no understanding of will, of the intellect, and of the creations of the mind - which are not separate processes, but a total process - , there is bound to be conflict; and the understanding of the mind is self-knowledge. Self-knowledge makes one straight. What is crooked is the evaluer, the interpreter, the misuser, the corrupter, that is, the mind; and as long as there is no self-knowledge, which is awareness of the process of the mind, of the `I', there must be wrong evaluation of things made by the hand or by the mind, and therefore there must be conflict, misery. Self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom, and without self-knowledge there is no happiness.
So, in order to understand a problem, however complex it may appear, whether it is an economic, social, or psychological problem, one must be able to see it clearly, without distortion; but this is not possible as long as there is no self-knowledge. And self-knowledge cannot be realized as long as there is no meditation. Because, meditation is a process of continual revelation of every thought and every feeling; it is not the fixation on a particular picture or idea, but a constant awareness, a constant understanding of every thought, every feeling, as they arise. Meditation is not choosing one particular form and dwelling upon it, but it is a continual discovery of the meaning of every thought and of every feeling. To do this, there must be no condemnation. Our problem is sorrow, the sorrow that exists in relationship, the sorrow that comes through wrong valuation, the sorrow that comes through ignorance; and sorrow can be dissipated, dissolved, only when there is the unfolding of self-knowledge. That knowledge is not of the higher self or of the lower self - which is a division within the field of the mind, and therefore a false division, a self-protective division without any reality. Self-knowledge is awareness of the self without division; and as long as there is no self-knowledge, the multiplication and re-creation of our problems will continue. That is why the individual is enormously significant. For he is the only transformer, he alone can bring about a revolution in his relationship, and therefore a revolution in the world, the world of his relationship. Only through self-knowledge can there be transformation, and this transformation cannot come into being through any miracle, through book learning, but only through constant experimentation, through constant discovery of the process of one's being. This process is a total process, and not a separative process. It is not in antagonism to the world, because the individual is a total process, he is a result of the world. Without the world, without the other, without relationship, the individual is not; and he who would be transformed and realize happiness cannot isolate himself. Only when there is constant discovery of the activities of the self, of the `I', with its cravings, anxieties, pursuits and false creations, only when there is complete understanding of the ways of the self, the hidden and the open workings of the mind - only then can there be happiness. Happiness comes not in evaluating, but when the mind is not occupied with itself, when the mind is silent, then happiness comes into being; and such a happy man can then resolve the problems about him.
Question: Why don't you do miracles? All teachers did.
Krishnamurti: What do you mean by miracles? Healing the physically sick, and those who are sick psychologically? Both these things have been done. Others have done it, and I also have done it. But surely that is not important, is it? To be healed psychologically is more important than to be healed physically, because psychological illness affects the body, which in turn brings about disease. Therefore, the psychological state of health is far more important than physical health - which does not mean that we must deny physical well-being; but mere concentration on physical health will not bring about psychological well being. Whereas, if there is a transformation in the psyche, in the mind, then that will inevitably effect the well-being of the physical. So, the miracle which we all want, which we are all waiting to see happen, is really a sign of laziness, of irresponsibility. We want somebody else to do the job for us. If I may talk about myself, I also at one time did healing; but I found it was far more important to heal the mind, the inward state of being. Because, when each one of us can find inward riches, then there will be an amelioration of physical ill health. Merely to concentrate on healing the outward may make for popularity, draw large groups, but it will not lead man to happiness. So, we should concentrate on healing the inward emptiness, the inward disease, the inward corruption, the inward distortion - and that can be done only by you. None can heal you inwardly, and that is the miracle of it. A doctor can heal you outwardly, a psychoanalyst can help you to be normal, to fit into society; but to go beyond that, which means to be really healthy, to be inwardly true, clear, wholly uncorrupted - that you alone can do, and no one else; and I think that to heal oneself completely and surely is the greatest miracle. That is what we have been doing here during the last three months: seeing for ourselves the causes of inward disease, inward conflict, inward contradiction, seeing things as they are, very clearly, purely and precisely; and when all things are seen clearly, then the miracle happens. Because, when that which is, is perceived without distortion, there is understanding; and that understanding brings a healing quality. But understanding can come only through your own individual awareness and not through the miracle of another, not through the impression, the influence, the compulsion, or the imposition of the idea of another. Surely, miracles do happen. They are happening all the time, only we are not aware of it. Physically and psychologically, inwardly as well as outwardly, you are not the same today as yesterday. The body is undergoing transformation all the time, and so is the inward nature, the mind; and if we can follow it easily and swiftly, then we will see what an extraordinary miracle is happening in us and about us - the miracle being the constant newness, the freshness of life, the infinite beauty, the pliability, the depth of existence. But one cannot follow swiftly if one is tethered, if one is bound, if one is ceaselessly occupied with one's own achievements, anxieties and pursuits. For a man who is ambitious, there is no miracle, because he knows what he wants and he achieves it; but the man who is uncertain, who asks nothing, to him life is a miracle, a miracle of constant renewal; and we shall miss that renewal if we are merely seeking a result, an end.
Question: You have said that some transformation has taken place in all your listeners. Presumably, they have to wait for the manifestations of that transformation. How then can you call it immediate?
Krishnamurti: Surely, as long as we are looking for transformation, there will be no transformation. As long as we think in terms of yesterday, today and tomorrow, there can obviously be no transformation, because the mind is still caught in the net of time. If I want to change immediately, now, if that is my intention, then it is not possible, because I am thinking in terms of time, of today and tomorrow. As long as we are thinking in terms of time, of the present and the future, there cannot be transformation, because then transformation is merely a change, a continuity; but the moment thought is free from time, then there is a timeless transformation which is not a contradiction. That is, as long as a problem is thought about, the problem will continue. Thought, which is the result of the past, creates the problem; and that which is the result of the past cannot resolve the problem. It can look at it, it can examine it, it can analyze it, but it cannot resolve the problem. The problem - any problem whether a mathematical problem, a problem of relationship, or a problem of ideation - is resolved only when the thought process comes to an end, only when the mind, which is thought, the result of many yesterdays, ceases. That which is the result of time cannot bring about transformation; and when it does, either there will be a change which is a modified continuity, or the problem will become more complex. Whereas, if there is passive awareness of the problem, observation of it without condemnation or justification, then you will see there is an immediate transformation, an immediate cessation of that problem. After all, when we talk about transformation, what do we mean? The cessation of a problem, surely. Why does a man want to be transformed? Because he is in misery, in conflict, because he has daily anxieties; and there can be transformation, resolution of the problem, only when the mind, the thinker who is the creator of that problem, understands himself - which means, when the thought process about a problem comes to an end. You do this always when there is an acute problem. You think about it, you worry about it, and thought can go no further; and you leave it. Then in that quietness the problem is understood and resolved, and in that moment there is immediate transformation. Sir, if you are aware of it, this is the process that we are going through daily, is it not? As a farmer cultivates the field in the spring, then sows and harvests, and lets the field lie fallow during the winter, so, if we are aware, we will see that the mind is cultivating, sowing, and harvesting; but, unfortunately, it never allows itself to lie fallow, and it is in that fallowness, as with the field, that there is renewal. As during the winter time, through rains, through storms, through sunshine, the field rejuvenates itself, so the mind re-creates and renews itself when every problem is dissolved. That is, by cultivating, by going fully deeply and completely into each problem, there is the death of that problem, and therefore a renewal. Experiment with this and you will see how extraordinarily quickly and easily every problem is resolved when it is seen very clearly, distinctly, and purely. But to see a problem very clearly, without distortion, you have to give your full attention to it - and that is where the difficulty lies. Our minds are constantly distracted, escaping, because to see a problem clearly might mean action which would bring about further disturbance; and so the mind constantly avoids facing the problem, thereby increasing that problem. But when the thing is seen very clearly, without distortion, then you will find that the problem itself has an answer.
So, as long as we think in terms of transformation, there cannot be transformation, either now or hereafter. Transformation comes into being immediately when every problem is understood as it arises, and the immediacy of that transformation depends on your understanding of the problem. You understand a problem only when there is no condemnation or justification, when you really look at it, when you can love the problem. Then you will see that that problem gives its answer, and therefore there is freedom; and at that moment of freedom there is a renewal, there is a transformation. The mind has renewed itself and is therefore free to attack the next problem that arises. Sir, life need not be a succession of problems. Life is a challenge and a response; the challenge is always new, and if the response is always conditioned by the old, then problems continue to arise. But if the response is as new as the challenge, then there is constant renewal, constant transformation; and the response is new only when thought, which is the product of memory - psychological, not factual memory - is understood and not stored up. Then the response is as new as the challenge, and therefore life is a constant movement, an effortless being in which there is bliss - not this constant struggle to become, to transform oneself into something.
Question: What are the foundations of right livelihood? How can I find out whether my livelihood is right, and how am I to find right livelihood in a basically wrong society?
Krishnamurti: In a basically wrong society, there cannot be right livelihood. What is happening throughout the world at the present time? Whatever livelihood we have brings us to war, to general misery and destruction - which is an obvious fact. Whatever we do inevitably leads to conflict, to decay, to ruthlessness and sorrow. So, the present society is basically wrong; it is founded, is it not?, on envy, hate, and the desire for power; and such a society is bound to create wrong means of livelihood, such as the soldier, the policeman, and the lawyer. By their very nature, they are a disintegrating factor in society, and the more lawyers, policemen, and soldiers there are, the more obvious the decay of society. That is what is happening throughout the world: there are more soldiers, more policemen, more lawyers, and naturally the business man goes with them. So, all that has to be changed in order to found a right society - and we think such a task is impossible. It is not, Sir; but it is you and I who have to do it. Because, at present, whatever livelihood we undertake either creates misery for another, or leads to the ultimate destruction of mankind - which is shown in our daily existence. So, how can that be changed? It can be changed only when you and I are not seeking power, are not envious, are not full of hatred and antagonism. When you, in your relationship, bring about that transformation, then you are helping to create a new society, a society in which there are people who are not held by tradition, who do not ask anything for themselves, who are not pursuing power because inwardly they are rich, they have found reality. Only the man who seeks reality can create a new society; only the man who loves can bring about a transformation in the world. I know this is not a satisfactory answer for a person who wants to find out what is the right livelihood in the present structure of society, You must do the best you can in the present structure of society - either become a photographer, a merchant, a lawyer, a policeman, or whatever it is. But if you do, be conscious of what you are doing, be intelligent, be aware, fully cognizant, of what you are perpetuating, recognize the whole structure of society, with its corruption, with its hatred, with its envy; and if you yourself do not yield to these things, then perhaps you will be able to create a new society. But the moment you ask what is right livelihood, all these questions are inevitably there, are they not? Because, you are not satisfied with your livelihood - you want to be envied, you want to have power, you want to have greater comforts and luxuries, position and authority, and therefore you are inevitably creating or maintaining a society which will bring destruction upon man, upon yourself. And if you clearly see that process of destruction in your own livelihood, if you see that it is the result of your own pursuit of livelihood, then obviously you will find the right means of earning money. But first you must see the picture of society as it is, a disintegrating, corrupted society; and when you see it very clearly, then your means of earning a livelihood will come. But first you must see the picture, see the world as it is, with its national divisions, with its cruelties, ambitions, hatreds and controls. Then, as you see it more clearly, you will find that a right means of livelihood comes into being - you don't have to seek it. But the difficulty with most of us is that we have too many responsibilities; fathers, mothers, are waiting for us to earn money and support them. And as it is difficult to get a job the way society is at the present time, any job is welcome; so we fall into the machinery of society. But those who are not so compelled, who have no need of an immediate job and can therefore look at the whole picture, it is they who are responsible. But, you see, those who are not concerned with an immediate job are caught up in something else - they are concerned with their self-expansion, with their comforts, with their luxuries, with their amusements. They have time, but are dissipating it. And those who have time are responsible for the alteration of society; those who are not immediately pressed for a livelihood should really concern themselves with this whole problem of existence, and not get entangled in mere political action, in superficial activities. Those who have time and so-called leisure should seek out truth, because it is they who can bring about a revolution in the world, not the man whose stomach is empty. But, unfortunately, those who have leisure are not occupied with the eternal. They are occupied in filling their time. Therefore, they also are a cause of misery and confusion in the world. So, those of you who are listening, those of you who have a little time, should give thought and consideration to this problem, and by your own transformation you will bring about a world revolution.
Question: How can a man who has never reached the limits of his mind go beyond his mind to experience direct communion with truth?
Krishnamurti: Sir when you know the limits of your mind, are you not already beyond the limits? To be aware of your limits is surely the first step, the first process - which is very difficult, because the limits of the mind are erroneously subtle. In knowing that I am limited, in being aware of it without condemnation, there is already a freedom from that limitation, is there not? Surely, to know that I am a liar, to be aware of it without condemnation, without justification, is already a freedom from lying. To know the limits of the mind is already a tremendous liberation, isn't it? To know that I am tethered to a belief is already freedom from that limitation; but a mind which justifies that belief, that bondage, defending it and saying, `It is alright, I need it', such a mind can never know its limitation. When I know that I am tethered, limited by a belief, and am aware of that limitation without condemnation or justification, that is already a liberation from belief. Sir, experiment with this and you will see how extraordinarily active, how extraordinarily true it is. To know, to beware of a problem, is to be free from it; and a mind cannot experience truth if it does not know its limitation. That is why it is very important to have self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is not an ultimate goal, it is not the ultimate end. Self-knowledge is knowing one's limitation from moment to moment, and therefore perceiving the truth from moment to moment. Truth which is continuous is not truth, because that which continues can never renew itself; but in ending, there is a renewal. So, a mind that is not aware of its own limitation can never experience truth; but if the mind is aware of its limitation without condemnation, without justification, if it is purely aware of its limitation, then you will find there comes a freedom from the limitation; and in that freedom, truth is realized. There is not `you' unified to truth: `you' can never find truth. `You' must cease for truth to come into being, because 'you' are the limitation. So, you must understand where you are limited, the extent of your limitation; you must be passively aware of it, and in that passivity truth comes into being. Light cannot be unified with darkness. That which is ignorance cannot become one with wisdom. Ignorance must cease for wisdom to be. Wisdom is not an ultimate end, but it comes into being when ignorance is dissolved from moment to moment. Wisdom is not an accumulation, which gives continuity; wisdom is understanding the problem completely each minute, each second. So, wisdom, reality, is not caught in the net of time. Only through self-knowledge can the limitations, which the self has created, come to an end, and these limitations can be understood only from moment to moment as they arise. And each limitation, as you observe it, brings the truth, each moment you see the false, the truth is perceived; but to see the false as the false, and the truth as truth, is difficult, is arduous; it demands clarity of perception. A mind that is distracted can never see the false as the false, and the true as the true; and to see the truth in the false requires a swiftness of mind, a mind that is not tethered to any bondage, to any limitation.
Question: Attachment is the stuff of which we are made. How can we be free from attachment?
Krishnamurti: Surely, attachment is not the problem, is it? Why are you attached, and why do you want to be detached? Why is there this constant strife between attachment and detachment? You know what is meant by attachment - the desire to possess a person, to possess things. Sir, why are you attached? What would happen if you were not attached? Surely, attachment becomes a problem only when there is the pursuit of detachment, only when that which is attached is not understood. Now, take an example. If you examine yourself, why are you attached to your wife, to your husband, to your money, to your house, to your property, to your ideas? Why? Because, without that person, you are lost, you are empty; without property, without a name, you are nothing; and without your bank account, without your ideas, what are you? An empty shell, arn't you? So, because you are afraid of being nothing, you are attached to something; and being attached - with all its problems, with its fears, with its cruelties, with its anxieties and frustrations - , you try to become detached, you try to renounce property, renounce your family, renounce your ideas. But you have not really solved the problem, which is the fear of being nothing - and that is why you are attached. After all, you are nothing. Strip yourself of your titles, of your M.A.'s, of your professions and little qualities, of your houses and properties, of your few jewels, and all the rest of it - and what are you? Knowing inwardly that there is an extraordinary emptiness, a void, a nothingness, and being afraid of it, you depend, you are attached, you possess; and in that possession, there is appalling cruelty. You are not concerned about another, you are only concerned about yourself - and that you call love. So, because you are afraid, because there is fear of that emptiness, you are willing to kill another, to destroy mankind. Now, why not accept the obvious, which is that you are nothing - not that you should be nothing, but that you are actually nothing? Sir, when you do accept it, there is no renunciation, neither attachment nor detachment. You simply don't possess - and then there is a beauty, then there is a richness, a blessing that you cannot possibly, understand as long as you are afraid of emptiness. Then life is full of significance, then life becomes really a miracle. But a man who is afraid of emptiness, of being nothing, is attached; and with attachment there arises the conflict of detachment, the conflict of renunciation, and all the appalling misery and cruelty that comes with attachment and dependence. A man who is nothing knows love, for love is nothing.
