Choiceless Awareness
Bangalore 1st Public Talk 4th July, 1948
Instead of making a speech, I am going to answer as many questions as
possible, and before doing so, I would like to point out something with
regard to answering questions. One can ask any question; but to have a
right answer, the question must also be right. If it is a serious
question put by a serious person, by an earnest person who is seeking
out the solution of a very difficult problem, then, obviously, there
will be an answer befitting that question. But what generally happens is
that lots of questions are sent in, sometimes very absurd ones, and
then there is a demand that all those questions be answered. It seems to
me such a waste of time to ask superficial questions and expect very
serious answers. I have several questions here, and I am going to try to
answer them from what I think is the most serious point of view; and,
if I may suggest, as this is a small audience, perhaps you will
interrupt me if the answer is not very clear, so that you and I can
discuss the question.
Question: What can the average decent man do to put an end to our communal problem?
Krishnamurti: Obviously the sense of separatism is spreading
throughout the world. Each successive war is creating more separatism,
more nationalism, more sovereign governments, and so on. Especially in
India, this problem of communal dissension is on the increase. Why?
First of all, obviously, because people are seeking jobs. The more
separate governments there are, the more jobs there will be; but that is
a very shortsighted policy, is it not? Because, eventually the world's
tendency will be more and more towards federation, towards a coming
together, and not a constant breaking up. Surely, any decent person who
really thinks about this situation - which is not merely Indian, but a
world affair - , must first be free from nationalism, not only in
matters of state, but in thought, in action, in feeling. After all,
communalism is merely a branch of nationalism. Belonging to a particular
country, to a particular race or group of people, or to a particular
ideology, tends more and more to divide people, to create antagonism and
hatred between man and man. Obviously, that is not the solution to the
world's chaos. So, what each one of us can do is to be non-communal: We
can cease to be Brahmins, cease to belong to any caste or to any
country. But that is very difficult, because by tradition, by
occupation, by tendency, we are conditioned to a particular pattern of
action; and to break away from it is extremely hard. We may want to
break away, but family tradition, religious orthodoxy, and so on, all
prevent us. It is only men of goodwill who really seek goodwill, who
desire to be friendly; and only such men will free themselves from all
these limitations which create chaos.
So, it seems to me that to put an end to this communal contention,
one must begin with oneself, and not wait for somebody else, for
legislation, for government, to act. Because, after all, compulsion or
legislation does not solve the problem. The spirit of communalism,
separatism, of belonging to a particular class or ideology, to a
religion, does ultimately create conflict and antagonism between human
beings. Friendliness is not brought about by compulsion, and to look to
compulsion, surely, is not the answer. So the way out of this is for
each one, for every individual, for you and me, to break away from the
communal spirit, from nationalism Is that not the only way out of this
difficulty? Because, as long as the mind and the heart are not willing
to be open and friendly, mere compulsion or legislation is not going to
solve this problem. So, it is obviously the responsibility of each one
of us, living as we do in a particular community, in a particular nation
or group of people, to break away from the narrow spirit of separatism.
The difficulty is that most of us have grievances. Most of us agree
with the ideal that we should break away and create a new world, a new
set of ideas, and so on; but when we go back home the compulsion of
environmental influences is so strong that we fall back - and that is
the greatest difficulty, is it not? Intellectually we agree about the
absurdity of communal contention, but very few of us care to sit down
and think out the whole issue and discover the contributory causes.
Belonging to any particular group, whether of social action or of
political action, does create antagonism, separatism; and real
revolution is not brought about by following any particular ideology,
because revolution based on ideology creates antagonisms at different
levels and therefore is a continuation of the same thing. So this
communal dissension, obviously, can come to an end only when we see the
whole absurdity of separate action, of a particular ideology, morality,
or organized religion - whether Christianity, Hinduism, or any other
organized and limited religion.
Audience: All this sounds very convincing, but in action it is very
difficult; and as you say, when we go home most of us are entirely
different people from what we are here. Although we may listen to you
and think about what you say, the result depends on each one of us.
There is always this "but."
Audience: This move to do away with organized religion may itself form an organized religion.
Krishnamurti: How, Sir?
Audience: For instance, neither Christ nor Ramakrishna Paramahamsa
wanted an organized religion; but forgetting the very essence of the
teachings, people have built around them an organized religion.
