Choiceless Awareness
Bangalore 4th Public Talk 25th July, 1948
As I was saying the last time we met, the problems of the world are
so colossal, so very complex, that to understand and so to resolve them,
one must approach them in a very simple and direct manner; and
simplicity, directness, do not depend on outward circumstances nor on
our particular prejudices and moods. As I was pointing out, the solution
is not to be found through conferences, blue prints, or through the
substitution of new leaders for old, and so on. The solution obviously
lies in the creator of the problem, in the creator of the mischief, of
the hate and of the enormous misunderstanding that exists between human
beings. The creator of this mischief, the creator of these problems, is
the individual, you and I, not the world as we think of it. The world is
your relationship with another. The world is not something separate
from you and me; the world, society, is the relationship that we
establish or seek to establish between each other.
So, you and I are the problem, and not the world; because, the world
is the projection of ourselves, and to understand the world, we must
understand ourselves. The world is not separate from us; we are the
world, and our problems are the world's problems. This cannot be
repeated too often, because we are so sluggish in our mentality that we
think the world's problems are not our business, that they have to be
resolved by the United Nations, or by substituting new leaders for the
old. It is a very dull mentality that thinks that way; because, we are
responsible for this frightful misery and confusion in the world, this
impending war. To transform the world, we must begin with ourselves;
and, as I said, what is important in beginning with ourselves is the
intention. The intention must be to understand ourselves, and not to
leave it to others to transform themselves or to bring about a modified
change through revolution, either of the left or of the right. So, it is
important to understand that this is our responsibility, your's and
mine; because, however small may be the world we live in, if we can
transform ourselves, bring about a radically different point of view in
our daily existence, then perhaps we shall affect the world at large,
the extended relationship with others.
So, as I said, we are going to discuss and find out the process of
understanding ourselves, which is not an isolating process. It is not
withdrawal from the world, because you cannot live in isolation. To be
is to be related, and there is no such thing as living in isolation. It
is the lack of right relationship that brings about conflicts, misery
and strife; and however small our world may be, if we can transform our
relationship in that narrow world, it will be like a wave extending
outward all the time. I think it is important to see that point, that
the world is our relationship, however narrow; and if we can bring a
transformation there, not a superficial but a radical transformation,
then we shall begin actively to transform the world. Real revolution is
not according to any particular pattern, either of the left or of the
right, but it is a revolution of values, a revolution from sensate
values to the values that are not sensate or created by environmental
influences. To find these true values which will bring about a radical
revolution, a transformation or a regeneration, it is essential to
understand oneself. Self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom, and
therefore the beginning of transformation or regeneration. To understand
oneself, there must be the intention to understand - and that is where
our difficulty comes in. Because, although most of us are discontented,
we desire to bring about a sudden change, our discontent is canalized
merely to achieve a certain result; being discontented, we either seek a
different job, or merely succumb to environment. So, discontent,
instead of setting us aflame, causing us to question life, the whole
process of existence is canalized, and thereby we become mediocre,
losing that drive, that intensity to find out the whole significance of
existence. Therefore, it is important to discover these things for
ourselves, because self knowledge cannot be given to us by another, it
is not to be found through any book. We must discover, and to discover
there must be the intention, the search, the enquiry. As long as that
intention to find out, to enquire deeply, is weak or does not exist,
mere assertion, or a casual wish to find out about oneself, is of very
little significance.
So, the transformation of the world is brought about by the
transformation of oneself; because the self is the product and a part of
the total process of human existence. To transform oneself,
self-knowledge is essential; because, without knowing what you are,
there is no basis for right thought, and without knowing yourself there
cannot be transformation. One must know oneself as one is, not as one
wishes to be, which is merely an ideal and therefore fictitious, unreal;
and it is only that which is that can be transformed, not that which
you wish to be. So, to know oneself as one is, requires an extraordinary
alertness of mind; because, what is is constantly undergoing
transformation, change, and to follow it swiftly, the mind must not be
tethered to any particular dogma or belief, to any particular pattern of
action. If you would follow anything, it is no good being tethered. So,
to know yourself, there must be the awareness, the alertness of mind in
which there is freedom from all beliefs, from all idealization;
because, beliefs and ideals only give you a colour, perverting true
perception. If you want to know what you are, you cannot imagine or have
belief in something which you are not. If I am greedy, envious,
violent, merely having an ideal of non-violence, of non-greed, is of
little value. But to know that one is greedy or violent, to know and
understand it, requires an extraordinary perception, does it not? It
demands honesty, clarity of thought. Whereas, to pursue an ideal away
from what is, is an escape; it prevents you from discovering and acting
directly upon what you are.