Question: Is extensional awareness the same as creative emptiness? Is not awareness passive and therefore not creative? Is not the process of self-awareness a tedious and painful process?
Krishnamurti: If awareness is practiced, made a habit, then it becomes painful and tedious; but awareness cannot be practiced, cannot be controlled, cannot be made into a conflict, a discipline - and that is the beauty of it. You are aware, or you are not aware. So, anything which is practiced becomes a boredom, tedious, painful, it means the exertion of will and effort, which creates distortion. Now, awareness is not that kind of thing at all. What is awareness, what is it to be aware? To be aware of things about you outwardly, of colour, of faces, of the sunset, of the shadows, of birds in flight, of the restless sea, of the trees in the wind - to be aware of all that is mere awareness of the superficial. You don't condemn a bird in flight, you merely observe it. But the moment you become aware of your inward nature, then you begin to condemn, you are incapable of looking at it without condemnation or justification. But to understand, there must be no condemnation or justification. So, to be aware, just to observe your thoughts, just to know what you are thinking and feeling without condemnation, without defence, without justification - surely, to be simply aware is not tedious, is not painful. But if you say, `I must be aware in order to get a result', then it becomes tedious. If you try to be aware in order to eradicate anger, jealousy, possessiveness, or whatever it be, then it becomes painful. Such awareness is not awareness. That is merely a process of introspection, trying to become something. In awareness, there is no becoming, but merely observation, a silent observation - as when you visit the cinema and see the film. Now, if you can observe, if you can be aware of yourself in action, in movement, without identification, then you will find that there is an extensional awareness. It begins, as I said, with superficial things. Then, as you go deeper and deeper, there is wide, extensional awareness. That awareness is necessary, because in that awareness all the hidden layers, all the hidden intimations, come into being. As there is deeper and wider, more extensional awareness, the intimations, the conflicts of the hidden, are dissolved; and then you will find there comes creative emptiness. This is all a total process, not a step-by-step process; because, in awareness, there is neither beginning nor ending. It is one whole process. The moment you observe a problem without condemnation, there is bound to be passive awareness; and when there is passive awareness, there is dissolution of the problem. That is, in passive awareness there is creative stillness, creative emptiness. Then, in that creative emptiness, reality comes into being, which dissolves the problem. So, where there is pain conflict, a tedious feeling, boredom, there is no awareness, but only a dull mind. Whereas, contrary to dullness, in awareness there is heightened sensitivity, and passive awareness is creative. The highest form of thinking is negative thinking; and when there is complete cessation of thought, when there is that passivity which is not a sleepy state, then there is creative being. I don't know if you have noticed that when the mind is full of problems, when the mind is full of thoughts, there is no creation. Only when the mind is empty, when the mind is still, when it has no problem, when it is alertly passive - only in that emptiness is there creation. Creation can only take place in negation, which is not the opposite of positive assertion. I am not using the word `negation' as the opposite of the positive. Being nothing is not the antithesis of being something. Being nothing is not related to being something. When the `being something' ceases completely, then there is nothingness. Only when all the problems which mind creates have ceased, when the mind is nothing, empty - which is not induced by discipline, by control - , only then does that passive, alert awareness come into being. And passivity must exist if a problem is to be dissolved. You can understand a problem only when you don't condemn it, when you don't justify it, when you are capable of looking at it silently, and that is not possible when you are seeking a result. A problem exists only in the search for a result; and the problem ceases if there is no search for a result. When the mind is silently observing, and therefore passive, there comes creative being, and creative being is a constant renewal. It is not continuity, it is a timeless state of being. In that state alone can there be creation, and therefore that state alone is revolution.
Question: What do you mean by love?
Krishnamurti: Now, again we are going to discover by understanding what love is not; because, as love is the unknown, we must come to it by discarding the known. Surely, the unknown cannot be discovered by a mind that is full of the known. So, what we are going to do is to find out the values of the known, look at the known; and when that is looked at purely, without condemnation, the mind becomes free from the known, and then we shall know what love is. So, we must approach love negatively, not positively.
Now, what is love with most of us? When we say we love somebody, what do we mean? We mean we possess that person. From that possession arises jealousy, because ff I lose him or her what happens? I feel empty, lost, Therefore, I legalize possession. I hold him or her. From holding, possessing that person, there is jealousy, there is fear, and all the innumerable conflicts that arise from possession. Surely, is not love, is it? Don't shake your heads in assent; for if you agree with me, you are merely agreeing verbally, and such agreement has no meaning at all. You can agree only when you don't possess your property, your wife, your ideas.
Obviously, love is not sentiment. To be sentimental, to be emotional, is not love, because sentimentality and emotion are mere sensations. A religious person who weeps about Jesus or Krishna, about his guru or somebody else, is merely sentimental, emotional. He is indulging in sensation, which is a process of thought, and thought is not love. Thought is the result of sensation. So, the person who is sentimental, who is emotional, cannot possibly know love. Again, arn't we emotional and sentimental? Sentimentality, emotionalism, is merely a form of self-expansion. To be full of emotion is obviously not love, because a sentimental person can be cruel when his sentiments are not responded to, when his feelings have no outlet. An emotional person can be stirred to hatred, to war, to butchery. And a man who is sentimental, full of tears for his religion, surely such a man has no love. Obviously there is no love when there is no real respect, when you don't respect another, whether he is your servant or your friend. Have you not noticed that you are not respectful, kindly, generous, to your servants, to people who are so-called `below' you? But you have respect for those above, for your boss; for the millionaire, for the man with a large house and a title, for the man who can give you a better position, a better job, from whom you can get something. But you kick those below you, you have a special language for them. So, where there is no respect, there is no love; where there is no mercy, no pity, no forgiveness, there is no love. And as most of us are in this state, we have no love. We are neither respectful nor merciful nor generous. We are possessive, full of sentiment and emotion which can be turned either way: to kill, to butcher, or to unify over some foolish, ignorant intention. So, how can there be love? You can know love only when all these things have stopped, come to an end, only when you don't possess, when you are not merely emotional with devotion to an object. Such devotion is a supplication, selecting something in a different form. A man who prays does not know love. Since you are possessive, since you seek an end, a result, through devotion, through prayer, which makes you sentimental, emotional, naturally there is no love; and obviously there is no love when there is no respect. You may say that you have respect, but your respect is for the superior, it is merely the respect that comes from wanting something, the respect of fear. If you really felt respect, you would be respectful to the lowest as well as to the so-called highest; and since you haven't that, there is no love. How few of us are generous, forgiving, merciful! You are generous when it pays you, you are merciful when you can see something in return. So, when these things disappear, when these things don't occupy your mind, and when the things of the mind don't fill your heart, then there is love; and love alone can transform the present madness and insanity in the world - not systems, not theories, Either of the left or of the right. You really love only when you do not possess, when you are not envious, not greedy, when you are respectful, when you have mercy and compassion, when you have consideration for your wife, your children, your neighbour, your unfortunate servants who have not a day off, who have become your slaves. When you are respectful to them, not merely to your gurus, to the man above you, then you will know love. That love alone can transform the world, that alone can fill the world with mercy, with beauty. But if you fill your hearts with the things made by the mind or by the hand, then there is no love; and since your hearts are filled by these things, you are in constant battle with each other. But if you realize, if you are aware of all these things without coming into conflict with them, then there is a freedom, and in that freedom there is love which is not a theory. You can experience love with its blessings, with its perfume, with its loveliness, only when 'you' cease to be, when `you' cease to achieve, to become something; and such love alone can transform the world.
Question: May we request you to state clearly whether there is God or not?
Krishnamurti: Sir, why do you want to know? What difference does it make if I state it clearly or not? Either I will confirm you in your belief, or shake you in your belief. If I confirm your belief, then you will be pleased, and you will go on with your sweet, ugly ways. If I disturb you, you will say, `Well, that is not important', and unfortunately you will still carry on as you are. But why do you want to know? Surely, that is more important than to find out whether there is God or not. To know God, Sir, to know truth, you must not seek it. If you seek it, then you are escaping from what is; and that is why you are asking whether there is God or not. You want to get away from your suffering, escape into an illusion. Your books are full of gods, every temple is full of images made by the hand; but there is no God, because they are all escapes from your actual suffering. To find reality, or rather for reality to come into being, suffering must cease; and merely to search for God, for truth, for immortality, is an escape from suffering. But it is more pleasant to discuss whether there is God or not than to dissolve the causes of suffering, and that is why you have innumerable books discussing the nature of God. The man who discusses the nature of God, does not know God; because, that reality cannot be measured. It cannot be caught in the garland of words. You cannot catch the wind in your fist; you cannot capture reality in a temple, nor in puja, nor in innumerable ceremonies. They are all escapes, like taking a drink. You take a drink, get drunk, because you want to escape; similarly, you go to a temple, do puja, perform rituals, or whatever it is you do - they are all escapes from that which is. And that which is, is suffering, the constant battle with oneself, and therefore with another; and until you understand and transcend that suffering, reality cannot come into being. So, your enquiry whether there is God or not, is vain, it has no meaning, it can but lead to illusion. How can a mind that is caught in the turmoil of daily sorrow and suffering, in ignorance and limitation, know that which is illimitable, unutterable? How can that which is a product of time, know the timeless? It cannot. Therefore, it cannot even think about it. To think about truth, to think about God, is another form of escape; for God, truth, cannot be caught by thought. Thought is the result of time of yesterday, of the past; and being the result of time, of the past, being the product of memory, how can thought find that which is eternal, timeless, immeasurable? As it cannot, all that you can do is to free the mind from the thought process; and to free the mind from the thought process, you must understand suffering, and not escape from it - suffering not only on the physical level, but at all the different levels of consciousness. That means being open, vulnerable to suffering, not defending yourself against suffering but living with it, embracing it, looking at it. Because, you are suffering now. You are suffering from morning till night, with an occasional ray of sunshine, with an occasional gap in the cloudy sky. Since you are suffering, why not consider that, why not go into it fully, deeply, completely, and resolve it? And that is not difficult. The search for God is much more difficult, because it is the unknown, and you cannot search for the unknown. But you can seek out the cause of suffering and eradicate it by understanding it, being aware of it, not running away from it. Since you have run away from suffering through various escapes, look at all those escapes, put them away and come face to face with suffering. In understanding that suffering, there is a release. Then the mind becomes free from all thought, it is no longer the product of the past. Then the mind is tranquil, without any problem; it is not made tranquil, but is tranquil, because it has no problem, it is no longer creating thought. Then thought has ceased - thought which is memory, which is the accumulation of experience, the scars of yesterday; and when the mind is utterly quiet, not made quiet, reality comes into being. That experience is the experience of reality, not of illusion, and such experience gives a blessing to man. Truth, love, is the unknown, and the unknown cannot be captured by the known. The known must cease for the unknown to be; and when the unknown comes into being, there is a blessing.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 11th April, 1948
As these discussions will be for about three weeks, I would like, if I may, to go to the root of the problem direct and not beat about the bush. To deal with the problem directly, we must take a general view of the world's affairs; then, we can see the deterioration of the world's condition. Obviously, a social revolution, a revolution in the values of society, cannot take place; when we attempt to change society, such a change will only be a modified continuity. So, as long as we are looking to a social structure to be changed, including the leftist revolution in the outward structure of society, such a change will not be a revolution. Society is always static; only in the individual can there be a radical revolution. Leftists, Marxists, and Socialists regard revolution as an outward transformation; this really is mere change or modified continuity which implies a pattern, adjustment to a pattern, or a preconceived pattern which needs adjustment; therefore, it is not a revolution. Every social change which we all want, is only a modified continuity of 'what is' and not a revolution.Question: Will you please explain modified continuity?
Krishnamurti: Change implies modified continuity. What do you mean by change? It is a change from this to that. To bring about a change implies an end in view. I am this and I want to be that. The society is this and I want it to be changed into that. Therefore, change is preconceived, an action within a pattern; it is only a modification in the same field.
When we say we want a change, a social change, does it not imply a change towards the known - intellectual, factual or utopian? Is that a radical transformation, or a continuation in the same field though in a different direction?
Question: Is not a revolution a hop within the same framework?
Krishnamurti: Surely not. What do we mean by change? When the Communists, Fascists or Socialists demand a change, what do they mean? Any change of pattern of action is still within the known pattern and therefore a modified continuity.
Our problem is therefore entirely different. Transformation is not modified continuity but quite a different process. To understand what complete transformation means, we must understand what change means.
Question: Is change what is intended by a human being or what happens without any intention on the part of man, just like that due to industrialization for instance? Can't we have a change of the outer without a change in the inner?
Krishnamurti: Any change which we desire is a modified continuity of the same thing as now exists. For instance, when we deliberately set about to change the present system in regard to the outer conditions leading to war, is not all such change the same thing continued in a different form? We want a continuity of what we like and a discontinuity of what we do not like.
Question: Is biological growth a change?
Krishnamurti: The growth of a tree is not a change but a growth of the same tree. Obviously, we are referring only to changes due to human action and not to what occurs in nature. Mere social transformation, i.e., changing the outer into something else is not a revolution; it is merely a change which is modified continuity.
Society is static. The individual only is creative and not society. When the individual thinks in terms of change, change being only modified continuity, whatever the individual creates will be static. The moment an act is complete, it is static. If the relationship between two individuals be mere static adjustment, it produces a society which is static. If the relationship is revolutionary and based on a different sense of values, then the individual will be creative. Therefore, continuous revolution is in relationship with people; and one has to start with oneself, the individual, and not with the society.
When one thinks of change of the society, such a change will only be a modification, however violent it may appear. This is what is taking place in the world. The opposite is invariably the continuity of the same in a different form, whether political or otherwise. Therefore, revolution can start only with the individual, with the 'me'.
Question: Is the opposite a continuity of 'what is'?
Krishnamurti: I do not want to go into this now.
When we talk about social revolution, we have to understand what is meant by 'change'. For instance, the word 'cap' is called by different names in different countries; but, there is always a cap, as referent. Change implies that there is a referent. Therefore, whenever there is a referent, there must always be the known. How can the 'known' be changed except into the 'further known'?
Question: So far as the individual is concerned, is not change modified continuity?
Krishnamurti: An individual alone can be in a continuous state of revolution, but not society. Any change in society is only a modified continuity. Transformation must be always immediate and not left to time, i.e., to tomorrow. There is no transformation in time, but there is only modified continuity. Time cannot produce revolution or regeneration.
Is not transformation the immediate question and cannot you and I immediately transform? If we cannot, what is it that prevents immediate transformation? To be transformed in the future is a contradiction.
What prevents us from immediately transforming ourselves? We understand something now or never. Understanding is always in the Now and not in To-morrow. Why is that you and I are incapable of immediate transformation? What prevents this? Why do we not see this clearly?
Question: Is there transformation even if we see things clearly?