Krishnamurti: Why do we do this? Is it not because we want collective security, we want to feel safe?
Audience: Are all institutions separatist in character?
Krishnamurti: They are bound to be.
Audience: Is even belonging to a family wicked?
Krishnamurti: You are introducing the word "wicked", which I never used.
Audience: We are repudiating our family system. Our family system is ancient.
Krishnamurti: If it is misused, it must obviously be scrapped.
Audience: So an institution by itself need not be separatist?
Krishnamurti: Obviously. The post office is not separatist, because
all communities use it. It is universal. So, why is it that individual
human beings find it important to belong to something - to a religious
organization, to a society, to a club, and so on? Why?
Audience: There is no life without relationship.
Krishnamurti: Obviously. But why seek separatism?
Audience: There are natural relationships and unnatural relationships. A family is a natural relationship.
Krishnamurti: I am just asking: why is there the desire, the urge, to
belong to an exclusive group? Let us think it out, and not just make
statements. Why is it that I belong to a particular caste or nation? Why
do I call myself a Hindu? Why have we got this exclusive spirit?
Audience: Selfishness. The ego of power.
Krishnamurti: Throwing in a word or two does not mean an answer.
There is some motive power, a drive, an intention, that makes us belong
to a certain group of people. Why? Is it not important to find out? Why
does one call oneself a German, an Englishman, a Hindu, a Russian? Is it
not obvious that there is this desire to identify oneself with
something, because identification with something large makes one feel
important? That is the fundamental reason.
Audience: Not always. A Harijan, for instance, belongs to a very low community. He does not take pride in it.
Krishnamurti: But we keep him there. Why don't we invite him into our particular caste? Audience: We are trying to invite him.
Audience: We are trying to invite him.
Krishnamurti: But why is it that individuals identify themselves with
the greater, with the nation, with an idea which is beyond them?
Audience: Because from the moment the individual is born, certain
ideas are instilled into him. These ideas develop, and he thinks he is a
slave, In other words, he is so conditioned.
Krishnamurti: Exactly. He is so conditioned that he cannot break away
from his serfdom. The identification with the greater exists because
one wants to be secure, safe, through belonging to a particular group of
thought or of action. Sirs, this is obvious, is it not? In ourselves we
are nothing, we are timid, afraid to remain alone, and therefore we
want to identify ourselves with the larger, and in that identification
we become very exclusive. This is a world process. This is not my
opinion, it is exactly what is taking place. Identification is
religiously or nationalistically inflamed at moments of great crisis;
and the problem is vast, it is not just in India, it is everywhere
throughout the world - this sense of identification with a particular
group which gradually becomes exclusive and thereby creates between
people antagonism, hatred. So, that is why, when answering this
question, we will have to deal with nationalism as well as communalism,
in which is also involved the identification with a particular organized
religion.
Audience: Why do we identify ourselves at all?
Krishnamurti: For the very simple reason that if we did not identify
ourselves with something we would be confused, we would be lost; and
because of that fear, we identify ourselves in order to be safe.
Audience: Fear of what? Is it not ignorance rather than fear?
Krishnamurti: Call it what you like, fear or ignorance, they are all
the same. So the point is really this: Can you and I be free from this
fear, can we stand alone and not be exclusive? Aloneness is not
exclusive; only loneliness is exclusive. Surely, that is the only way
out of the problem; because, the individual is a world process, not a
separate process, and as long as individuals identify themselves with a
particular group or a particular section, they must be exclusive,
thereby inevitably creating antagonism, hatred and conflict.
Question: Man must know what God is, before he can know God. How are
you going to introduce the idea of God to man without bringing God to
man's level?
Krishnamurti: You cannot, Sir. Now, what is the impetus behind the
search for God, and is that search real? For most of us, it is an escape
from actuality. So, we must be very clear in ourselves whether this
search after God is an escape, or whether it is a search for truth in
everything - truth in our relationships, truth in the value of things,
truth in ideas. If we are seeking God merely because we are tired of
this world and its miseries, then it is an escape. Then we create god,
and therefore it is not God. The god of the temples, of the books, is
not God, obviously - it is a marvellous escape. But if we try to find
the truth, not in one exclusive set of actions, but in all our actions,
ideas and relationships, if we seek the right evaluation of food,
clothing and shelter, then, because our minds are capable of clarity and
understanding, when we seek reality we shall find it. It will not then
be an escape. But if we are confused with regard to the things of the
world - food, clothing, shelter, relationship, and ideas - how can we
find reality? We can only invent "reality." So, God, truth, or reality,
is not to be known by a mind that is confused, conditioned, limited. How
can such a mind think of reality or God? It has first to decondition
itself. It has to free itself from its own limitations, and only then
can it know what God is, obviously not before. Reality is the unknown,
and that which is known is not the real.