So, the understanding of what you are, whatever it be - ugly or
beautiful, wicked or mischievous - , the understanding of what you are
without distortion, is the beginning of virtue. Virtue is essential, for
it gives freedom. It is only in virtue that you can discover, that you
can live - not in the cultivation of a virtue, which merely brings about
respectability, and not understanding and freedom. There is a
difference between being virtuous and becoming virtuous. Being virtuous
comes through the understanding of what is, whereas becoming virtuous is
postponement, the covering up of what is with what you would like to
be. Therefore, in becoming virtuous you are avoiding action directly
upon what is. This process of avoiding what is through the cultivation
of the ideal is considered virtuous; but if you look at it closely and
directly, you will see that it is nothing of the kind. It is merely a
postponement of coming face to face with what is. Virtue is not the
becoming of what is not; virtue is the understanding of what is and
therefore the freedom from what is. And virtue is essential in a society
that is rapidly disintegrating. In order to create a new world, a new
structure away from the old, there must be freedom to discover; and to
be free, there must be virtue, for without virtue there is no freedom.
Can the immoral man who is striving to become virtuous, ever know
virtue? The man who is not moral can never be free, and therefore he can
never find out what reality is. Reality can be found only in
understanding what is; and to understand what is, there must be freedom,
freedom from the fear of what is.
Is virtue, then, a matter of time? The understanding of what is,
which is virtue, for it gives freedom, immediate release - is this a
matter of time? Are you kind, generous, affectionate, through the
process of time? That is, will you be kind day after tomorrow? Can
kindness be thought of in terms of time? After all, affection, mercy,
generosity are necessities of life, they are the only solvent for all
our problems. Goodwill is essential, and we have not got it, have we?
Neither the politicians, nor the leaders, nor the followers have real
goodwill, which is not an ideal; and without goodwill, without that
extraordinary mellowness of being which gives affection, our problems
cannot be solved by mere conferences. So, you, like the politicians and
the vast majority of human beings the world over, are not kind, you have
not got that goodwill which is the only solution; and since you have
not got it, is it a mere question of time? Will you have goodwill
tomorrow or ten years hence? Is it not fallacious reasoning to think in
the future? If you are not kind now, you will never be kind. You may
think that by slow practice, discipline, and all the rest of it, you
will be kind tomorrow or ten years later; but in the meantime, you are
being unkind. And kindness, goodwill, affection, is the only solvent for
the immediate problems of existence; it is the only remedy that will
destroy the poison of nationalism, of communalism, the only cement that
can bring us together.