Krishnamurti: If I see a cobra clearly without any equivocation, do I touch it? I touch it only when I am doubtful about it being a cobra. Why have we not transformed ourselves? Transformation is creative activity. Why is it that we do not see problems that are vital as clearly as we see a poisonous snake? If we see a problem vitally and recognise its immense significance, then, we shall act properly in relation to war, nationalism, in our relationship to nature, indi- viduals, ideas and problems of daily existence. Therefore, either we are unaware and therefore accustomed and immune to poison by constant habit, or we do not want to see.
There is no transformation except Now. I say it is possible to transform completely now and not tomorrow. Action on the basis of a belief in reincarnation is only postponement.
The real problem is why do we not transform now? Let us understand this now.
Obviously, society is crumbling and deteriorating rapidly. Here, we are talking about change, etc. But we are not creative; we are not the architects designing a structure away from all this. To do this, we must examine the causes of the present chaos. We must be the architect, the contractor, etc., for raising this new structure. To do this, we must have complete transformation now - transformation in values, in outlook and in our whole being. I have seen this happening. Why are you not transformed? Is it because you have been so long living with the cobra that you are immune to its poison?
Question: How do you find the true cause, not mere intellectualisation, of there being no immediate transformation?
Krishnamurti: One reason is that you are immune to the poison. I recognize that immediate transformation is the only solution of all problems - not tomorrow, not reincarnation; time does not produce transformation but only brings about continuity. Transformation is essential and can take place only now. What is it that prevents that marvellous thing happening to me, from my seeing the immense significance of transforming immediately? Let us be definite about this. We cannot leave this at loose ends. We must act.
The problem is "I see the importance of transformation. Transformation can take place only now and not tomorrow. Why is there not that extraordinary drive that sees things clearly and sets about to act"?
I know instances of immediate transformation. There was a person who made an enormous amount of money by playing cards. After hearing my talks recently, that person gave up cards-playing immediately and without any struggle.
Question: Why did not that person see this earlier? Krishnamurti: What are the causes that prevent your seeing the obvious things that drop away? What is the element that is required to say "I see it and it is gone". One of the factors is that I must be aware I am suffering, I am in anxiety, in a state of confusion and of fear. To recognize that transformation is essential, I must not be self- contented. There must be real discontent. It must have a quality which is not mere change.
If you see a cobra and know it to be a cobra, you have an instantaneous response. There is the bodily response to the poison and you jump. It is not out of fear that you avoid the poison; but, the understanding of the nature of the poison keeps you away from the poison. Most of us are afraid. Is not fear one of the principal causes that prevent transformation? You are afraid and therefore there is no transformation.
Question: Everyone coming here wants transformation. I, for one, have no fear. Yet, there is no transformation. Why is this?
Question: Is it laziness? Is there a real desire for transformation?
Krishnamurti: Do you not know the gravity of the present structure of society, its disintegration, its ruthlessness, etc.?
Question: Yes, that is why we want to do something in the service of others.
Krishnamurti: Service of others is really a foolish idea. What prevents transformation?
Love is the only thing that transforms. You can have actual experience of this. Have you not fallen in love with some one? Have you not been spontaneously affectionate with another?
Question: We have been affectionate to others in our house; yet, there has been no transformation?
Krishnamurti: You do not see the cobra, you do not see that you are on the edge of a precipice. Is that the trouble? Why do you not see it? Are not all writers, historians, etc., shouting that the end of the world is near? Yet, are you not enclosing yourselves in ideas like 'reincarnation', 'the Masters are looking after us', etc., and therefore are you not blind to the world and to your relationship with others? You, therefore, say "these are inevitable but everything will be alright soon or sometime later on".
Question: We see all the chaos but we feel helpless.
Krishnamurti: The confusion is so colossal that our individual acts can obviously do nothing - for instance, against the use of the atomic bomb. But, I, an individual, can create a structure away from all this confusion. We cannot persuade Truman and other big politicians to do what we think is correct; but we, though we are small people, can start somewhere else, i. e., with ourselves.
Question: Is it any use doing this in relation to the coming war, etc.?
Krishnamurti: You cannot prevent the world and the people going their own way. The same pattern can be seen in the case of all big leaders - Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin, etc. Can I persuade them by prayers or by appeals to them? No. Knowing the inevitableness of all this, I will not touch them. The simple way is for me to go my own way; I will transform myself. So far, I have also been contributing to the confusion and to the chaos in the world; now, I will withdraw.
Question: Does this not mean isolating ourselves from the world?
Krishnamurti: No. What is isolation? Are you not now isolated in your relationship with your wife, etc.? Do you know them? Is this not creating the mess in the world?
If you read any paper or magazine, you will find that, in the world, there is steady deterioration. For instance, in the business world, there is black-marketing, no morality, etc.
Question: How can all this be changed?
Krishnamurti: It is not possible to change all this. Firstly, you must see that you cannot do anything with all this. You must see that all politicians are hankering after power, etc., and that this is leading to war. Seeing this clearly, you will say "I will not hanker after power"; and that hankering will drop away. Now, why do I not do this?
I see what the politicians dabbling in power-politics are doing. I see that wherever there is search for power, there must be ruthlessness, war. I also see I am seeking power. Then, why do I not drop this domination over my wife? Power is very destructive, is very evil. Then, what is preventing one from dropping this, one's domination over one's wife, etc.?
Question: I am not conscious of this, my seeking domination over others.
Krishnamurti: By becoming aware of your attitude to your wife and to others, will you not drop it immediately and not in the next life? Either you are unaware of your seeking power or you like power; therefore, you do not want to drop it. If you like power, it vitalises you and you do not mind its effects on others. Power ultimately leads to destruction and deteriorates the relationship between people. I like power even in my little home, and I pursue it even if it brings about chaos and destruction. I am conscious I am seeking power; I want it and I am deliberately in it; therefore, there is no problem.
Question: I want the gratification from power. If something else would give that gratification, I will follow that also.
Krishnamurti: You want power without paying for it; you had better be conscious of this without fooling about with spirituality, etc., be conscious of power and its consequences. You like power with its pleasure and with its pain; therefore, you do not want transformation. You all want to salve Mammon with God. Why not be honest and say " I want to be a leader; so, I will go after power"?
Question: Everyone is going after power. Why?
Krishnamurti: I shall show you the futility of this. Will you drop it? You have to see the futility of pursuing power. When you are seeking power, there must be ruthlessness which involves pain. When you watch this carefully, you will see it leads to war. Question: When I see this leading to war, I drop it.
Krishnamurti: When you know that power leads to ultimate destruction, why do you not drop it? You say that "destruction may happen long after now and, in the meanwhile, what does it matter so long as I get my satisfaction for 5, 10 or 30 years?" What is that mentality which says so? That is what Napoleon and all the war-mongers did. You are also saying the same thing. How can such a mentality approach Truth - a mentality which says "I want to get this whatever it may cost"?
I cannot understand myself if I am tethered to anything - property, idea or thing. If I want to explore the South Seas, I must leave Madras. I am tethered when I say "what does it matter so long as I get what I want." At least, this is honest as I do not quote scriptures in support of what I do.
A mind that says "I want to understand Reality and I am seeking Truth" and yet is tethered, is a dishonest mind.
Thus, we discover that there cannot be transformation if there is no honest thinking. Why is my mind dishonest?
Question: I want to seek my own ends; but I cover this up by spiritual ideas, etc.
Krishnamurti: Why do you do this? Why can't you say "I want power"? One reason is 'bread and butter depends'.
Question: Why is not the mind honest at least with itself, though not in regard to others?
Krishnamurti: I am not face to face with myself. I do not know the result of my facing myself is going to be. There are so many different masks. One day I am greedy, another day I am generous and charitable, then I want to be a Viceroy, etc. Again, the Higher Self is also an invention. Which is the 'me' to which I have to be honest? I am broken up into different parts. Unless I am neurotic, I cannot say definitely "I am this". There are many contradictions in me. In a state of contradiction, I cannot be honest. I can be honest only when the contradiction in my thinking ceases. To think truly, I must get rid of contradiction. Do you know that you are in contradiction? Question: At any one instant, there is no contradiction. Contradiction arises only when I analyse the past and the present.
Krishnamurti: There is a contradiction always going on in us.
Questioner: Are we aware of our contradiction even when we are in contradiction?
Krishnamurti: Only honest direct understanding will lead to the ceasing of contradiction. To understand something, I must give my full attention to it, which is possible when there is no contradiction in me.
Question: What is contradiction?
Question: Two inconsistent desires?
Krishnamurti: Can desires be contradictory? Is not the very nature of desire contradictory? There is only one desire which takes 2 forms, one desire creating oppositions.
Am I in contradiction? I want power and I know the poison of power. I want to love but actually I hate. Are you aware of this state in your daily existence?
I now see that only very clear, honest thinking can bring about immediate transformation. One of the factors preventing this is this life of contradiction. We are in contradiction, for instance, when we want to go somewhere else and yet we want to stay here. In that state, choice exists; and so, as long as choice exists, there must be conflict.
Choice exists because you are confused. There is no choice when you see a thing clearly. Contradiction is when I do not see clearly, when choice comes into action. When I see clearly what I want to do, there is no choice and no contradiction.
So, as long as I am choosing, there is contradiction and there is dishonesty in thinking. Do you agree to that? Your whole life is based on choice - between the Real and the Unreal, between Good and Evil etc.; and therefore, there is contradiction.
Question: Are we not always in daily life, if we are intelligent, making a choice? Krishnamurti: You make a choice only when you do not know what to do. For factual things, you must choose. But, choice in psychological things is when you are confused. You do not choose between pleasure and pain but you pursue pleasure. A mind which is confused and choosing is a dishonest mind, i.e., doing a thing not knowing what it is doing.
Question: Dishonesty implies a standard of morality.
Krishnamurti: No. Choice exists only in matters that are irrelevant or are not clearly seen. Clear perception is honest thinking. As long as there is choice, there is confusion. Do you ever psychologically choose?
Question: Yes; when I want to earn money or when I renounce something.
Krishnamurti: No. You are seeking pleasure whether it comes through earning money or renouncing something. Therefore, there is no choice, psychologically.
I do not see clearly because I am choosing. Psychologically, I pursue pleasure. As long as I am pursuing pleasure and using wrong words, I am deceiving myself - for instance, by saying "I serve the world," "I serve the poor" etc. All this is based on pleasure. I must not deceive myself in any way. I must be very clear in my feelings, thoughts and actions. Then only there can be immediate transformation.
Do you not get what you want if that desire is not lukewarm? You envy Napoleons and Stalins who went ruthlessly and wholeheartedly after what they wanted. Spiritual leaders also have acted likewise, though with kid gloves.
Dishonesty is lack of perception, avoidance of looking at things as they are.
We have now come to this point: Transformation is not a matter of words or explanations; it comes instantaneously when we see things clearly.
When one gives up property or good income, how does one do it? Have you given up anything instantaneously?
Question: I dropped 'belief' and 'authority' after I heard your talk on 'fear', at No. 14, Sterling Road.
Krishnamurti: Why do you want to give up something, for getting rid of fear or on seeing it as it is? You dropped because you were face to face with the problem and there was no retreat. You get rid of authority when you face the thing directly. When you face it, you see the crooked action and it drops away.
Why is it that you do not drop all that divides, conditioned thinking? Because you do not see that it is poisonous and because you do not give your full attention to it, you tend to slur over it. Take war, for instance. You know all the causes, the opposites of ideologies. Yet, you all play with war. If you give your complete attention to war, you will not play with war. There is no transformation now because your attention is not given; you think you have too may commitments and by such thinking you deceive yourselves.
If we focused our attention on one thing and completely understood it, our mind is unburdened and is capable of looking at things directly; we would then understand anything psychological, and there would be instantaneous transformation now.
When we do not read the label clearly, we drink the poison and suffer the consequences. We can read the label only when we are attentive. One of our difficulties is we like to be lazy and we are inattentive in regard to things that do matter.
Question: Can we help it?
Krishnamurti: If I offer you something, will you take it? Take, for instance, a doctor. Will it be enough if he merely put up a signboard? Must there not be a patient? There must be a patient and also a doctor; otherwise, the profession ceases. If I am a patient, I will not leave the doctor till I am well. Is not that relationship essential?
Question: The disease may be incurable.
Question: Even then, you go to the doctor. How can you suppose you are incurable before you consult a doctor?
Krishnamurti: Between the doctor and the patient, there must be mutual affection, not respect; so also between you and me. When you love somebody, then there is open receptivity, communion between both; there is understanding. This affection is not because he is going to cure me nor because I want to be cured. Because there is no affection wherever we are which means love, there is no immediate transformation. It is that element which is missing in all of us. Therefore, there is no real communication between us, but only verbal. We are on the edge of things and not in the centre. When there is love, there are no sentiments and no emotions.
Question: Apparently, we do not know love then.
Krishnamurti: You are going to know it. There is no flame without smoke.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 13th April, 1948
We were talking about the importance of immediate transformation and about the things that prevent us from radical regeneration. We were discussing the importance of the individual and his relationship with the world; how when there is a contradiction, there cannot be honest thinking; and how real understanding brings about transformation; and also, that love is not sentiment or emotion.We must find out for ourselves the truth about the individual and his relation to the world, how the transformation of the individual immediately affects the world in which he lives. The world we live in is the world of our immediate relationship with our family, our boss, our cook etc., and not with a geographical world. If you can transform intrinsically, then there is sure to be an immediate transformation, not superficially but deeply, in the relationship in your world. Will not this effect produce a revolution in your relationship? Is it not important to understand the necessity of individual transformation which will affect the world in which you live? Is that not a practical way of affecting the world you live in?
In confronting the war with its miseries, the limitations imposed by national frontiers, the economic confusion, the vast complexity, we feel frustrated with the enormity of the problem; but that frustration is a false response. You are not called upon to deal with the problems of America and Europe. Your talk about all this is mere gossip. You may rebel against atom bombs etc., you can talk gossip about it and about what others say about it. But, you cannot do anything about atom bombs. You and I cannot do anything about them. They are not our problems. But, you and I can do directly something in the world in which we live, by transforming ourselves.
So the individual transformation is the only solution for this chaos. Individual transformation alone will lead to other individuals transforming themselves and this will bring about a revolution in thought and therefore in action. This means you will be free of all organizations, systems, beliefs. You cannot rely on these absurdities, as you know it to be futile and empty. If this is clear we can proceed further. Do you see the truth of it? There can be transformation in the world only when there is regeneration of the individual. Mass action is therefore fallacious. The crowd, the mob, is invented by the politician. There is mass psychology which is used by clever people, but there is no such thing as the mass.
Question: There seems to be a general idea that unless the mass changes, there is no use of any individual working.
Krishnamurti: Are you caught up in the idea that individual action is without meaning unless there is a mass action? Mere belief is sluggishness indulged in in a hot climate. Is mass action the only action? Is there the mass, the crowd? Groups can be influenced, infuriated to act - Hindus to kill all Muslims and Muslims to kill all Hindus. Mass is composed of individuals and individuals can be persuaded, regimented to accept nationalism and to kill others. The action of the mass is thus influenced. If you begin to think, to be aware, to question, you cease to be the mass. When you do not accept authority, tradition, belief, then you become an individual; otherwise, you are one of a conglomeration of people driven. If it is so, then all our actions must correspondingly change. It is a fallacy to think that there can be no radical transformation in the world unless there is mass action. Label is the mass. The mass may be killed but it is difficult to kill an individual. When you look at another individual as an individual and not as a mass, your action is different; this means a radical revolution in your ways of thinking. You are an individual seeking the truth for itself and therefore you are inviting an infinite lot of trouble. If you really have an inward revolution, your ways of behaviour to your family and to others will be transformed.
We discussed whether contradiction can lead to honesty of thought. There can be immediate transformation only when there is clear, honest perception of the problems. Is not our living in contradiction one of our difficulties - opposing desires, opposing demands? Therefore, we never see the problem as it is and we give it a different interpretation from what it is.
Why do we live in contradiction? Are we aware we live in contradiction? We talk about peace and anything we do is towards war. We talk about brotherhood and we have castes, classes and titles. We want physical security and we do everything to destroy that security. We stand for unity and brotherhood yet we are exclusive in various ways.