So, a mind that wishes to know reality has to free itself from its
own conditioning, and that conditioning is imposed either externally or
internally; and as long as the mind creates contention, conflict in
relationship, it cannot know reality. So, if one is to know reality, the
mind must be tranquil; but if the mind is compelled, disciplined to be
tranquil, that tranquillity is in itself a limitation, it is merely
self-hypnosis. The mind becomes free and tranquil only when it
understands the values with which it is surrounded. So, to understand
that which is the highest, the supreme, the real, we must begin very
low, very near; that is, we have to find the value of things, of
relationship, and of ideas, with which we are occupied every day. And
without understanding them, how can the mind seek reality? It can invent
"reality", it can copy, it can imitate; because it has read so many
books, it can repeat the experience of others. But surely, that is not
the real. To experience the real, the mind must cease to create;
because, whatever it creates is still within the bondage of time. The
problem is not whether there is or is not God, but how man may discover
God; and if in his search he disentangles himself from everything, he
will inevitably find that reality. But he must begin with the near and
not with the far. Obviously, to go far one must begin near. But most of
us want to speculate, which is a very convenient escape. That is why
religions offer such a marvellous drug for most people. So, the task of
disentangling the mind from all the values which it has created is an
extremely arduous one, and because our minds are weary, or we are lazy,
we prefer to read religious books and speculate about God; but that,
surely, is not the discovery of reality. Realizing is experiencing, not
imitating.
Question: Is the mind different from the thinker?
Krishnamurti: Now, is the thinker different from his thoughts? Does
the thinker exist without thoughts? Is there a thinker apart from
thought? Stop thinking, and where is the thinker? Is the thinker of one
thought different from the thinker of another thought? Is the thinker
separate from his thought, or does thought create the thinker, who then
identifies himself with thought when he finds it convenient, and
separates himself when it is not convenient? That is, what is the "I",
the thinker? Obviously, the thinker is composed of various thoughts
which have become identified as the "me". So, the thoughts produce the
thinker, not the other way round. If I have no thoughts, then there is
no thinker; not that the thinker is different each time, but if there
are no thoughts there is no thinker. So, thoughts produce the thinker,
as actions produce the actor. The actor does not produce actions.
Audience: You seem to suggest, Sir, that by ceasing to think, the "I" will be absent.
Krishnamurti: The I is made up of my qualities, my idiosyncracies, my
passions, my possessions, my house, my money, my wife, my books. These
create the idea of "me", I do not create them. Do you agree?
Audience: We find it difficult to agree.
Krishnamurti: If all thoughts were to cease, the thinker would not be there. Therefore, the thoughts produce the thinker.
Audience: All the thoughts and environments are there, but that does not produce the thinker.
Krishnamurti: How does the thinker come into being?
Audience: He is there.
Krishnamurti: You take it for granted that he is there. Why do you say so?
Audience: That we do not know. You must answer that for us.
Krishnamurti: I say the thinker is not there. There is only the action, the thought, and then the thinker comes in.
Audience: How does the "I", the thinker, come into being?
Krishnamurti: Now, let us go very slowly. Let us all try to approach
the problem with the intention of finding the truth, then discussing it
will be worthwhile. We are trying to find out how the thinker, the "I",
the "mine", comes into being. Now, first there is perception, then
contact, desire, and identification. Before that, the "I" is not in
existence.
Audience: When my mind is away, I shall not perceive at all. Unless
there is first the perceiver, there is no sensation. A dead body cannot
perceive, though the eyes and the nerves may be there.
Krishnamurti: You take it for granted that there is a superior entity, and the object it sees.
Audience: It appears so.
Krishnamurti: You say so. You take it for granted that there is. why?
Audience: My experience is that without the cooperation of the "I", there is no perception.