Now, if kindness, mercy, is not a matter of time, then why is it that
you and I are not kind immediately, directly? Why is it that we are not
kind now? If we can understand why we are not kind, understanding being
immediate, we shall be kind immediately; then we shall forget what our
caste is, we shall forget our communal, religious and nationalistic
differences and be immediately generous, kind. Therefore, we must
understand why we are not kind, and not patiently practise goodness or
meditate on generosity - which is all absurd. But if I know why I am
unkind and I want to be kind, then, because my intention is to be kind, I
will be. So again, the intention matters enormously; but the intention
is futile if I do not know the cause of unkindness. Therefore, I must
know the whole process of my thinking, the whole process of my attitude
towards life. So, the study of oneself becomes tremendously important;
but self-knowledge is not an end. One must study oneself more and more,
but not with an object in view, to achieve a result; because, if we seek
an object, a result, we put an end to enquiry, to discovery, to
freedom. Self-knowledge is the understanding of the process of oneself,
the process of the mind, it is to be aware of all the intricacies of the
passions and their pursuits; and as one knows oneself more and more
deeply and widely, extensively ind profoundly, there comes a freedom, a
liberation from the entanglements of fear, the fear which brings about
beliefs, dogmas, nationalism, caste and all the hideous inventions of
the mind to keep itself isolated in fear And when there is freedom,
there is the discovery of that which is eternal. Without that freedom,
merely asking what is the eternal, or reading books about the eternal,
has no value at all. It is like children playing with toys. Eternity,
reality, God, or what you will, can be discovered only by you. It comes
into being only when the mind is free, untrammelled by beliefs,
untrammelled by prejudice, not caught in the net of passion, ill will
and worldliness. But a mind that is entangled in nationalism, or in
beliefs and rituals, is caught in its own desires, ambitions and
pursuits, and obviously such a mind cannot possibly understand. It is
not prepared to receive.
Only the discovery of truth will bring happiness, and to discover,
there must be the understanding of oneself. To understand oneself, there
must be the intention to understand and with the intention, comes an
enquiring mind, a mind that is alertly aware without condemnation,
without identification or justification; and such awareness brings an
immediate release from the problem. Therefore, our whole search is not
for the answer to a problem, but for the understanding of the problem
itself. And the problem is not outside you: it is you, the problem is
you. To understand the problem, to understand the creator of the
problem, which is yourself, you have to discover yourself spontaneously
from day to day as you are: because, it is only at the moment when your
responses arise that you can understand them. But if you discipline your
responses to a particular pattern, either of the left or of the right,
or if you follow a particular rule of conduct, then you cannot discover
your own responses. Experiment with it and you will find being aware of
each response as it arises, seeing it without condemnation or
justification and pursuing the whole implication of that response.
Freedom is in release from the response, not in disciplining that
response.
So, our whole enquiry into the purpose of existence, our question as
to whether there is reality or not, has very little meaning if there is
no understanding of the mind, which is yourself. The problem, which is
so vast, so complex, so immediate, lies in you, and no one can solve it
except yourself; no guru can solve it, no teacher, no saviour, no
organized compulsion. The outward organization can always be overthrown,
because the inner is much stronger than the outward structure of man's
existence. Without understanding the inner, merely to change the pattern
of the outer has very little meaning. To bring about a lasting
reorganization in outer things, each one of us must begin with himself;
and when there is that inner transformation, the outer can then be
transformed with intelligence, with compassion and with care. There are
several questions, and I will try to answer as many of them as possible
this afternoon.
Question: Do you have a special message for youth?
Krishnamurti: Sirs, is there a very great difference between the
young and the old? Youth, the young people, if they are at all alive,
are full of revolutionary ideas, full of discontent, are they not? They
must be: otherwise they are already old. Please, this is very serious,
so don't agree or disagree. We are discussing life - I am not making a
speech from the platform to please you or to please myself.
As I was saying if the young have not that revolutionary discontent,
they are already old; and the old are those who were once discontented,
but have settled back. They want security, they want permanency, either
in their jobs or in their souls. They want certainty in ideas, in
relationship, or in property. If in you, who are young, there is a
spirit of enquiry which makes you want the truth of anything, of any
political action whether of the left or of the right, and if you are not
bound by tradition, then you will be the regenerators of the world, the
creators of a new civilization, a new culture. But, like the rest of
us, like the past generation, young people also want security,
certainty. They want jobs, they want food, clothing and shelter, they
don't want to disagree with their parents because it means going against
society. Therefore, they fall in line, they accept the authority of
older people. So,what happens? The discontent which is the very flame of
enquiry, of search, of understanding - that discontent is made
mediocre, it becomes merely a desire for a better job, or a rich
marriage, or a degree. So, their discontent is destroyed, it merely
becomes the desire for more security. Surely, what is essential for the
old and for the young is to live fully, completely. But you see, there
are very few people in the world who want to live completely. To live
fully and completely, there must be freedom, not an acceptance of
authority; and there can be freedom only when there is virtue. Virtue is
not imitation; virtue is creative living. That is, creativeness comes
through the freedom which virtue brings; and virtue is not to be
cultivated, it does not come through practice or at the end of your
life. Either you are virtuous and free now, or you are not. And to find
out why you are not free, you must have discontent, you must have the
intention, the drive, the energy to enquire; but you dissipate that
energy sexually, or through shouting political slogans, waving flags, or
merely imitating, passing examinations for a better job.