Question: What is it that destroys security?
Krishnamurti: Nationalism destroys physical security. It brings about war. Everything we do psychologically is against peace.
Question: When we jump out of our state of contradiction, will there be honest thinking? Or, must we isolate ourselves?
Krishnamurti: Are you aware that you are in contradiction? You cannot call yourself a nationalist and at the same time talk of peace. When property is used for self-expansion, it leads to hatred. It is a contradiction. When you have particular beliefs, can you maintain real brotherhood?
Question: Please expand the ideas about property?
Krishnamurti: I need a little property. It is not a pursuit of exclusion. But the psychological expansion through property leads to hatred.
Question: I may not, but another may seek self-expansion. What to do then? Krishnamurti: Then you will not cause hatred. You will start a new culture. If you really enquire into the causes why there is no immediate transformation, then you will see.
Question: Where is contradiction in seeking self-expansion through property?
Krishnamurti: As I said, seeking security through property leads to hatred and therefore there will be no peace. As we live in contradiction in different ways, through organizations, through rituals etc., we do everything to destroy affection. If that is so, we must first be aware of it and put an end to contradiction. We cannot jump out of it, it is not a net. We must become conscious of our thoughts and actions and become intelligent about every one of our activities. This is really difficult in a hot climate, where there are many things preventing clear, honest thinking. If you want to think clearly, you must have sufficient food but no indulgence. Contradiction has a great deal to do with immediate transformation. This means that we must focus our attention on everything we do. This is very difficult. We eat food placed before us on a feast-day, without thinking. This has direct relationship with our daily life. You must have a clear swift mind to follow this clearly. You cannot indulge as you like. Contradiction is one of the hindrances to transformation as it will not allow any moment of full attention on something directly.
See what happens when we are voluntarily or spontaneously giving our attention to something, without seeking a result - examining a human problem. The mind is then in an extraordinary state, passive, pliable and capable of seeing clearly. Such a state is not possible when there is contradiction. You know for yourself inwardly when you are not living in a state of contradiction, when you are in a state of integration.
Why is there this contradiction? Is it not because you have never thought about a problem completely to the end? If you have really thought out a belief, then there will be no contradiction about your analysis of the problem. You will then be so swift in perception that you will see clearly.
Question: Has this not something to do with capacity?
Krishnamurti: No. Only a few have capacity; capacity is a gift. You want to know if we can do this even when we have not got any special capacity. Have we not got intelligence to understand? When we want something, we go after it. Now, you want to live in a state in which there is no contradiction. If you really see that a mind in contradiction cannot see honestly, then you pursue every talk alertly and see where the contradiction lies and so on, till there is no contradiction. You can either shut your eyes to your state of contradiction or you can be aware of the contradiction that exists. If you are aware, you go after every contradiction. You cannot do away with contradiction unless you are healthy physically, and you must become intelligent about everything you do. This has nothing to do with capacity.
Question: Some are more aware and others less aware.
Krishnamurti: Why compare yourself with others? You are this and why should you become that? To watch yourself from moment to moment, your thoughts and your feelings, does it mean capacity? Please try for yourself and experiment.
Question: I want to try and therefore I want to get that capacity.
Krishnamurti: Your desire for capacity is preventing experimentation. I am not interested in capacity.
Question: How to try to be aware from moment to moment?
Krishnamurti: Try to be conscious of, to know and to understand what you are doing. You want to know what to do to try.
Audience: He must wake up.
Audience: I feel I am aware of what I am doing.
Krishnamurti: Are you? Are you aware of the contradiction? You go after a thing when you take interest in it. Do you understand your doing pooja, do you find the whole meaning of it, i.e., whether you do it on authority or because your family likes it or because it gives you sensation or a self-hypnosis or an emotional kick? This finding of the whole meaning of what you do, is what is meant by being aware.
Question: The fundamental urge is to seek happiness. As long as it gives me satisfaction, is it not happiness?
Krishnamurti: Then, what is your problem? Is it for satisfaction to continue? You can take a drink and be blind to the world, and you can think you are happy. But, the morning after the drink, you pay for it. You cannot maintain the immediate pleasure always.
It is not a question of capacity or gift. On the contrary, we can all do this. Only we must take interest in it, experiment with it and go at it seriously. Asking for a way, etc., is just postponement. A contradictory mind cannot have honest thought. You must have honest direct thinking to bring about transformation.
A simple man does not live in a state of contradiction. Simplicity of heart and mind is the thing to transform you from moment to moment. We are all simple outwardly but complicated inwardly. Simplicity must begin at the psychological and not at the outward end.
Question: When we see the contradiction, we are lost in positive or negative thinking.
Krishnamurti: When you see the contradiction you will not be lost. You go into the problem, look at it and then see what is.
Question: I am not aware of any contradiction.
Krishnamurti: That is it. You can be aware of contradictions only when you are alert; then only you can go into the contradictions.
Question: I don't see any contradiction but I pursue what I like.
Krishnamurti: If you do not see any contradiction, it does not mean that there is no contradiction. You can know for yourself whether you are in a state of contradiction or not. If there is no contradiction, your mind will be still, quiet. Apparently your mind is not quiet, but restless. To know you, I must look at you and focus my attention on you without being distracted. There is no exclusiveness in awareness.
Question: I don't understand you.
Krishnamurti: I don't want to go into it now. Attention is not exclusive. If I exclude, there is effort and effort leads to distortion. Awareness is not effort. When you go out for a walk what happens? You are receiving all the impressions, about birds, people, cars, etc., if you are alert and if you are not immersed in a problem. You can give your attention to any one of these things and yet be receptive to the other impressions also. The mind, if not drugged by a problem, is receiving impressions; in that state of receptivity, one object, out of all the many, can be looked at more closely.
If I have a problem and concentrate on it through effort, it is exclusive. Through exclusion, I cannot understand it. Through exclusion, I miss something which may help me to understand it. I must come to the problem without a sense of exclusion; which means, I must be open all round to any impression with regard to that problem, to every movement of thought. When I examine any one part, I am not excluding anything else but I am sensitive to everything that may arise. For instance, I must listen to you and at the same time be alert to listen to what anyone else says and then find out the truth in everything that is said.
Question: I am beginning to understand you. If all of us talk simultaneously can you listen?
Krishnamurti: It is no possible even to hear clearly and listen to anyone if several of you talk at the same time. To be aware is to be open. Therefore, awareness is not a practice, it is not a habit. The moment I create a habit, it is exclusion. To be aware of my contradiction is not to have a screen between me and my contradiction, the screen of conclusion or answer. If I want to understand you, I must have no screen of prejudice between you and me. When I am aware of the screen, the screen is removed. I am open to find out in what way I am living in contradiction, which is different from not being in a state of contradiction. I am then inviting all the contradictions, including all those in the hidden layers of consciousness. Question: This means we must not approach a problem with a preconceived conception.
Krishnamurti: Yes. It is difficult. You must free the mind from all conclusions. For this, we must be aware of the existence of conclusions. I am not open to you if I have prejudice against you. If I understand the prejudice and let it go away, then I am open. The problem will cease when the prejudices are removed.
I have now discovered that a contradictory mind has no capacity to look directly, and it is a dishonest mind. To understand contradiction, I must be aware of the contradictions without any exclusion. Exclusion prevents understanding; therefore, concentration which is exclusion prevents understanding. All our attempts are made to concentrate. All this has got to be undone.
Question: When you approach a problem without a screen, you say there is no problem. What does this mean? What is meant by justification and condemnation?
Krishnamurti: Take any psychological problem. You always quote and get the screen between you and the problem. If the screen is removed, you see the problem clearly.
Individual transformation brings about immediate revolution in the world in which we live. Individual revolution is of the highest importance and not mass revolution. The mass is only an invention of the capitalists and others; it does not exist.
Question: If I am happy, how can the people who are here share it?
Krishnamurti: If there is a smile, even an ignorant man responds. It is our conception that an ignorant man cannot be happy. When there is exclusion, there is no understanding. Only when there is passive alertness there is openness. A primary factor that brings about revolution, is love. Love is not sentiment, not emotion.
It is sufficient if you are aware even momentarily. When you are aware you see great wisdom; then there is an interval and in that interval there is relaxation and it will be revealing.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 16th April, 1948
We were discussing why it is not possible to bring about immediate transformation. In discussing it, the importance of the individual to society was clear enough. The modern tendency in the world's affairs is to neglect the individual and to think of the mass. If you examine the matter closely without any system or prejudice, you will find that the individual is the only entity and not the mass. The mass as such is a myth, though there is mass psychology. There is no honesty of thought where there is contradiction. Contradiction is a negation. Where there is negation there is no thought at all. When a man is in contradiction, though he thinks in a series of positive actions, his action is merely a negation. To bring about immediate transformation, there must be honesty of thought. Honesty of thought is not possible, if there is contradiction.Also, awareness is not concentration. Where there is concentration, there is no understanding but only exclusion.
What is it that brings about a fundamental transformation?
Transformation is not in the net of time. It is in the immediate and not in postponement. What is it that brings about a revolution of thought, not of ideas or opinions? Ideas and opinions create further ideas and opinions and therefore conflict. Do ideas bring about transformation? They may bring about a change or a modification of continuity. Do they bring about a fundamental revolution in man? If our minds are clouded, not clear, with regard to the means, the instruments of transformation, we cannot come to those things which really bring about transformation.
Will ideas bring about an inward revolution? Mere outward change, however, social or utilitarian, is of little use. It is always the inner which overcomes the outer; the psychological motives, etc., alter the outward. What do we mean by ideas? Can the process of thought bring about transformation? Thought produces the idea. Can thought bring about transformation? You should see the importance of transformation. Transformation is necessary now because the whole structure of society is going to pieces. As it is essential to transform and as it is possible to transform immediately, what is it that will make us transform? Essentially, there must be honesty of thought; one must be honest to oneself. One knows clearly when one is off the beam of honesty. To know directly for oneself what one is thinking, this honesty is necessary.
Question: Could we get clear ideas as to what thinking is? By thinking, do you mean reaching a conclusion? Is there any moment when the mind which is not leading to a conclusion, can be said to be thinking? Thought is a state in which one is transformed as clear thinking is possible only when we are not in contradiction.
Krishnamurti: Where there is contradiction, there is no thought. What is the process of thinking?
Audience: (1) Sifting of an evidence to reach a conclusion.
Audience: (2) Not necessarily.
Audience: (3) Thinking implies setting in motion the contents of the mind, preconceived notions etc.
Audience: (4) Process of correlation is thinking.
Krishnamurti: You say that thinking is a movement of various conclusions and memories, this putting in motion being due to a new challenge. Response is the movement of the mind in response to a challenge.
Question: Thinking is response to challenge. This is a vague
statement. If somebody misbehaves towards me, I slap him. This is my response; but this is not thinking.
Krishnamurti: Process of discovering and experiencing as in Science- experiments, is it thinking? There is thinking only when there is a desire for a conclusion, for a solution, a remedy, an overcoming, a discipline. If there is experiencing and discovery, is it thinking?
Question: In experiencing, this kind of correlated thinking stops.
Krishnamurti: We investigate to find a solution for a cause, analysing, dissecting, examining, probing, thinking out logically from different sides etc., till we find a solution; this, we call thinking. Does this come into being when we are experiencing? Experience may be termed, recorded and kept in the memory.
Thinking exists when there is investigation, enquiry and reaching a conclusion, - that is a way of finding a solution and answer. I think about something, I recollect. This is a process of association, investigation and finding out. Thinking out is always trying to find an answer. In that process of thinking I rely on my memory, factual as well as psychological. The response of memory in the process of enquiry, I call thinking. I have a problem. How do I think about it? I think about it in terms of memory or conclusion. Thinking starts with a response of memory towards a conclusion, an answer, searching out an issue.
Factual memory is the memory of technique, of facts. Psychological memory is the memory of self-expansive continuity - me, mine, my house, my family - the accumulating factor, gathering, sustaining itself. We discussed this previously. The me, the I, the whole inward existence is memory. Without memory there would be no continuity to 'the me' from day to day.
Thinking is the outcome of a series of conclusions, memories which we have stored up. When I think about a person, the thought is a conclusion or a picture of that person. Therefore, thinking is a series of responses of memory; it is always in the field of the conditioning. Thus, you have the three things: thinking, experiencing and discovery. Thinking we know now.
Question: Thinking is response of memory. Cannot a conclusion be new?
Krishnamurti: I am not sure it is. Thought is the product of
conclusions, memories.
Question: Darwin's thinking led to the discovery of the theory of evolution.
Krishnamurti: How does a new theory come into being? Is it the result of thought, which is a conclusion of previous thoughts? Question: In Science, you can only arrive at truth of things by thinking.
Krishnamurti: Do you? Do you not think up to a certain point and then you suddenly jump? Does that jumping-state come because of the thinking? What we are discussing is practical. Is thought essential to that state, when the new is perceived? Is a process of conclusions and their responses necessary before there is a jump into the new? Is the old the spring-board to the new?
Question: Unless the mind has moved through the labyrinth of the old, we cannot see the new.
Krishnamurti: When do you see a new clarity, a new meaning? Is it after serious thinking and as a result of such thinking? When does the new take place? I have thought about a problem within the field of conclusions, and I cannot solve it. Suddenly the flash comes when the mind ceases to worry. Would it not come if I had not worried?
Question: If I have a conclusion not in the field of the known, the shifting to a different field is automatic. Is it ever possible to leave alone thought, till we are sure that there is nothing to be found?
Question: (2) Is the process of thought essential for discovery? Would you say that a conclusion is not a discovery? Is it possible to reach a new conclusion without thinking?
Krishnamurti: I have a problem and I search for the solution in the field of the known. I investigate into the field of the known and then when my minds is exhausted, I drop it. You say that it is necessary to exhaust the known before the new is perceived.
Question: There can be application only of known facts in Science.
Krishnamurti: The Scientist is dealing with the known and not the unknown. If there is a problem which cannot be dealt with in the field of conclusions, what do you do? Must we go to the field of formulas, conclusions and then get exhausted before we see the new? We understand a problem within the field of conclusions. It is simple. When the mind exhausts itself in the field of conclusions, it has dropped the problem; and then, the new comes in suddenly. You say that the new cannot come in without the previous state of investigation. Actually, you worry and worry; and suddenly you may get the new solution. You say that there must be previous investigation and examination of all the relevant facts before the new comes in.
Question: A haphazard mind can never get anything new.
Question: (2) What is a new conclusion?
Krishnamurti: It is not really new but only a new view of the old. Do you not suddenly see something which is not a new arrangement or a new view of the old, but something entirely new?
Which is true? A genius may learn a technique. All great artists and geniuses have a vision. They may learn a technique or develop their own technique. Does technique lead to genius?
Question: Does effort lead to spontaneity?
Krishnamurti: Effort can never lead to spontaneity. I have a problem which cannot be answered by merely readjusting an old answer, but which requires a completely new answer. We see that a mind that is seeking a conclusion for a problem gets a conclusion and goes on creating further problems. A mind which is still and is therefore open to the new does not need to go through these stages. We are caught either in conclusion or in readjustment of old values, and therefore we are unobservant of the new.
The mind is still when it does not want a conclusion, when it is not seeking an answer. Does that stillness come into being through cultivation?
Question: Supposing a man has no factual memory. Can he discover?
Krishnamurti: If a man has no factual memory at all, he is not there. Is cultivation, processes of thinking, necessary for stillness? Can thought-process - investigating, re- sponses of conclusions, - give place to stillness? Stillness comes only when the thought-process comes to an end. The new is seen only when the mind is still.
Question: Absence of thought-process is not necessary for stillness. There can be intelligent activity of mind which is not thinking - for instance, enquiring.
Krishnamurti: Stillness is not the stillness of death. It is passive alertness.
Question: When we are discussing, are we not thinking?
Krishnamurti: In discussing, we have discarded conclusions and adjustment of values. We went through removing the old misconceptions. The process of thinking comes in verbalization.