Krishnamurti: We cannot talking of pure perception. Perception is
always mixed up with the perceiver - it is a joint phenomenon. If we
talk of perception, the perceiver is immediately dragged in. It is
beyond our experience to speak of perceiving, we never have such an
experience as perceiving. You may fall into a deep sleep, when the
perceiver does not perceive himself; but in deep sleep there is neither
perception nor perceiver. If you know a state in which the perceiver is
perceiving himself without bringing in other objects of perception, then
only can you validly speak of the perceiver. As long as that state is
unknown, we have no right to talk of the perceiver as apart from
perception. So, the perceiver and the perception are a joint phenomenon,
they are the two sides of the same medal. They are not separate, and we
have no right to separate two things which are not separate. We insist
on separating the perceiver from the perception when there is no valid
ground for it. We know no perceiver without perception, and we know no
perception without a perceiver. Therefore, the only valid conclusion is
that perception and perceiver, the "I" and the will, are two sides of
the same medal, they are two aspects of the same phenomenon, which is
neither perception nor perceiver; but an accurate examination of it
requires close attention.
Audience: Where does that take us?
Audience: We must discover a state in which perceiver and perception
do not exist apart, but are part and parcel of the same phenomenon. The
act of perceiving, feeling, thinking, brings in the division of
perceiver and perception, because that is the basic phenomenon of life.
If we can follow up these fleeting moments of perceiving, of knowing, of
feeling, of acting, and divorce them from perception on the one side,
and the perceiver on the other.
Krishnamurti: Sir, this question arose out of the enquiry about the
search for God. Obviously, most of us want to know the experience of
reality. Surely, it can be known only when the experiencer stops
experiencing; because, the experiencer is creating the experience. If
the experiencer is creating the experience, then he will create god;
therefore, it will not be God. Can the experiencer cease? That is the
whole point in this question. Now, if the experiencer and the experience
are a joint phenomenon, which is so obvious, then the experiencer, the
actor, the thinker, has to stop thinking. Is that not obvious? So, can
the thinker cease to think? Because, when he thinks, he creates, and
what he creates is not the real. Therefore, to find out whether there is
or there is not reality, God, or what you will, the thought process has
to come to an end, which means that the thinker must cease. Whether he
is produced by thoughts is irrelevant for the moment. The whole thought
process, which includes the thinker, has to come to an end. It is only
then that we will find reality. Now, first of all, in bringing that
process to an end, how is it to be done, and who is to do it? If the
thinker does it, the thinker is still the product of thought. The
thinker putting an end to thought is still the continuity of thought.
So, what is the thinker to do? Any exertion on his part is still the
thinking process. I hope I am making myself clear.
Audience: It may even mean resistance to thinking.
Krishnamurti: Resistance to thinking, putting down all thinking, is
still a form of thinking; therefore the thinker continues, and therefore
he can never find the truth. So, what is one to do? This is very
serious and requires sustained attention. Any effort on the part of the
thinker projects the thinker on a different level. That is a fact. If
the thinker, the experiencer, positively or negatively makes an effort
to understand reality, he is still maintaining the thought process. So,
what is he to do? All that he can do is to realize that any effort on
his part, positively or negatively, is detrimental. He must see the
truth of that and not merely verbally understand it. He must see that he
cannot act, because any action on his part maintains the actor, gives
nourishment to the actor; any effort on his part, positively or
negatively, gives strength to the "I", the thinker, the experiencer. So
all that he can do is not to do anything. Even to wish positively or
negatively is still part of thinking. He must see the fact that any
effort he makes is detrimental to the discovery of truth. That is the
first requirement. If I want to understand, I must be completely free
from prejudice; and I cannot be in that state when I am making an
effort, negatively or positively. It is extremely hard. It requires a
sense of passive awareness in which there is no effort. It is only then
that reality can project itself.
Audience: Concentration upon the projected reality?
Krishnamurti: Concentration is another form of exertion, which is
still an act of thinking. Therefore, concentration will obviously not
lead to reality.
Audience: You said that, positively or negatively, any action on the part of the thinker is a projection of the thinker.
Krishnamurti: It is a fact, Sir.
Comment from the Audience: In other words, you distinguish between awareness and thought.
Krishnamurti: I am going at it slowly. When we talk of concentration,
concentration implies compulsion, exclusion, interest in something
exclusive, in which choice is involved. That implies effort on the part
of the thinker, which strengthens the thinker. Is that not a fact? So,
we will have to go into the problem of thought. What is thought? Thought
is reaction to a condition, which means thought is the response of
memory; and how can memory which is the past, create the eternal?