So, the world is in such misery because there is not that
creativeness. To live creatively, there cannot be mere imitation,
following either Marx, the Bible. or the Bhagavad Gita. Creativeness
comes through freedom, and there can be freedom only when there is
virtue, and virtue is not the result of the process of time. Virtue
comes when you begin to understand what is in your everyday existence.
Therefore, to me the division between the old and the young is rather
absurd. Sirs, maturity is not a matter of age. Although must of us are
older, we are infantile, we are afraid of what society thinks, afraid of
the past. Those who are old seek permanency, comforting assurances, and
the young also want security. So, there is no essential difference
between the old and the young. As I said, maturity does not lie in age.
Maturity comes with understanding, and there is no understanding as long
as we escape from conflict, from suffering; and we escape from
suffering when we seek comfort, when we seek an ideal. But it is when we
are young that we can really, ardently, purposefully enquire. As we
grow older, life is too much for us, and we become more and more dull.
We waste our energies so uselessly. To conserve that energy for purposes
of enquiry, to discover reality, requires a great deal of education -
not mere conformity to a pattern, which is not education. Merely passing
examinations is not education. A fool can pass examinations, it only
requires a certain type of mind. But to enquire deeply and find out what
life is, to understand the whole basis of existence, requires a very
alert and keen mind, a mind that is pliable. But the mind is made
unplayable when it is forced to conform, and the whole structure of our
society is based on compulsion. However subtle com- pulsion may be,
through compulsion there cannot be understanding.
Question: Is your self-confidence born of your own release from fear
or does it arise from the conviction that you are solidly backed by
great beings like the Buddha and the Christ?
Krishnamurti: Sirs, first of all, how does confidence come into
being? Confidence is of two types. There is the confidence that comes
through the acquisition of technical knowledge. A mechanic, an engineer,
a physicist, a man who masters the violin, has confidence, because he
has studied or practiced for a number of years and has acquired a
technique. That gives one type of confidence - a confidence which is
merely superficial, technical. But there is another type of confidence
which comes from self - knowledge, from knowing oneself entirely, both
the conscious and the unconscious, the hidden mind as well as the open. I
say it is possible to know yourself completely, and then there comes a
confidence which is not aggressive not self-assertive, not shrewd, not
that confidence which comes from achievement; but it is the confidence
of seeing things as they are from moment to moment without distortion
Such confidence comes into being naturally when thought is not based on
personal achievement, personal aggrandisement, or personal salvation,
and when each thing reveals its true significance. Then you are backed
by wisdom, whether it is of the Buddha or of the Christ. That wisdom,
that confidence, that extraordinarily swift pliability of mind, is not
for the exclusive few. There is no hierarchy of understanding. When you
understand a problem of relationship, whether with physical objects,
with ideas, or with your neighbour, that understanding frees you from
all sense of time, of position, of authority. Therefore, there is not
the Master and the pupil, the guru sitting on a platform and you sitting
down below. Sirs, such confidence is love, affection; and when you love
somebody, there is no difference, there is neither high nor low. When
there is love, this extraordinary flame, then that itself is its own
eternity.
Question: Can we come to the real through beauty, or is beauty sterile as far as truth is concerned?
Krishnamurti: Now, what do we mean by beauty and what do we mean by
truth? Surely, beauty is not an ornament; mere decoration of the body is
not beauty. We all want to be beautiful, we all want to be presentable -
but that is not what we mean by beauty. To be neat, to be tidy, to be
clean, courteous, considerate, and so on, is part of beauty, is it not?