Question: The process of enquiry, discarding of ideas, is not this a hindrance to stillness?
Krishnamurti: The stillness gives a new answer. For this, thinking is not necessary. We never thought about anything when we discovered that stillness is necessary. Actually, there is no process, we just see it. When once we see the necessity of stillness, we need not go through the thought-process.
Question: Is not having a problem a process of thinking?
Krishnamurti: Silence is when the thinker, the creator of the problem, ceases to think. We do not see things as they are, if we think in the field of the known. I discover and therefore experience. Where thought-process exists, there, there cannot be experiencing, discovery. Discovery takes place only when the thought-process ceases. When I see the necessity of silence, I do not need to cultivate silence. The moment we see that silence is essential, we are silent.
Question: Intention to find the truth and the discovery of the truth can come only when there is silence. Do these not form a process?
Krishnamurti: Intention is to discover. There is only a verbal process. I see the importance of silence. Is it a verbal process or an inward process? Question: Is not the thinking process a verbal process?
Krishnamurti: Please investigate your own minds. What were you doing? Were you looking, investigating etc., or were you merely waiting? You did not start with a conclusion, nor were you seeking any conclusion.
Question: Is not a discussion necessary for silence?
Krishnamurti: I put a question to you. Are you thinking it out?
Question: Discussion is a movement of the mind, positive or negative.
Krishnamurti: Whether positive or negative, mind is thinking. Are we merely rationalizing? Seeing things directly, is it not different from thought-process. You saw the importance of silence and then you talk or verbalize about it. Through verbalizing you do not see. Thought- process begins only in communications with another, or in recording, or in experiencing. Thought-process is not necessary for experiencing. Experiencing is not a state of thinking.
Question: You tell us something. We are experiencing it in the light of our memories and then we accept it. Is it not thinking?
Krishnamurti: Does thinking lead you to discovery? The state of creative being does not come through technique. Thought-process does not produce transformation. You can jump into discovery.
Question: Is not thought-process a hindrance to transformation?
Krishnamurti: Certainly. If thought-process is not the catalyst what else is it? I can say this only when I know this for myself.
Question: Learning and studying, is it thinking process or something different?
Krishnamurti: Is there any thinking process in looking at facts? Thinking is in relating, modifying memory. Is learning necessary for this silence? Obviously not. When one is really seeking, there is no thought-process. For instance, we have not thought, but we have only communicated. Thought did not discover. The thought ceased and we discovered. The mind is the most extraordinary instrument we have; for instance, it deals with supersonic waves, curvature-space, etc., but, we do not know how to use this wonderful instrument.
If you look at a problem properly, you can discover the new always. To discover the new, thought-process is not necessary at all; on the other hand, thought-process is a positive hindrance to discovery.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 18th April, 1948
We have been discussing the importance of and the need for the inner transformation of the individual; when the individual transforms himself, there is a possibility of a revolution in the world to which he is in immediate relationship. Contradiction impedes the individual's thinking as it is a negation of thinking; contradiction is not only the superficial contradiction in every-day-existence but also the contradictions of the deeper layers of consciousness. Unless the individual unearths all these contradictions and eradicates them through awareness, there is no possibility of transformation. We also saw the possibility of the thought-process leading to the solution of a human problem. Every such problem is created by the thinker, and thought also is a product of the thinker. Therefore, thought-process cannot solve the problem. Transformation must be only in the Now and any postponement is not conducive to transformation, as such postponement is really avoidance of actionWhat then will bring about the immediate transformation of the individual? What is it that is going to bring about an inner revolution, an immediate change in values and direc- tions? Will emotion, feeling, bring about this transformation?
What do you mean by emotion? Is emotion love; is sentiment, feeling, related to love? What is the necessary impetus to bring about a revolution leading to individual action? Ideas breed ideas and may bring about superficial revolution; but, they do not lead to inner revolution. Yet the world is engaged in building up ideas, patterns of action, etc. Since ideas cannot bring about that inward regeneration, what is it that would bring it about? Does emotion or feeling, however vital, bring about this revolution?
Is there a difference between thought and emotion? Is not emotion the same as thought? You can't think about love, but you can think about emotions or about the object of love, desire, sensation and feeling. Is that feeling love? This is important because through a process of understanding you will come to that which will lead to immediate transformation. Since thought is not the medium of transformation, will strong emotions bring about the same?
Question: (1) Is not emotion a feeling of pleasure and pain in
experiencing, as a response to a challenge? Is not emotion a sense of fervour? If there is no fervour, there is no possibility of alteration.
Krishnamurti: How do you get fervour? Through ideation?
Question: (2) I want to know if fervour is emotion.
Krishnamurti: What is emotion?
Audience: Emotions are the projections of one's perceptions in the mind, which quicken the sense from within.
Question: (3) When I am angry, is it not emotion?
Krishnamurti: Let us discover it together by going into it slowly and deeply. When do you have emotions?
Question: From the mind, from external stimulants. Do we get this instantaneously?
Krishnamurti: When do you feel emotions? Question: When you know that some person causes you pleasure or pain?
Krishnamurti: When you see a glorious sunset, is there an emotion? You are only in a state of experiencing. It is only after that state when you record or when you communicate that experience to yourself or to another, you verbalise it. Look at a tree. When you come upon it afresh, what takes place? When do you say "I am feeling, I have strong sentiment"? Is not one part of it due to communication?
Question: When you see a beggar, you may or may not feel an emotion.
Krishnamurti: If that person is dull, he will not feel. When do you feel an emotion?
Question: When you see a cobra and have a feeling of fear, there is no communication.
Krishnamurti: Communication is one part of emotion. When I tell you I love you, I have an emotion. In communicating, that emotion becomes strengthened. When is it that we feel emotion?
Question: When you see a cobra, the mind comes into action and also the process of memory. Then there is emotion of fear.
Krishnamurti: I want to discover it. I should not make a definite statement.
Question: Can you ever predict when you are having emotions?
Krishnamurti: Have you ever had any emotions?
Question: Yes, when I have disturbance of some sort or other.
Krishnamurti: Are emotions the instruments of transformation? When do you feel emotion? You said, that, through external or inward stimulants, you get a feeling and by terming it you give it a permanency and strengthen it. By not terming it you diminish it. That emotion or feeling cannot bring about revolution. Will stimuli provide the neces- sary impetus? Will intensity of emotion transform? You say that great grief can transform an individual, or an ecstasy can. Can they bring about a sustained revolution of values? Can sorrow be the instrument of transformation? Can sorrow beget intelligence? We know that the shock of sorrow cannot bring about intelligence.
Question: Intense feeling is not conducive to intelligence.
Krishnamurti: You have not said what you mean by emotion.
Question: Emotion is unreason, instinctive impulse.
Krishnamurti: Can't you find out when you have an emotion and then start from there?
Question: Emotion comes into being when you are empty.
Krishnamurti: Is that so? My son dies. I have a strong emotion. Will that sorrow of loneliness, breaking of habit, bring about a revolution of values? Emotions, feelings of pleasure or pain, are first nervous responses, and then psychological responses - that is, responses of memory. Will grief modify your character? Will the shock of my son's death change my character?
Question: Has not grief a chastening effect on the soul?
Krishnamurti: Is grief a means of betterment of character, of the soul, of your being?
Question: (2) Great grief can make a man a scoundrel also.
Krishnamurti: Grief has no effect on character; but, the thought about grief has. My son dies and I think about it. It is my attitude towards that grief that makes a change in me. I go to a temple, I give up some old habits and seek an escape. This is not a real change or revolution. So, you must become aware that you are escaping; then only you will be in direct relationship and you will discover your state of being. Facing the actual state without seeking any escape from it leads to inner revolution. Devotion, various forms of emotion, sentimentality may modify the superficial structure of one's being but they cannot bring about transformation which is a complete alteration in direction. Why is it then that there is no transformation?
Question: The desire to escape, which is an impediment.
Krishnamurti: Yes, it is one factor. Dishonesty is another factor. Thought as a means to transformation is another. The idea of 'becoming', evolution, the giving of the time-interval is another. Transformation is a complete rebirth. It is not as a result of calculation. Have you not felt it when you have given up something? Why are we not creative? You have to discover for yourself what stands in the way of transformation. Thought-process is not conducive to transformation.
Emotions, devotion, ecstasy, sentiment may bring about some change, but that change is not transformation.
Is love emotion or sentiment? Can you think about love? You can think about emotions and therefore emotions are in the field of thought, such as, good and bad, worthy and unworthy emotions. Emotions are feelings, are names given by thought. I can think about objects of love but I cannot think about the state which I call love. I can think about the emotions. We may call these emotions love, though incorrectly. Emotions may be good or evil and they are only a different aspect of thought.
Question: Love is not born of thought-process.
Krishnamurti: You are right.
Question: Thought is a weighing or re-arrangement. Are not emotions similar?
Krishnamurti: I see you and I say "I am glad". The naming of the feeling comes when I want to communicate with you or to establish within myself what I felt. When there is a feeling, the naming of that feeling is the thought-process. Thought arises also from stimuli. Thought is a response of memory and memory is a record in which the names, terms, incomplete experiences, the result of stimuli, exist. Feeling is also the result of stimuli. So, what is the difference between thought and feeling? Question: Verbalised response of memory is thinking and feeling is the state before verbalising, before giving it a name; it is also a response.
Krishnamurti: What is the difference between feeling and thinking? Is it not a device of the mind to separate these two so that it may deal with them? The feeling-process is perception, contact, sensation, desire and naming. We have already seen that there is no thinker without thought, there is no feeling without the feeler. Is there any difference between feeling and thinking?
Question: Emotions exist when there is lack of understanding.
Question: If somebody hits me, I understand it and I am angry with the hitter.
Krishnamurti: We want to find out if thought is not emotion.
Question: Is there not a difference between feeling and sensation? We touch a watch. The sensation is not feeling.
Krishnamurti: When you think about a person, you have a sensation which is another form of feeling. You lay so much emphasis on devotion. Is not devotion the same as the thought-process?
Question: Whenever we are either attracted or repulsed, there is thought and sensation.
Krishnamurti: Yes. Similarly in emotion, there is attraction and repulsion.
Question: Devotion has transformed some people.
Krishnamurti: We cannot discuss third persons. There might be other persons or he may have only changed and not transformed. Let us discuss ourselves. You have devotion for your guru, for your ideal. Has it transformed you?
Question: (1) Such a devotion is an impediment.
Krishnamurti: Obviously. So also emotions or devotion are impediments. Question: Devotion is a response to memory.
Krishnamurti: It is still within the field of memory. If thought- process is an impediment, then sentimentality (to feel soft, to have a sense of warmth) - called noble devotion, etc., - is also an impediment because it is all in the field of thought. If you see the truth of this, there is freedom from this; and that freedom itself is enough. You will not use emotions, devotion, as a means of transformation.
Question: That is, you have to get rid of the attitude.
Krishnamurti: Yes, for instance, in thinking that you do something in the service of mankind. Instead of saying in the service of mankind, please do what you want, simply. Can you ever live without emotions?
Question: I see the possibility of it.
Krishnamurti: I recognize that understanding comes only when thought- process ceases. Similarly, emotion is another form of thought-process. Do you agree? The difficulty lies in your thinking that they are different. You say there is self-surrender in your devotion to God. Is there self-surrender? You say that is your aim and that you will surrender to God at a future date; and you call this desire devotion.
Question: Devotion is only the means to self-surrender.
Krishnamurti: You say that you cannot surrender wholly now but that you will begin now, and that devotion is the process of your surrendering, giving yourself over, gradually to God.
Question: We would like to be transformed but we know nothing about transformation. Nothing that we know, leads to transformation. My capacity to renounce is less than my conception of it. Therefore, that which I can effortlessly renounce is called devotion. It is a tribute of incapacity to a possibility.
Krishnamurti: The main point is whether devotion is a transforming factor, not eventually, but now. It is silly to think of giving oneself over to God eventually. You would like it but you do not do it. You say you are incapable. Why incapable? You give yourself over to something if you are vitally interested in it.
Question: At its very best, devotion is a recognition of blindness.
Krishnamurti: It is a movement in the direction of self-denial. By action, by gesture, you will find out.
Question: (1) When there is devotion, you postulate another entity called God.
Krishnamurti: If you have devotion, why do you not surrender completely now?
Question: Because we are not honest.
Krishnamurti: Why are you not honest? You must find out the whole substance of this. If you realize that it is only now there can be transformation and that transformation is essential for happiness and for a new structure in society, you have to find out why there is no immediate transformation, what the impediments are. If thought prevents understanding, then emotion will also prevent it, devotion, ecstasy, joy. We must go outside the field of all this.
Question: I am a lover of music, and I derive joy from it. Is that emotion?
Krishnamurti: If music becomes an addiction, it is an impediment. You hear music and you have joy. Then you name that joy and want a repetition of it. Then that joy is emotion and is brought into the field of thought. It therefore ceases to be joy but only memory. Therefore, it is an impediment. When music is an escape from daily routine, it is not a joy but a night-mare. There is joy when there is constant freshness and not when you take joy into memory and bring it into the field of thought. An emotion untermed is not the same as when it is termed, brought into the field of thought and used as a means for one's continuing or for something else. So long as you think about a feeling, it is thought. Devotion as a means for self-abandonment is a thought-process. There is no devotion without thought-process, and therefore they are both impediments to transformation. A feeling, an emotion, when thought about, ceases to be feeling. Is there a state of being which is not within the field of thought-process? Anything within the field of thought is the known. To know the unknown I must
completely abandon the known. Therefore, devotion, feeling, emotion - all of which lie in the field of thought, the known - are impediments to transformation.
At the moment of experiencing there is neither the experiencer nor the experience. At the moment of experiencing there is no recording. The recorder then says that he had an experience and names it.
Is there a state which is not in the field of thought, something beyond the thought-process? I can only find this out when the thought- process ceases. We see now the importance of the ceasing of the thought-process, of feeling. You have experienced that it is possible to have a complete cessation of thought, no matter even if it was for a split second, when you are not thinking; but your mind is alert and passive; your mind is not active because it has understood that thought is an impediment. When the thought-process is not functioning, you and I are completely open to each other and there is no barrier. It is only when we love each other that there can be complete openness between us.
Why is this not your experience? We see the possibility of being completely open and this state of openness is only when there is love. Therefore, love is not emotion. It is a state when the mind is extraordinarily alert; but you cannot capture it, you cannot think about it. You should perceive the activities of thought. When you are aware of the thought-process, the thought-process will cease to function and the mind will be completely quiet and open and then it will able to discover what is beyond the thought-process.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 20th April, 1948
We have discussed the importance of immediate transformation and how it can be brought about; also how individual regeneration is not a process of time but free of time and it is not "becoming". We saw the various forms of hindrances that introduce the time-element. It is possible to see a thing directly, clearly and honestly. It is only when there is a contradiction that the time-element comes in. The time- element is introduced whenever we allow the thought-process to take place. Emotions, sentimentality and devotion are within the field of time, of thought; therefore, they and the various forms of feeling are not love. One cannot think about love but only about objects of love thereby having sensations and deriving stimulation, emotions; thus, emotions are within the thought-process.What brings about transformation? There must be change, revolution. We cannot go on day to day as we are doing and have atomic bombs. Social and economic revolutions have no meaning. Again, the inner revolution must be a continuous one. Thought-process is not going to change us; for, ideas breed further ideas and ideologies breed other systems which are in opposition. Realizing that the time-element is valueless, that no regeneration can take place within time, how are we to set about to have transformation?
Question: Can we do anything about it? The moment we try to do something, we seem to imitate some pattern of conduct or another.
Krishnamurti: It is an important question. Can anything be done to bring about this inward transformation? Any action on my part is within the field of thought as it necessitates choice. What is implied in choice? When is there choice? There is choice only when there are two or more things to choose from. When you go to a shop you set in motion the action of memory - which is comparison, weighing, balancing; you look at various things and then choose. Will choice which is comparison with a past or with a future and which implies postponement of action, lead to transformation? Question: What do you mean by saying that choice implies time?