Audience: We do not say memory creates it because memory is a thing without awareness.
Krishnamurti: It is unconscious, subconscious, it comes of its own
accord, involuntarily. We are now trying to find out what we mean by
thought. To understand this question, don't look into a dictionary, look
at yourself, examine yourself. What do you mean by thinking? When you
say you are thinking, what are you actually doing? You are reacting. You
are reacting through your past memory. Now, what is memory? It is
experience, the storing up of yesterday's experience, whether collective
or individual. Experience of yesterday is memory. When do we remember
an experience? Surely, only when it is not complete. I have an
experience, and that experience is incomplete, unfinished, and it leaves
a mark. That mark I call memory, and memory responds to a further
challenge. This response of memory to a challenge is called thinking.
Audience: On what is the mark left?
Krishnamurti: On the "me". After all, the "me", the "mine", is the
residue of all memories, collective, racial, individual, and so on. That
bundle of memories is the "me", and that "me" with its memory responds.
That response is called thinking.
Audience: Why are these memories bundled together?
Krishnamurti: Through identification. I put everything in a bag, consciously or unconsciously.
Comment from the Audience: So, there is a bag separate from memory.
Krishnamurti: Memory is the bag.
Comment from the audience: Why do the memories stick together?
Krishnamurti: Because they are incomplete.
Audience: But memories are non-existent, they are in a state of inertia, unless somebody is there to remember.
Krishnamurti: In other words, is the rememberer different from
memory? The rememberer and the memory are two sides of a coin. Without
memory, there is no rememberer, and without the rememberer, there is no
memory.
Audience: Why do we insist on separating the perceiver from the
perception, the rememberer from the memory? Is this not at the root of
our trouble?
Krishnamurti: We separate it because the rememberer, the experiencer,
the thinker, becomes permanent by separation. Memories are obviously
fleeting; so the rememberer, the experiencer, the mind, separates itself
because it wants permanency. The mind that is making an effort, that is
striving, that is choosing, that is disciplined, obviously cannot find
the real; because, as we said, through that very effort it projects
itself and sustains the thinker. Now, how to free the thinker from his
thoughts? This is what we are discussing. Because, whatever he thinks
must be the result of the past, and therefore he creates god, truth, out
of memory, which is obviously not real. In other words, the mind is
constantly moving from the known to the known. When memory functions,
the mind can move only in the field of the known; and when it moves
within the field of the known, it can never know the unknown. So, our
problem is, how to free the mind from the known. To free ourselves from
the known, any effort is detrimental, because effort is still of the
known. So, all effort must cease. Have you ever tried to be without
effort? If I understand that all effort is futile, that all effort is a
further projection of the mind, of the "I", of the thinker, if I realize
the truth of that, what happens? If I see very clearly the label
"poison" on a bottle, I leave it alone. There is no effort not to be
attracted to it. Similarly - and in this lies the greatest difficulty - ,
if I realize that any effort on my part is detrimental, if I see the
truth of that, then I am free of effort. Any effort on our part is
detrimental, but we are not sure, because we want a result, we want an
achievement - and that is our difficulty. Therefore, we go on striving,
striving, striving. But God, truth, is not a result, a reward, an end.
Surely, it must come to us, we cannot go to it. If we make an effort to
go to it, we are seeking a result, an achievement. But for truth to
come, a man must be passively aware. Passive awareness is a state in
which there is no effort; it is to be aware without judgment, without
choice, not in some ultimate sense, but in every way; it is to be aware
of your actions, of your thoughts, of your relative responses, without
choice, without condemnation, without identifying or denying, so that
the mind begins to understand every thought and every action without
judgment. This evokes the question of whether there can be understanding
without thought.
Audience: Surely, if you are indifferent to something.
Krishnamurti: Sir, indifference is a form of judgment. A dull mind,
an indifferent mind, is not aware. To see without judgment, to know
exactly what is happening, is awareness. So, it is vain to seek God or
truth without being aware now, in the immediate present. It is much
easier to go to a temple, but that is an escape into the realm of
speculation. To understand reality, we must know it directly, and
reality is obviously not of time and space; it is in the present, and
the present is our own thought and action.