But these are merely expressions of the inward release from ugliness.
Now, what is happening in the world? Every day, more and more, we are
decorating the outer. The cinema stars, and you who copy them, are
keeping beautiful outwardly; but if you have nothing inside, the outward
decoration, the ornamentation, is not beauty. Sirs, don't you know that
inward state of being that inward tranquillity, in which there is love,
kindliness, generosity, mercy? That state of being, obviously, is the
very essence of beauty, and without that, merely to decorate oneself is
to emphasize the sensate values, the values of the senses; and to
cultivate the values of the senses, as we are doing now, must inevitably
lead to conflict, to war, to destruction.
The decoration of the outer is the very nature of our present
civilization, which is based on industrialization. Not that I am against
industrialization - it would be absurd to destroy industries. But
merely to cultivate the outer without understanding the inner must
inevitably create those values which lead men to destroy each other; and
that is exactly what is taking place in the world. Beauty is regarded
as an ornament to be bought and sold, to be painted, and so on. Surely,
that is not beauty. Beauty is a state of being, and that state of being
comes with inward richness - not the inward accumulation of riches which
we call virtue, ideals. That is not beauty. Richness, inward beauty
with its own imperishable treasures, comes into being when the mind is
free; and the mind can be free only when there is no fear. The
understanding of fear comes through self-knowledge, not through
resistance to fear. If you resist fear, that is, any form of ugliness,
you merely build a wall against it. Behind the wall there is no freedom,
there is only isolation, and what lives in isolation can never be rich,
can never be full. So, beauty has a relationship to reality only when
reality manifests itself through those virtues which are essential.
Now, what do we mean by truth, or God, or what you will? Obviously,
it cannot be formulated; for, that which is formulated is not the real,
it is the creation of the mind, the result of a thought process; and
thought is the response of memory. Memory is the residue of incomplete
experiences; therefore, truth, or God, or what you will, is the unknown
and it cannot be formulated. For the unknown to be, the mind itself must
cease to be attached to the known, and then there is relationship
between beauty and reality, then reality and beauty are not different;
then truth is beauty, whether it is in a smile, the flight of a bird,
the cry of a baby, or in the anger of your wife or husband. To know the
truth of what is, is good; but to know the beauty of that truth, the
mind must be capable of understanding, and mind is not capable of
understanding when it is tethered, when it is afraid, when it is
avoiding something. This avoidance takes the form of outward decoration,
ornamentation: being inwardly insufficient, poor, we try to become
outwardly beautiful. We build lovely houses, buy a great many jewels,
accumulate possessions. All these are indications of inward poverty. Not
that we should not have nice dress, good houses; but without inner
richness, they have no meaning. Because we are not inwardly rich, we
cultivate the outer, and therefore the cultivation of the outer is
leading us to destruction. That is, when you cultivate sensate values,
expansion is necessary, markets are necessary; you must expand through
industry, and the competitive expansion of industry means more and more
controls, whether of the left or of the right, inevitably leading to
war; and we try to solve the problems of war on the basis of sensate
values.
The seeker after truth is the seeker after beauty - they are not
distinct. Beauty is not merely outward ornamentation but that richness
that comes through the freedom of inward understanding, the realization
of what is.
Question: Why do you decry religion, which obviously contains grains
of truth? Why throw out the baby with the bath water? Need not truth be
recognized wherever it is found?
Krishnamurti: Sirs, what do you mean by religion? Organized dogma,
belief, rituals, worshipping any person however great, reciting prayers,
repeating Shastras, quoting the Bible - is that religion? Or is
religion the search for truth or God? Can you find God through organized
belief? By your calling yourself a Hindu and following all the rituals
of Hinduism or of any other "ism", will you find God or truth? Sure- ly,
what I decry is not religion, not the search for reality, but organized
belief with its dogmas and separative forces and influences. We are not
seeking reality, but are caught in the net of organized beliefs,
repetitive rituals - you know the whole business of it - which I call
nonsense, because they are drugs that distract the mind from seeking;
they offer escapes, and thereby make the mind dull, ineffective.