Krishnamurti: How is choice made? With memory. What is memory? Incomplete experience. If you understand or experience something completely, the psychological memory of it is absent; you may remember the incident but there is no emotional content.
Question: Psychological memory may act subconsciously whereas factual memory is within the superficial layers of consciousness.
Krishnamurti: We are discussing whether transformation can be effected by any action on my part. My action is always within a pattern of action or behaviour known to me, or foreseen by me or decided on by me on my past knowledge. Obviously, such an act will not lead to
transformation. Whatever I do is within the field of such a pattern of action; it is always based upon a thought in the past, the past being memory - factual as well as psychological. Without factual memory, I cannot build a house or build a bridge, I cannot have any verbal communication with others. What do we mean by psychological memory? When do you remember an experience? Why do you not remember all experiences? Generally, pleasant experiences are remembered and the unpleasant ones are put away, though they may still be in the deeper layers of consciousness. You remember those experiences which have a value given by you as associated with the pleasure you derived. That is, pleasant experiences give you pleasure and you remember them because of that pleasure. Unpleasant experiences are also sometimes remembered as a reference to any possible future conduct. But, what makes you remember an experience?
Question: Vanity of life and pride make us remember.
Krishnamurti: Why? Look at this question practically. You have all had experiences; you think about them, you recall them and you remember them. Why is there this remembrance? Do you remember anything which you have completely finished, an incident or an experience? You have a conversation and you are interrupted; then you go back and complete it mentally. When you face, understand and complete the fact of the death of your child, then you do not have a psychological memory of it. Question: Even when I have completely finished a conversation, I still remember it.
Krishnamurti: Yes. It is factual memory. You and I have a conversation. Until that conversation is completed and until we fully communicate with each other what we want, the significance is not understood.
Question: This conversation is only one part of my life.
Krishnamurti: When a conversation is completely understood, you need not go over the whole of that conversation again though you may remember the incident. The psychological memory uses the factual memory as a means to get something out of it. Even facts are not remembered unless there is a basis of avoidance or gain. What makes you remember a conversation? When that conversation is not completed or its significance has not been completely understood. When completed and fully understood the contents and the thought-process in regard to that conversation have ceased. If you use the factual memory of a conversation as a means of deriving pleasure, then you remember and dwell upon the conversation. If something - a desire, an intention or a pleasure - drops away, it is gone out of your system. But, when you struggle to give it up, it does not drop away. Therefore, the process of giving up, renouncing, is an incomplete action; and therefore will lead to a remembrance of the things given up, and therefore a strengthening of the entity that gives up. The incomplete conversation leaves a space, a mark which we remember; it is very deep down in the layers of our consciousness and it acts invariably always like a record continuously playing, till we complete that experience. Why does an experience leave a mark? A mind which is marked, has a residue of experiences, cannot experience a new thing like an exposed negative which cannot take a clear impression of a new picture. Such a mind is incapable of acting apart from a pattern of action already known. Until that mark is completely understood, the memory will go on repeating itself.
Why do we hold on to some experiences and reject others? My mind is the repository of all experiences of all humanity. How can such a mind, so completely filled, have anything new? I am the result of incomplete experiences because the past experiences are all incomplete. Experiences are remembered because they are incomplete, because we have not thought about them completely to their end. We use them as a means of profit or avoidance and therefore remember them.
Question: I don't have a new experience as long as I am the result of incomplete experiences. I cannot have any new thought or new perception as long as my mind is clouded with old thoughts. What am I to do?
Krishnamurti: True. Thought born of incomplete experience cannot meet the new anew and therefore cannot lead to your inward transformation. Now, find out what you will do. Whatever you do is based upon your memory and therefore will not lead you to transformation. You realize, therefore, that you cannot do anything with regard to immediate inward transformation.
Question: I feel intensely and want to do something. As I find I cannot do anything, I feel helpless.
Krishnamurti: Why do you not know? Have you realized that you cannot do anything to transform yourself, first superficially and verbally and then more and more deeply? Have you realized that whatever you do, your action is within the field of the known and therefore you cannot transform yourself by doing anything? If you have realized, then the activities of your mind which wants to do something or other, are all cut one after another and finally you realize deeply that you cannot do anything about it, that you cannot deal with this problem of transformation by your actions.
The main difficulty now is that your mind thinks it can do something or other with this problem and that, if it does not act, it feels uneasy. The mind is therefore restless. Mind acts only through memory and therefore mind kicks against "not acting". Therefore you have to consider and understand the activities of the memory and the mind in relation to transformation.
Question: There is distraction and also acting with a purpose.
Krishnamurti: Distraction leads to postponement; therefore postponement of any action is an indication of the existence of a distraction. When you are vitally interested in anything, you are not distracted.
Question: Transformation is not in the plane of action.
Krishnamurti: Why? I see the importance of immediate transformation not in terms of time, of a complete regeneration of thought, a clarity, a creativeness. I see myself in tortures. If I find this transformation, then my life will have a meaning. I, therefore, go all along the way finding out which is a distraction and which leads to transformation. As I know and understand them, I am purposive and proceed directly.
This can be made clear by an example. Supposing I live in a well- enclosed fortress and somebody says that there is something marvellous beyond the walls of the fortress. If I want to see that which is beyond the walls, any action that I do in that connection within the limits of the fortress only, is futile. It is only when I break the walls, that I can have a glimpse of what is outside.
When you want to understand something, a child or a picture, you have to be silent, to study, and to watch. Your attitude should be one of watching silently, observing and studying all the time. When you have realized that, whatever you do, you cannot transform yourself, what happens to your action? When you realize the futility of all your actions, what do you do? Can you listen to music with effort? Have you not got to sit absolutely quiet to enjoy music? Similarly, when you have the feeling that you must do something, it is an indiction that you have not yet realized the fact that whatever you do cannot lead you to transformation of any kind.
Question: Is desire in the way of transformation?
Krishnamurti: Is it not? Why do you not find this out for yourself? It is fairly simple to do so with regard to transformation.
Question: If I do nothing, there will be no transformation.
Krishnamurti: How do you know? You realize that transformation is imperative, you feel the need for it. When you know that you cannot do anything about it, then only will you sit down quietly without doing anything. You know that thought-process cannot lead to transformation. Memory is always propelling thought and memory is incomplete experience. Desire also is based on thought-process. The road to Mylapore - which is a factual memory - becomes a psychological memory, when people walking onit give you incomplete experience. Your life consists of incomplete experiences and until you finish them you cannot but act. You have innumerable memories and you have to cleanse them all till your mind is free. Is this possible? No. You cannot cleanse the entire past. Can you by your actions examine all the contents of your consciousness, investigate into the past and finish them one by one? It will take time; the instrument of your investigation is incomplete. You might miss some. Therefore in this examination of your past experiences, you are sure to be caught again. Therefore, what are you to do?
Question: Go out and see what happens to you when you meet a new experience.
Krishnamurti: Can you do it with every one of your experiences? Even if you do, how long will it take? Again, the intimations from the hidden layers of consciousness have also to be understood and acted upon. Therefore, you cannot do it.
Question: When you can't do it, what can you do? You have to step out or to accept it.
Krishnamurti: Are you in a state when you do not know what to do? When you say that you do not know, what is behind it?
Question: That I want to know.
Krishnamurti: What are you to do when you realize that whatever you do will not lead to transformation? To know what to do, you must know that you do not know what to do. When you say "I do not know", you are reduced to a new position. You are nothing in regard to that.
Question: Is there not the recognition that it is possible to know? Krishnamurti: I cannot get rid of the past, do what I will. What am I to do? I want to do something about it and I cannot do anything. Therefore I don't know what to do with regard to the past or with regard to the future. When after realization, I say I do not know, my mind is very alert, very quiet and in a new state.
Question: It is a state of expectancy.
Krishnamurti: When you expect anything, it is based upon the known, therefore, that mind has not yet realized that it cannot do anything about it. But, if you have realized and then say that you do not know, your mind is extraordinarily alert, more alert than when you positively say "I am this"; this means negative thinking is the highest form of meditation; it is complete cessation of thought. Therefore, "not- knowingness" is the new state of the mind in which the past has disappeared. Unfortunately, you will never allow your mind to come to that point, your mind does not allow it to come to that point. Thus, there is a way by which the mind can be immediately cleansed of all its past, cleansed of the whole content of consciousness. When the mind is thus cleansed of all its past, there is direct action.
Until you realize and say with the whole of your being "I do not know:, you cannot stop the thought-process i.e., the process of experiencing (perception, contact, sensation, desire, identification), terming (pleasure or pain), and recording (memory and mind).
Question: Until I say "I do not know", I am not free of the past. Is this correct?
Krishnamurti: Why didn't you say now "I don't know"? We have been discussing all along about immediate inward transformation. Do you know what to do to bring about transformation in yourselves? You please experiment with it. When you bring me a gift and I do not want it, it is not mine. Similarly, when you have a problem and when you have realized that you do not know anything about it, then that problem is not yours.
Question: I am not able to get rid of psychological fear. Krishnamurti: I shall deal with it the next time we meet, as it is already very late.
Why do you find it difficult to say "I do not know"? What do you know except doing some work as a technician or earning money as a lawyer? Technique, gathering of other people's information etc., what else do you know? You are a bundle of memories. Beyond that what are you?
Question: I don't know.
Krishnamurti: Title, house, money - remove all these; what are you? Why do you not say "I don't know, I am nothing". You know nothing. Even all your dreams are within the field of memory and you therefore do not know. Why not acknowledge this? Why not face this nothingness and in facing it say "I don't know". Be completely stripped and say, "I am nobody, I am nothing". It is the recognition of a fact. Why do you not face it? That is your difficulty. Because you have never looked at it, you are never facing it. When you actually come to the state of facing and recognizing yourself as you are, you can say "I don't know, I am nothing"?
There is a way of completely cleansing the mind of the past immediately, and therefore bringing about instantaneous regeneration. This is when you have actually realized and when you say "I don't know". The mind is then unburdened and is swift - not erudite, not clever, not informed - but quiet, passive and extraordinarily alert. Then only there can be full and direct action.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 22nd April, 1948
I do not consider it necessary to discuss again about what we talked about the day before yesterday, viz., that as we try to look at every problem in the light of our own opinions and conclusions, it is not possible to arrive at the state where there is both the interval and also the sense of 'not knowing', when alone real comprehension comes into being.Question: If I understand correctly, you said that we have to feel "I am nothing". How am I to get this feeling?
Question: (1) When I say 'I cannot do anything' to bring about transformation, is it the same as 'I am nothing'? This point requires clarification.
Question: (2) The state preceding that when I say 'I don't know', is when I feel that 'I am nothing'.
Krishnamurti: We shall discuss this now. Are we something? Before you can say you are nothing, you should see what you are.
Question: Our beliefs, our bias, our prejudices, our commitments do not lead us anywhere. This can be experienced; but, to say 'I am nothing' appears to be different.
Krishnamurti: Are you aware that you are something?
Question: When I do something, I feel I am something.
Krishnamurti: When there is conflict, or awareness of resistance, or awareness of action, one feels one is something. Is this correct?
Question: In any thought-process, I feel I am something.
Krishnamurti: So, we think we are something whenever the thought- process is functioning. Is that it? When there is the continuance of the 'I', I am something. Can we go beyond that or not? Can we go beyond the screen of 'I am'?
Question: Whenever I think, the 'I' comes in. Therefore, I don't know anything beyond that.
Question: (1) When I feel frustrated, I feel I am nothing.
Krishnamurti: When you feel frustrated, when your self-consciousness comes against a barrier which it cannot overcome, your 'I' is enormously strengthened. So, probably you seek other ways to get what you want. The thought-process is certainly not a way of bringing about transformation. Can the past be wiped away? We saw that it is not possible to wipe away yesterdays which are very large in number, by allowing each 'yesterday' to project itself into consciousness and understanding it. This will take a very very long time which we cannot afford to spare. Therefore, we cannot examine completely all these and be free from our entire past. Then we came to the point that you cannot act; because, every act is within the field of resistance. When you have a problem, a real human problem, and you cannot solve it, what do you do?
Question: You do nothing.
Krishnamurti: Have you ever been against such a problem?
Question: Yes. Then, I pushed off the problem and got on with something else.
Krishnamurti: You say that when a problem is insoluble, you go to another. What is the state of the mind previous to the verbal
expression 'I don't know', especially when the problem demands an urgent solution? Here is a problem that immediate transformation is necessary and you feel that the thought-process cannot lead you to it and that whatever you do is within the thought-process. As the problem demands an answer, you feel that it is imperative to find out the solution and you are quite willing to find it out. Then you find that you are unable to do anything about it. So long as you think that you must do some action, either on your own volition or by pressure from outside, it is still within the field of thought and therefore it cannot lead to the solution of the problem. When you come to this point, what is the state of your mind?
Question: Despair.
Question: (1) My mind has become still, alert and watchful.
Krishnamurti: What happens now to it? Do you not see the imperative necessity for transformation and that whatever you do is a barrier? Question: I begin to pray.
Krishnamurti: Prayer is another form of thought-process and it will not lead you anywhere. I want to know now what the state of your mind is when it has enquired and felt this need for immediate, constant revolution, constant renewal and regeneration. Thought which is the response of memory, the outcome of a response to a challenge, cannot do anything. You realize the deep significance of saying "there must be immediate transformation", but thought cannot do this. No action is possible and you cannot do anything about this to bring about transformation.
Question: We are not thinking anything at all.
Question: (1) My mind is absolutely quiet, standing still.
Krishnamurti: Go into it please. What does absolute stillness mean?
There is an interval between two thoughts, between the ending of one thought and the arising of another. Without that interval thought would be continuous. What is happening in that interval? Have you watched your own process of mind?
Question: I feel nothing, but consciousness is not extinct. The sense of the 'I' is not there.
Krishnamurti: Let us view it differently. As long as I know the solution to a problem, I have no difficulty. I have a new problem and I have no previous ready-made answer. It is an entirely new problem. How will I tackle it? Regeneration can take place only immediately and I cannot do anything about it. To understand completely, I must come with a fresh mind, a mind free from the residue left by previous experiences. What is the state of your mind now when you similarly face this problem?
Question: A state of expectancy.
Krishnamurti: Is that so? My mind is not asleep. It is extraordinarily alert. The difficulty is to recognize the problem as new. If you see an entirely new insect, you will find it very difficult to recognize it, to focus on it; the whole thing appears to be blurred to you so far as that insect is concerned. Generally speaking, the mind sees quicker and more than the eye, and mind is more aware than the eye. Why? Because the mind has recorded all such things and memory is functioning. If you are face to face with a new thing like this insect and the mind has no memory, the mind is out of focus; and you have to observe the thing much more closely till the mind builds up sufficient memory through which it can recognize it; the eye has therefore to make much greater effort to observe.
Suppose the mind, accustomed to deal with some problems, faces a new problem. It looks to all the previous answers to find an answer to the new problem. However, as the problem is entirely new, memory will not help and there will be no response from the old. Therefore, the mind is not in focus with this new problem. In other words, the mind does not look at the problem but always tries to look to the record it has already built up. As the problem demands a new point of view, it is not able to find a ready-made answer from the old records which it searches to find an answer. Since it cannot find an answer to the new problem, your saying "I am expecting" means that you are not observing the problem but only waiting for an answer to come out of the old. If you see that all this attempt to get an answer to the new problem by a reference to your past memories, is futile, then you do not expect, you do not watch. What is your mind doing then?
Question: Cessation of thought.
Question: (1) I am expecting to hear what you are going to say next.
Krishnamurti: Watch your own mind. I am only unfolding my own mind. I am now focusing my attention on the problem itself and my eyes are focused on the new insect without translating the insect in terms of what I have seen in the past. Therefore, my attitude is not one of expectation or interpretation.