So, as our minds are caught in the net of organized beliefs with
their whole system of authorities, priests and gurus, all of which are
engendered through fear and the desire for certainty - as we are caught
in that net, obviously, we cannot merely accept, we must enquire, we
must look directly, experience directly, and see what it is we are
caught in and why we are caught. Because my great grandfather did some
ritual, or my mother is going to cry if I do not do it, therefore I must
do it. Surely, such a man, who is psychologically dependent on others
and hence fearful, is incapable of finding out what truth is. He may
talk about it, he may repeat the name of God umpteen times, but he is
nowhere, he has no reality. Reality will shun him, because he is encased
in his own prejudices and fears. And you are responsible for this
organized religion, whether of the East or of the West, whether of the
left or of the right, which, being based on authority, has separated man
from man. Why do you want authority, either of the past or of the
present? You want authority because you are confused, you are in pain,
in anxiety, there is loneliness and you are suffering. Therefore, you
want help from outside; so you create authority, whether political or
religious, and having created that authority, you follow its directions,
hoping that the confusion, the anxiety, the pain in your heart, will be
removed. Can another remove your pains, your sorrows? Others may help
you to escape from sorrow, but it is always there.
So, it is you who create authority; and having created the authority,
you become its slaves. Belief is a product of authority; and because
you want to escape from confusion, you are caught in belief and
therefore continue in confusion. Your leaders are the outcome of your
confusion, therefore they must be confused. You would never follow
anyone if you were clear, unconfused and directly experiencing. It is
because you are confused that there is no direct experience. Out of your
confusion you create the leader, organized religion, separative
worship, which brings about the strife that is going on in the world at
the present time. In India it is taking the form of communal conflicts
between the Mussalmans and the Hindus, in Europe it is the communists
against the rightists, and so on and on. If you look into it carefully,
analyze it, you will see that it is all based on authority, one person
says this and another person says that; and authority is created by you
and me, because we are confused. This may sound oversimplified verbally,
but if you go into it, it is not simple, it is extremely complex. Being
confused, you want to be led out - which means you are not
understanding the problem of confusion, you are only seeking an escape.
To understand confusion, you must understand the person who is making
the confusion, which is yourself; and without understanding yourself
what is the good of following somebody? Being confused, do you think you
will find truth in any practice or organized religion? Though you may
study the Upanishads, the Gita, the Bible, or any other book, do you
think that you are capable of reading the truth of it when you yourself
are confused? You will translate what you read according to your
confusion, your likes and dislikes, your prejudices, your conditioning.
Your approach, surely, is not to reality To find truth, Sir, is to
understand yourself. Then truth comes to you you do not have to go to
truth - and that is the beauty of it. If you go to truth, that which you
approach is projected out of yourself, and therefore it is not truth.
Then it becomes merely a process of self-hypnosis, which is organized
religion. To find truth, for truth to come to you, you must see very
clearly your own prejudices, opinions, ideas and conclusions; and that
clarity comes through the freedom which is virtue. For the virtuous
mind, there is truth everywhere. Then you do not belong to any organized
religion, then you are free.
So, truth comes into being when the mind is capable of receiving it,
when the heart is empty of the things of the mind. At present our hearts
are full of the things of the mind; and when the heart frees itself of
the mind, then it is receptive, sensitive to reality.
Question: Some of us who have listened to you for many years agree,
perhaps only verbally, with all that you say. But actually, in daily
life, we are dull, and there is not the living from moment to moment
that you speak of. Why is there such a huge gap between thought, or
rather words, and action?