Are there other screens intervening between me and the problem? There is the desire to be transformed which urges me to look at the problem; this means, I want a result. I want to do something, seeking a result; and therefore I am creating the actor who is going to do something. The desire to be transformed implies the desire for an end, which creates the actor who wants to do something. This desire for transformation is a very difficult screen to get rid of.
Question: This is part of the problem itself.
Krishnamurti: That is so. The mind wants to translate the new into the old but the new insect says "I am entirely new and you cannot understand me if you bring in any of your old". The psychological demand for a result is preventing me from looking at the new. My looking for a result out of the new is entirely different from my looking at the new.
Desire for an end creates action and the action creates the actor. The actor says "I will get it." Here there is no necessity for a result, no necessity for an actor. The problem is not that I must transform myself but that there must be immediate transformation in me. You must not seek a way of using transformation. Any expectation from the past as an answer to the new, any interpretation based on that past, or any desire for an end or to seek a result - all these must go as these are barriers to my understanding the problem.
Is there any other screen? When my mind has wiped away the three screens referred to above as irrelevant, then what is the state of my mind? My mind is new, fresh and can look at the new problems anew. The mind is transformed, because it is no longer the old as it has been cleansed of the past and has become the new.
The importance is to see that this cleansing of the mind can be done and done immediately.
I started out to understand the new insect which I had never seen before. The mind, being out of focus, battles with it and tries to translate the insect in terms of the old. No help, however, comes out of the past. Therefore, the eye observes the insect more closely. I have no desire for a result out of this insect because I do not know the insect nor how to use it. In such a state I am merely observing the insect.
Action creates the actor. First there is perception, then contact, pleasure, then more action. Thus we have desire, end in view, action and then actor. Which comes first, action or actor? Action is first. First there is perception, then contact, then sensation and then only desire. In desire you have the 'I' and the 'mine' but the 'I' and the 'mine' comes into existence only after action which consists of perception, contact, and sensation. We are always used to think in terms of getting a result, when the 'I' is strengthened.
I know that there must be transformation. I don't know what this transformation is and what it will do. When do I say that transformation is imperative? Only when I see the futility of all that I have done and all that I can do. This thinking out, after full examination of the problem, implies intelligence. When I am looking for a new approach, I am still expecting something from the old. So, expectation goes and then the interpreter. My mind has now become sharper in itself. I may have thrown out the Master but not the desire to achieve. My approach is not to get anything but to see and to understand the new approach, not to get a result. Seeking a result means being caught with the old. We want a result to become something, to become happy, etc., all this implies strife. So, this goes when there is more and more observation and intelligence.
When all these three screens go, the mind is new, all attention. It has examined all the things that are not worthwhile, and discarded them. Then only it has become new.
Because you have not discarded these screens but are playing with them, you do not see the need for transformation. The problem exists as long as the screens exist. In the removal of the screens is freedom. The removal of the screens can be done immediately, now; then there will be regeneration.
There is no "how to be transformed". If you go after it now, it is done. That is the beauty of it.
That state when the mind is cleansed of the past, corresponding to a clean slate, is the state of "not knowing". This state is the state of highest activity. When the cup is empty, something new can be put into it; but, if there is already some tea in a cup you can only fill it up with tea and not with anything new. Therefore, the mind has to be cleansed of the past to view a new problem anew.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 25th April, 1948
We have been discussing about the importance of individual transformation as that alone would lead to a world revolution; about the importance of not thinking in terms of the mass as mass is really non- existent, or of not thinking in terms of a system as no system can lead to transformation; that transformation cannot take place through the thought-process as any thinking about the problem will only lead to further conditioning and resistance; that sentimentality, devotion and emotion are all in the field of thought which is the same as the field of sensation and will not lead to fundamental transformation. We also enquired what were the barriers to the recognition of the problem. We said that they might be: -(1) Repetitive experience which prevents direct relationship with the problem. To deal with a human problem we look to memory for help and this cannot lead to the solution of a problem. (2) The interpreter which is the memory acting on a problem. So long as there is the interpreter, the problem cannot be seen simply. (3) Looking for a result. This prevents a direct communion with the problem. The result, the end is always static, whereas the problem is not static. Therefore, when you look at a problem as a means of getting a result or leading to a result, you cannot understand the problem.When these three screens are removed, mind is cleansed and is new. When the mind is thus transformed, the problem is directly seen and it is then no longer a problem at all.
Transformation cannot be brought about through time, through growth, through evolution, through a series of lives. There can be no inward revolution through a process of time. Immediate inward revolution is possible only through understanding. Therefore, the removal of the screens must come as an experience. It should not be a process of repetition, i.e., because others have said, etc. We can keep our mind fresh and new only by our own constant experiencing.
Is it possible to approach the problem of immediate transformation differently? Question: It has been asked by some why the process of the mind seems clear when you talk about it. I find the same thing happening to my mind; but, when I go home, my mind goes back into the old groove. Why is this? Again, I do not recognize for myself the existence of any ill- will or evil which recreates itself in the minds of others or causes chaos in society.
Krishnamurti: Surely, there is a repetitive evil which arises inside you, which projects itself into society as anti-social actions, etc.
Question: That may not have always something to do with strife. It may be often personal.
Krishnamurti: What is society?
Question: Gita says "How does it happen that human mind turns to evil rather than good".
Krishnamurti: I have not studied the Gita. Why is it easier to bring about co-operation between people through hatred, through greed, through evil? If there is to be any social reform, you cannot bring people together. Why is it easier to injure another, to be inconsiderate, rather than to be kind and generous? Have you not seen how when clothed in evil, good can be pursued more easily?
Question: An object of hatred makes for the binding of all those who also hate that object.
Krishnamurti: Is that the reason? Supposing you say that we can all join together and produce something which will be for the good of all of us. Will they join? Why do people more easily choose evil action than good action?
Question: Submission to authority.
Krishnamurti: Apart from authority, is there not anything else? A thoughtful man will not readily obey an authority in matters in which he does not agree.
Question: Because there is some prospect of getting something in the immediate future, people follow the evil rather than the good. Krishnamurti: Why do we choose the path that is evil more readily than good?
Question: Inherited savagery in our blood.
Krishnamurti: Greed is considered profitable though ultimately it is destructive. Society is the projection of the inward state of the individual in daily life. I know greed will ultimately lead to destruction, yet I pursue greed. Why? What you say is that the immediate is dictating and not the result. The ultimate is really the immediate. In any case, to separate yourself from society is not correct. If your relationship with society is based on some qualities, those qualities are bound to be impressed on the society with which you are in immediate relationship. Generally, whenever a thing gives you pleasure, you pursue it.
Question: I do not understand you, Sir. The pursuit of a certain quality which we do not name, is itself a result of conflict.
Krishnamurti: Surely not. The first movement is not the action of conflict. You pursue something, or go after something, in order to gain or to avoid. Your whole existence is based on an attempt either to gain or to avoid.
Question: Is insensitivity the result of an action to gain or to avoid?
Krishnamurti: Why insensitivity? Why are you insensitive to what you call good and sensitive to what you call evil?
Question: Because insensitivity takes beyond the ambit of pain.
Question: (2) If I get pleasure, can I make myself sensitive?
Krishnamurti: Why do I pursue quality? Is it because I am sensitive, or am lacking in clarity?
Question: To answer this correctly, you will have to study the whole history of mankind.
Krishnamurti: Yes. But will not this study of the whole history by yourself take infinite time? You are also likely to miss some chapters. So, it is not practical to say that "I shall answer when I know the whole of my past". There must be another method.
Question: Is it truer to say that the quality grips me, rather than that I follow the quality?
Question: (1) Am I different from the qualities?
Krishnamurti: True. Why does the self follow one quality in preference to another?
Question: When you follow anger, does anger give you pleasure?
Krishnamurti: Certainly, Sir, when you let off steam.
We either pursue for the sake of pleasure, to gain something, or for the sake of avoidance. All effort to pursue a quality depends on pleasure and avoidance. When you know that pleasure is going to bring ultimate destruction, why do you pursue it? Because you really do not know definitely for yourself that it is painful ultimately. Why do you not see that, in the course of pleasure, diseases and pains are involved and why do you not therefore immediately drop the pleasure?
Anger affects the body. Is anger a worthy means of cohesion of people, of society? Not at all. Yet, why are we angry? Do you know that anger acts as a barrier? If you know, why are you angry? When you know a certain thing is poison, you do not play with it and taste it. What is it that prevents you from knowing that anger is a poison; and why do you not leave it alone?
Question: Everyone of us has a tendency to manufacture some unnamed proclivity to evil. Why is it?
Krishnamurti: You know the bad effects of anger and yet why do you pursue anger?
Question: Because I don't know it is a poison.
Krishnamurti: Why do you not know? I am angry and I want to stop it immediately. How do I do it? Only when I can read the contents of anger with full attention, give anger my whole being and understanding. If you want to get a result, should you not give your whole mind and heart to it? A quality like anger is not recognized as poison till your whole being is given to the understanding of it, till you give your whole undivided attention to it.
Question: I understand anger only after I am angry and not while I am angry.
Krishnamurti: Anger is a response to a challenge. If I am not afraid of any danger and if I understand anger, then I shall not get angry.
You pursue certain qualities because you have not studied them, because you are not interested in being aware of them. If you
understand anger, you are transformed immediately. For instance, smoking is first a nausea to you. Then it becomes a habit and then a source of pleasure. When you understand this process and when you understand the nature of smoking, then, smoking falls away. If you relate the habit of smoking to other habits also, then, in understanding the habit of smoking fully, you understand also the nature of all habits and you will be transformed.
Thus, we pursue a quality because we have not gone into it deeply, or into ourselves deeply, in order to understand it. Mere liberation from a smoking habit does not lead to a chain of liberations from other habits unless you fully understand all the implications of habit as such. There is regeneration, if there is constant watchfulness. Regeneration is not an end-result but from moment to moment.
Why is it not possible to understand something which we call evil, completely so that it drops away? Obviously because we do not want to study the problem and all its implications. We require a lot of time. It means action in your way of living, which may lead to more and more trouble. As you do not want to be involved in any more trouble, you are not serious, earnest, about any of these things. You like to lead a superficial life, avoiding pain and seeking pleasure. You want to avoid pain merely because you like to live superficially. You are inwardly dull, insensitive to your problem. Sensitivity means constant ache and therefore you are insensitive.
War is evil and I want to avoid war. I want to understand and transform my own existence, to find out if, in me, there is violence and conflict - either between you and me, or in myself. Therefore, I must study the problem completely first in myself. I am always seeking a result and this leads to conflict. I see this and also that it is unproductive and does not lead to creativeness. I also see that this contradiction in myself really means lack of clarity of thought. Then, I see that I am not seeking clarity, but I want to understand contradiction. Then, when I do not seek anything but am merely observing closely in order to understand contradiction, contradiction ceases.
Love is not a quality, an emotion or sentiment. There is no quality of like and dislike in love. If you see a thing directly, it drops; and you cannot see a thing directly, if you want a result. To understand violence, you should have no screen such as the ideal of non-violence or the idealism of non-violence. To pursue an ideal is really an escape from dealing directly with violence. You can never understand anything through an ideal.
How do you understand sorrow? Not by escaping from sorrow, by seeking a remedy. If your intention is to understand sorrow, then you must watch, study every movement of thought, study every escape. Then, when you understand all this, your mind does not run away from sorrow. Giving explanations about sorrow does not mean understanding sorrow. When I completely understand all the escapes which are created by me in order to avoid sorrow or to arrive at certain results, then escapes drop away. When escapes have been cleansed from my mind, then only, my mind is face to face with sorrow.
In understanding sorrow, escapes arise. In probing into them, I find that when I grieve over the death of my son, I have really used my son as an escape from myself. Being afraid to discover what I am, I have been seeking fulfilment in my son. I escape from something which is myself and which is not known to me, from my emptiness, my insufficiency and my poverty. Because my son is not there, I am confronted with my poverty which causes me sorrow. Thus, I am face to face with my loneliness, my emptiness.
As long as you escape from 'what is', you will have sorrow, and you pursue all the escapes. When you understand and when you are not escaping, then you are experiencing your own true state of emptiness. In this state of experiencing, there is no experiencer or experience. After experiencing, you are aware of the experiencer having had an experience. As long as you are escaping from 'what is', there is always the experiencer frightened with what he is going to experience. Truth only can free you from escapes. When you realize that you are that thing which you actually are, there is no longer any escape. When you experience loneliness, in experiencing, loneliness drops away and there is no problem. Therefore, sorrow disappears when there is the experiencing of that emptiness. Any other form of resolving sorrow is an escape. Here is the key to the problem of sorrow. It is only in the state of experiencing when there is neither the experiencer nor the experience, that there is instantaneous transformation.
Question: Does not one get out of this state when he has once had it?
Krishnamurti: Why are you anxious about this? Experiencing is from moment to moment; there is also the prolonging of the interval. It is sufficient even if you have that state even for a split second. Wanting to be other than 'what is', is really an escape. If you understand 'what is' completely, then a miracle happens.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 27th April, 1948
When we last met we came up to the point when we began to question why people generally have a tendency to follow more easily evil rather than good. In the course of this discussion, we saw that all escapes - so-called noble or ignoble, beneficial to society or anti-social - brought about sorrow and not the understanding of sorrow. It is only when we realize and face our own emptiness, loneliness etc., that we can have a solution to our sorrow. We also saw that where there was pursuit of pleasure or avoidance of pain or pleasure which is called ignoble or unrighteous, we can never understand the true nature of the problem. We generally pursue pleasure because the pleasure that we derive thereby, gives further nourishment or expansion to our 'self', i.e., to the me and the mine. Similarly, we avoid that which diminishes or contradicts or denies the self, the 'I'. Whenever there is the pursuit of self- expansion, it is easier to follow it. When there is a blocking of that expansion, we avoid it. Therefore, we follow that which we call evil, the path of strife, violence etc. None of us want to be eradicated psychologically, we want to be something - a writer, a politician and so on. Where the self finds no issue, we try to avoid it.Question: Why is hatred a greater cementing factor than love?
Krishnamurti: I said the other day that fear, threat to security, binds people together. Where the self can find root, it uses it as a means of 'becoming'. The denial of the self is love, but it is not cohesive because we cling to self.
Question: The pursuit of both good and evil may lead to self-expansion.
Krishnamurti: This is not a question of difference between evil and good. Evil and good are both so-called. The point is that where there is scope for self-expansion, there you pursue it whether it is the so- called good or so-called evil.
Question: Is there not cussedness, a behaviour-compulsive, in human nature? Why are we cussed?
Krishnamurti: Are you cussed by nature? Why is there not a regeneration of the individual when he has explored the various avenues of his thought, feeling and action, and found their full significance? What is it that brings about a revolution in the individual? Our brains are sufficiently clear; we have thought about our actions, our relationship etc., and yet the quality which makes for immediate transformation, seems to be lacking.
Question: Is there such a catalyst? Can we look for it?
Krishnamurti: Is there a catalyst, or what is the new approach? What do we mean by transformation? Question: A state of not having a memory or not having an ego, a negative state.
Krishnamurti: Is that what we mean by transformation? We have moments when the self is absent, when the sense of the me and the mine is absent, i.e., without the conscious awareness of the experiencer and the experience. When you get a shock, in moments of great joy or sorrow, the self is driven out, there is no sense of the me.
Question: Can the me be completely dissolved, never to return? Is that transformation?
Krishnamurti: That is the classical understanding of transformation. Is there not a different approach?
Question: As we have not experienced it, we cannot say what transformation is.
Krishnamurti: All you can do is to be free of conflict, when sorrow ceases. When you free yourself from conflict or sorrow, something may happen. The mind creates the problem and the problem which is
identification and condemnation and justification, brings about sorrow. The past absorbs the present, modifies it and continues on into the future. This is all one continuous movement.
Why should the mind create the problem?
Question: Conflicting desires.