Krishnamurti: I think we mistake verbal appreciation for real
understanding. Verbally we understand each other, we understand the
words. I communicate to you verbally certain thoughts that I have, and
you remain on the verbal level, and from that verbal level, you hope to
act. So, you will have to find out if verbal appreciation brings about
understanding, action. For example. when I say that goodwill, affection,
love, is the only solution, the only way out of this mess, verbally you
thoughtful, you will probably agree. Now, why don't you act? For the
very simple reason that the verbal response is identified with the
intellectual response. That is, intellectually you think you have
grasped the idea, and so there is division between idea and action. That
is why the cultivation of ideas creates, not understanding, but mere
opposition, counter-ideas; and although this opposition may bring about a
revolution, it will not be a real transformation of the individual and
therefore of society.
I do not know if I am making myself clear on this point. If we dwell
on the verbal level, then we merely produce ideas, because words are
things of the mind. Words are sensate, and if we dwell on the verbal
level, words can only create sensate ideas and values. That is, one set
of ideas creates counter-ideas, and these counter-ideas produce an
action; but that action is merely reaction, the response to an idea.
Most of us live merely verbally, we feed on words; the Bhagavad Gita
says this, the Puranas say that; or, Marx says this, Einstein says that.
Words can only produce ideas, and ideas will never produce action.
Ideas can produce a reaction, but not action - and that is why we have
this gap between verbal comprehension and action.
Now, the questioner wants to know how to build the bridge between
word and action. I say you cannot, you cannot bridge the gap between
word and action. Please see the importance of this. Words can never
produce action. They can only produce a response, a counter-action or
reaction, and therefore still further reaction, like a wave; and in that
wave you are caught. Whereas, action is quite a different thing, it is
not reaction. So, you cannot bridge the gap between the word and the
action. You have to leave the word - and then you will act. Our
difficulty, then, is how to leave the word. That means, how to act
without reaction. Do you follow? Because, as long as you are fed on
words, you are bound to react; therefore you have to empty yourself of
words, which means emptying yourself of imitation. Words are imitation,
living on the verbal level is to live in imitation; and since our whole
life is based on imitation, on copying, naturally we have made ourselves
incapable of action. Therefore you have to investigate the various
patterns which make you copy, imitate, live on the verbal level; and as
you begin to unravel the various patterns that have made you imitative,
you will find that you act without reaction.
Sir, love is not a word; the word is not the thing, is it? God is not
the word "god", love is not the word "love". But you are satisfied with
the word, because the word gives you a sensation. When somebody says
"God", you are psychologically or nervously affected, and that response
you call the understanding of God. So, the word affects you nervously
and sensuously, and that produces certain action. But the word is not
the thing, the word "god" is not God; you have merely been fed on words,
on nervous, sensuous responses. Please see the significance of this.
How can you act if you have been fed on empty words? For words are
empty, are they not? They can only produce a nervous response, but that
is not action. Action can take place only when there is no imitative
response, which means the mind must enquire into the whole process of
verbal life. For example, some leader, political or religious, makes a
statement, and without thought you say you agree ; and then you wave a
flag, you fight for India or Germany. But you have not examined what was
said; and since you have not examined, what you do is merely a
reaction, and between reaction and action there can be no relationship.
Most of us are conditioned to reaction, so you have to discover the
causes of this conditioning; and as the mind begins to free itself from
the conditioning you will find that there is action. Such action is not
reaction, it is its own vitality, it is its own eternity.
So, with most of us the difficulty is that we want to bridge the
unbridgeable, we want to serve both God and mammon, we want to live on
the verbal plane, and yet act. The two are incompatible. We all know
reaction, but very few of us know action, because action can come only
when we understand that the word is not the thing. When we understand
that, then we can go much deeper, we can begin to uncover in ourselves
all the fears, the imitations, escapes and authorities; but that means
we have to live very dangerously, and very few of us want to live in a
state of perpetual revolution. What we want is a backwater refuge where
we can settle down and be comforted, emotionally, physically, or
psychologically. As between a lazy man and a very active man there is no
relationship, so there is no relationship between word and action; but
once we understand that and see the whole significance of it, then there
is action. Such action, surely, leads to reality; it is the field in
which reality can operate. Then we do not have to seek out reality: it
comes directly, mysteriously, silently, stealthily. And a mind that is
capable of receiving reality is blessed.