Krishnamurti: Can you not put an end to these desires? Why have we to strive and to struggle, keep on asserting and denying etc.? Why should we not live from moment to moment and as each problem arises understand it and resolve it, and so on? Why can't you do that? Problems arise. Why do you not deal with each problem completely without allowing it to leave a residue?
Question: A memory is already there and it is bound to condition the new.
Krishnamurti: Why should you not deal with the new as new, free from conditioning. If I am aware of the conditioning in me, can I not meet the next problem without the conditioned mind?
Question: We may have some conditioning of which we are not conscious. Krishnamurti: True. But if your intention is to meet the new without any conditioning by your past, then you are extraordinarily alert and you are aware of the conditioning. Transformation is the meeting of the new as new, without any conditioning whatsoever, i.e., to meet each new problem anew.
Question: This is impossible. If you have memory, that memory is bound to condition all your thoughts under all circumstances.
Krishnamurti: Can I meet a problem anew? Yes, but only if I have got the intention to be aware of the conditioning and to be free of such conditioning, whatever be the level of consciousness. I see that I can only understand a problem if I meet it anew. Then, I will welcome any opportunity which will open up this conditioning so that, by my being aware of it, that conditioning may drop away.
Question: Has conditioning a bio-chemical aspect in it? How will it be affected by my awareness?
Krishnamurti: Just as I recognize everything else, social, industrial or religious etc., I can understand a problem only when I meet it anew. As I have got so many memories, the whole human treasure, I cannot analyze every one of them. There are some conditionings of which I am aware; but, there are also other conditionings of which I am not aware. My intention is to meet the problem anew and to be free of all
conditioning. Therefore, I recognize my state of conditioning factually as well as unconsciously; I also recognize that I cannot resolve them all and that I cannot solve the problem unless I meet it without any conditioning whatsoever. I cannot investigate into the whole content of consciousness; yet, I must meet the problem anew.
Question: Have you not then a purpose, an object to be gained?
Krishnamurti: No. The purpose is the outcome of the conditioning and it translates the problem.
Question: If you have no purpose, there is no problem. Why should I solve the problem?
Krishnamurti: When you have got a purpose, can you dissolve the problem? Question: A problem is not absolute, it relates to man. The purpose is to enlarge the freedom of the individual.
Krishnamurti: Any problem is one of food, things, relationship, or ideas. You talk of the freedom of the individual. Freedom from what? Is it freedom to be more expansive, more stupid, more national? Freedom for the self to expand is not freedom at all. The self is a contradiction, it is limited; the more it expands, the more is it limited and in contradiction. An experience becomes a problem when it is not fully understood, i.e., when it is acted on by past conditioning, conscious or not. This experience gives pain. How am I to dissolve this pain? I can do so only when there is no thought of the past, when there is no conditioning. The mind always knows the fact of its conditioning, conscious or unconscious; and yet, it can understand only when it meets the problem anew without any conditioning. What is the conditioning of such a mind? What is it to do?
Question: Instead of finding out ways and means, stop thinking.
Krishnamurti: What is the state of mind at this stage? Is it a wrong question to put?
Question: Is not the problem itself a part of conditioning? Therefore, every problem is impossible of solution.
Krishnamurti: Let us investigate it. Is not this a false question? Because the more I use the conditioning, the more it strengthens itself and I cannot investigate into the whole of my consciousness. When I realize this, what is the state of my mind?
Question: There is this problem of death, losing one child, then another and then my wife being ill, all these coming one after another in quick succession. How can I understand the problem without bringing in my past conditioning, like my belief in reincarnation, etc.?
Krishnamurti: There is death and suffering. Do I meet it with my religious conditioning? What is the state of my mind when I meet the problem of death? Let us discuss this.
Question: My mind is passive, observing, not waiting to do anything with the problem but merely observing it. You can see how the memory is coming in in everything that I observe in this way. I come again and again to the problem pushing the memory away. Is not my thinking that I should meet the problem anew based upon my memory?
Krishnamurti: Not necessarily. It is only a verbalization of what is taking place in your mind.
Question: The problem is only the memory.
Krishnamurti: To experiment with anything, you should not be too ready to verbalize. The problem is new and you cannot have a ready-made answer. I am gradually discovering the ways in which memory operates over a problem. This gentleman says that he is in a fix; this is because he is thinking in the old way to find the solution. When you have a new approach, you do not think of solving the problem. Memory is a positive approach and it is positive. A solution along any negative line only can lead to Truth, as the positive approach which is through memory is always conditioned by memory. Therefore, my mind in the state referred to by me is in a state of negation, which is not really the opposite of the positive; the mind is much more alert than when it is doing a positive action. When the mind is in this negative state, i.e., when the approach is negative, the mind should not create a process of thought; the mind is incapable of thought and it is not asleep, nor is it expecting an answer.
Choice is inaction. Positive action based on memory, on conditioning, is really inaction. Real action is when my mind is new and when, in the new state, it meets the problem anew.
What is the state of mind when it has no positive action towards the problem? You cannot pre-conceive that state; you must experience that state. If there is any choice, then the action is positive. Any voice, the inner or the voice of the Master, is still conditioning. Conditioning means no action. An action of choice is really the avoidance of 'what is'; it is therefore no action but only inaction.
Any response, positive or negative, coming out of the conditioning is not true action. When I experience that state of mind, I may find the new approach.
It is extremely difficult not to have a positive action towards a problem. A positive action is an action based on choice, on memory. When the mind is not positively acting on a vital problem, what is its state? Have you any vital problem?
Question: Yes, the illness of a relative, which is giving me pain.
Krishnamurti: How do you approach it?
Question: I am trying to do my best in the matter. My approach to this is really a positive action of my memory. I do not know what else I can do.
Krishnamurti: We are experimenting now. It is no use waiting and seeing. I have a living vital problem. I recognize that any positive action is valueless. What is the state of my mind? I cannot verbalize at that particular state, but only afterwards.
Questioner: There is blankness in my mind.
Krishnamurti: True. Supposing it is not blankness, what is the next step? As it is a new state which we have not experienced before, you cannot call it blank; it cannot be merely blank. It has pushed out positive action.
Question: I am now in a state when I surrender.
Krishnamurti: Surrender to whom or to what? Are you experiencing? You feel something and you do not proceed further.
Question: I am paying attention.
Krishnamurti: This means that there must be the giver of attention. You have now been forced to experience that state. When I am forcing you to that state, you are avoiding it.
Question: My experience is that such a mind is open to receive whatever it is.
Krishnamurti: In such a mind, there is no desire, no seeking an end; nor is there an actor. What is the state of that mind? For this experience to take place, the mind must have pushed away all attempts at positive action, without any effort or struggle. Therefore, such a mind is in a state of negative activity. This means really that you have stopped the interpreting of the problem.
What does negative activity mean? The mind is alert and in a state of negative activity; that means, there is no desire and no seeking of a result. What is the next response? Nothing is happening in the mind. What is the next movement out of this nothingness? Put away the question and the response, and watch again. You get blocked at this stage because probably you are not accustomed to this. You try this again and see what is happening.
We should proceed with this experience of yours when we meet next Thursday. The whole of this is awareness and there is the fun of discovery in understanding this.
Madras, India. Group Discussion 29th April, 1948
We have been discussing for the past few days the problem of individual transformation and why it has not been possible for you to effect immediate transformation. We saw that transformation can take place only in the Now and not in the hereafter; any form of approach which involves thinking in terms of time, evolution, growth, leads to postponement. All of our philosophy which is based on this conception of growth is erroneous. Thought-process cannot bring about transformation. Thought implies a constant response of the conditioned mind; this conditioning is due to memory which is the residue of incomplete experience. We are the product of the memory, of the mind; therefore, no process of the mind can solve any problem except a factual problem. All human problems are changing and not static. Therefore, a mind that has a fixed opinion or a conclusion cannot understand a new problem. Emotions, feelings, cannot lead to transformation. Emotions and sentimentality are within the field of the mind and they are sensations. Therefore, they cannot solve the problem.Devotion, immolation of oneself to an idea, to a guru, to an object, to God, cannot lead to transformation. There is always, in this, the seeking of an end; there is always a process of sentimentality and emotion in this and it is merely clothed in the form of devotion. Therefore, devotion also is in the field of the mind and cannot lead to transformation. When we put aside all the above screens or barriers to understanding, what is left with us? When all these forms of intellection are removed, there is an inward sense of creative being. There is no problem outside the mind; so, when the mind is cleansed, we are face to face with the problem.
When the problem is thus confronted and when there is no response from the mind which is the past, we are not concerned with anything. The mind has understood that all the responses of memory, because they are thought-processes, are no good for bringing about transformation. Therefore, all these responses are put aside and the mind confronts the problem. It is only when you directly experience this state that you will see what difference it makes.
What is the actual state of the mind when the mind is alert and when there is no action of memory on the problem or when there is no desire for a result?
We said that the mind was still; stillness was a direct experience. If it is not a direct experience to you, do not use words. When the mind is not acting on the problem, we experience first a stillness. There is no verbal expression for that state yet. The mind is not asleep. The whole content of consciousness, not merely the superficial layer, is quiet. If the superficial layers only are still, the deeper layers will project themselves into the superficial and there will be the pulsations of the past, the promptings of the deeper layers. Therefore, this state of quietness where there is no such prompting, is the one corresponding to the quietness at all levels of consciousness. In that state, we are not naming and recording. When we are not recording an experience, it is really the state of experiencing, in which there is neither the experiencer nor the experience. When the experience fades away, there arises the experiencer and the experience, the thinker and the thought. This stillness is not the result of a desire. Desire or seeking a result creates action; from action the actor is born. Therefore, if there is seeking for a result, there cannot be stillness.
Question: Did I not push out all the thoughts that arose in my mind, in order to bring about stillness?
Krishnamurti: No. You did not push out, but your understanding of the thought-process led to the thoughts drop- ping away by themselves. As long as there is an effort to exclude a thought, that effort is a barrier to understanding and therefore a barrier to stillness. The desire to seek an end creates action which in turn breeds the actor. As long as you do not understand that memory cannot solve a human problem, your effort to push away, which is based only on memory, cannot produce stillness of the mind. When there is a vital insistent problem of daily life, you view it with memory and therefore it is conditioned. When you realize that no action of memory can lead to understanding, then memory ceases to function and the mind is no longer acting on the problem, and therefore the mind is still.
In this state, the past has been wiped away, even if it be only for a split second. Memory is always waiting to creep in and therefore a thought may arise during this interval of stillness. The understanding of this makes the mind very watchful and very alert; it is also still. The mind that has been cultivated, made to expand, by self-expansion, has now realized that all this is to be put away; therefore, all this drops away and the mind is silent. In that silence, there is neither the experiencer nor the experience, but only the state of experiencing, of stillness which is not static but with an extraordinary activity. Only the stillness which is the product of memory, is static.
Question: Mind is still and seems to be non-existent.
Krishnamurti: We are discussing not the stillness of the mind but the state of the mind when memory is not acting on the problem. There is stillness and in that state something happens. If I tell you anything strongly, you accept it even if you have no experiencing; this is hypnotism.
Question: When I understand that memory conditions, I do not find memory acting and there is stillness. I tried to experiment then with the suffering of another whom I knew. I then felt as though I was myself suffering and not the other person of whom I was thinking. Then the thinking crept in.
Krishnamurti: We are trying to find out what it means to have this constant revolution inside us, regeneration. Mere modification of memory is not transformation. As long as there is a movement of memory, there cannot be any regeneration. Regeneration is a new state which I do not know; and I must approach it through negation, and understand it negatively. Any response of memory, however fleeting, cannot produce regeneration. When I see it, the response of memory drops away. It may come back again; but, if I see it again, again it drops away. From every movement of this thought, there is creative existence. When memory is in abeyance, the mind is very quiet. By constant watchfulness, this interval arises when thought does not act at all. What comes out of this interval?
When the mind is in such a state, there is a natural expansive awareness which is not exclusive; i.e., there is a state of concentration without a concentrator. The process is as follows -
I want to know every form of memory and I am watchful. When any thought arises it is examined and its truth seen. Then that thought drops away. There is no discipline, effort, struggle, involved in this.
Question: What happens when, in that state, there is a desire?
Krishnamurti: All desire is thought.
The understanding mind is denuding itself of all thoughts and there is also the lengthening of the interval between thought and thought. What happens in that interval? The interval has been experienced. When thought arises in that interval, that thought is examined with greater quickness, anew. The lengthening of the interval between two thoughts gives greater capacity to deal with any thought that may arise in that interval. The experiencing of this interval is what we are now considering. There is a vitality in this interval. In this interval all effort has stopped; there is no choice, no condemnation, no justification, and no identification; there is also no interpretation of any kind.
Question: What is meant by examining the thought, in the state of silence? It is not I suppose merely to recognize it as a form of memory and to push it out, which is a process of choice and effort, but to recognize the significance of it.
Krishnamurti: We are trying to see if the new can be met anew and understood without the burden of the past. Meeting of the new as the new is regeneration. I have understood a thought and that thought disappears. There is an interval of calm and clarity. Then a thought arises. How do I deal with that thought? If I try to deal with it with my memory, I cannot deal with it. Can you examine the thought without your memory?
Question: I do not push that thought away. The thought disappears of itself.
Krishnamurti: How do you deal with the thought without memory? Don't say who is dealing with it and so on. Do you condemn or analyze the thought or what do you do with it? Has not that interval a relationship with that thought? Does not that interval which is a state of being, which is new, meet the old which is the thought arising? This means the new is meeting the old; but, the new cannot absorb the old. The old can absorb the new and modify it; but the new cannot absorb the old. Therefore the new always extends and the old disappears by itself. There is no exclusion, no suppression, nor condemnation, nor avoidance. It is in this manner that the thought arising in the interval disappears.
What happens in the interval? In experiencing that interval and communicating it, you must also be experiencing in order to see my communication. In that interval, another thought comes in. I recognize it. The mind in the form of that thought is now facing the interval which is new. The new is operating on the old and the old cannot be absorbed by the new, and therefore the thought disappears. This interval is extraordinary in that it is without thought, without effort, without choice.
Question: Will there be pure perception then?
Krishnamurti: In that interval, there will be complete cessation of desires. That interval is alert, passive, choiceless awareness. There is cessation of desire, cessation of thought. In that state which is experiencing, communication is impossible; i.e., words cannot be a means of experience. In that state, there is no sensation; and sensation is thought-process and thought-process is verbal. If you and I are experiencing the same state, then, because it is non-sensuous, we can understand each other.
Regeneration is not a factor depending upon me; because, it cannot be brought about by any effort or any struggle on my part. In itself, that interval is living, it has action. I don't have to hold on to it and say 'it must live'. Without causation which is from memory, this interval lives by itself and it also gets lengthened. There is the experiencing of such a state in which there is no cause and effect. There is a state of being without causation, with no time in it (no yesterday producing today and no today producing tomorrow), a state without time and yet living vitally. In other words, this is a state of being in which there is living full of vitality, which has no causation and therefore timeless, and yet without death. There is also a newness which is not repetitive. That state is creation. In that state there is no effort; but, a new birth takes place always, a transformation not in terms of time taking place all the time.
To sum up, this state of being is not exclusive, is not manufactured by will, is not the result of the past, is not the end of a desire, but is a state of real action without a cause, timeless, living and undergoing a transformation in itself.
Experiencing and deepening of that state is also taking place. It is not one isolated experience but it is a state of constant experiencing. Therefore, regeneration is a constant revolution inside us. This regeneration is new and it will meet every problem anew. If that is functioning, that new meets the old without being contaminated by the old. Therefore, such a man can live even in the midst of a greedy world without being affected by that greed, but himself altering the greed in the world. This new is always moving and it transforms everything it meets.
Now, your difficulty is not understanding a problem at all, but to have that interval between two thoughts. Therefore, you do not want to strive to be good, to be non-violent etc. You are only concerned with that interval with which you can live from moment to moment. You have no problem and nothing to maintain; for, as that interval functions, the problems as they arise will be promptly dealt with, by the new meeting the old without being in any way contaminated by the old.
