Choiceless Awareness
Bangalore 6th Public Talk 8th August, 1948
We have been discussing, the several times that we have met, the
problem of transformation, which alone can bring about the revolution
which is so necessary in the world's affairs. And, as we have seen, the
world is not different from you and me: the world is what we make it. We
are the result of the world, and we are the world; so the
transformation must begin with us, not with the world, not with outward
legislation, blue prints, and so on. It is essential that each one
should realize the importance of this inner transformation, which will
bring about an outward revolution. Mere change in the outward
circumstances of life is of very little significance without the inner
transformation; and, as we said, this inner transformation can not take
place without self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is to know the total
process of oneself, the ways of one's own thinking, feeling, and action;
and without knowing oneself, there is no basis for broader action. So,
self-knowledge is of primary importance. One must obviously begin to
understand oneself in all one's actions, thoughts and feelings, because
the self, the mind, the "me" is so very complex and subtle. So many
impositions have been placed upon the mind, the "me", so many influences
- racial, religious, national, social, environmental - have shaped it,
that to follow each step, to analyze each imprint, is extremely
difficult; and if we miss one, if we do not analyze properly and miss
one step, then the whole process of analysis miscarries. So, our problem
is to understand the self, the "me" - not just one part of the "me",
but the whole field of thought, which is the response of the "me". We
have to understand the whole field of memory from which all thought
arises, both the conscious and the unconscious; and all that is the self
- the hidden as well as the open, the dreamer and what he dreams.
Now, to understand the self, which alone can bring about a radical
revolution, a regeneration, there must be the intention to understand
its whole process. The process of the individual is not opposed to the
world, to the mass, whatever that term may mean; because, there is no
mass apart from you - you are the mass. So, to understand that process,
there must be the intention to know what is, to follow every thought,
feeling and action; and to understand what is is extremely difficult,
because what is is never still, never static, it is always in movement.
The what is is what you are, not what you would like to be; it is not
the ideal, because the ideal is fictitious, but it is actually what you
are doing, thinking and feeling from moment to moment. What is is the
actual, and to understand the actual requires awareness, a very alert,
swift mind. But if we begin to condemn what is, if we begin to blame or
resist it, then we shall not understand its movement. If I want to
understand somebody, I cannot condemn him: I must observe, study him. I
must love the very thing I am studying. If you want to understand a
child, you must love and not condemn him. You must play with him, watch
his movements, his idiosyncrasies, his ways of behaviour; but if you
merely condemn, resist or blame him, there is no comprehension of the
child. Similarly, to understand what is, one must observe what one
thinks, feels and does from moment to moment. That is the actual. Any
other action, any ideal or ideological action, is not the actual; it is
merely a wish, a fictitious desire to be something other than what is.
So, to understand what is requires a state of mind in which there is
no identification or condemnation, which means a mind that is alert and
yet passive. We are in that state when we really desire to understand
something; when the intensity of interest is there, that state of mind
comes into being. When one is interested in understanding what is, the
actual state of the mind, one does not need to force, discipline, or
control it; on the contrary, there is passive alertness, watchfulness.
If I want to understand a picture or a person, I must put aside all my
prejudices, my preconceptions, my classical or other training, and study
the picture or the person directly. This state of awareness comes when
there is interest, the intention to understand.
Now, the next question is whether transformation is a matter of time.
Most of us are accustomed to think that time is necessary for
transformation: I am something, and to change what I am into what I
should be requires time. I am greedy, with its results of confusion,
antagonism, conflict and misery; and to bring about the transformation,
which is non-greed, we think time is necessary. That is, time is
considered as a means for evolving something greater, for becoming
something. Do you understand the problem? The problem is this: One is
violent, greedy, envious, angry, vicious, or passionate. Now, to
transform what is, is time necessary? First of all, why do we want to
change what is, or bring about a transformation? Why? Because what we
are dissatisfies us; it creates conflict, disturbance; and disliking
that state, we want something better, something nobler, more idealistic.
So, we desire transformation because there is pain, discomfort,
conflict. Now, is conflict overcome by time? If you say it will be
overcome by time, you are still in conflict. That is, you may say it
will take 20 days or 20 years to get rid of conflict, to change what you
are; but during that time you are still in conflict, and therefore time
does not bring about transformation. When we use time as a means of
acquiring a quality, a virtue, or a state of being, we are merely
postponing or avoiding what is; and I think it is important to
understand this point. Greed or violence causes pain, disturbance, in
the world of our relationship with another, which is society; and being
conscious of this state of disturbance, which we term greed or violence,
we say to ourselves, "I will get out of it in time. I will practise
non-violence, I will practise non-envy, I will practise peace". Now, you
want to practise non-violence because violence is a state of
disturbance, conflict, and you think that in time you will gain
nonviolence and overcome the conflict. So, what is actually happening?
Being in a state of conflict, you want to achieve a state in which there
is no conflict. Now, is that state of no-conflict the result of time,
of a duration? Obviously not. Because, while you are achieving a state
of nonviolence, you are still being violent and are therefore still in
conflict.
So, our problem is, can a conflict, a disturbance, be overcome in a
period of time, whether it be days, years, or lives? What happens when
you say, "I am going to practise nonviolence during a certain period of
time"? The very practice indicates that you are in conflict, does it
not? You would not practise if you were not resisting conflict; and you
say the resistance to conflict is necessary in order to overcome
conflict and for that resistance you must have time. But the very
resistance to conflict is itself a form of conflict. You are spending
your energy in resisting conflict in the form of what you call greed,
envy, or violence, but your mind is still in conflict. So, it is
important to see the falseness of the process of depending on time as a
means of overcoming violence, and thereby be free of that process. Then
you are able to be what you are: a psychological disturbance which is
violence itself.
Now, to understand anything, any human or scientific problem, what is
important, what is essential? A quiet mind, is it not? A mind that is
intent on understanding. It is not a mind that is exclusive, that is
trying to concentrate - which again is an effort of resistance. If I
really want to understand something, there is immediately a quiet state
of mind. That is, when you want to listen to music or look at a picture
which you love, which you have a feeling for, what is the state of your
mind. Immediately there is a quietness, is there not? When you are
listening to music, your mind does not wander all over the place; you
are listening. Similarly, when you want to understand conflict, you are
no longer depending on time at all; you are simply confronted with what
is, which is conflict. Then immediately there comes a quietness, a
stillness of mind. So, when you no longer depend on time as a means of
transforming what is because you see the falseness of that process, then
you are confronted with what is; and as you are interested to
understand what is, naturally you have a quiet mind. In that alert yet
passive state of mind, there is understanding. As long as the mind is in
conflict, blaming, resisting, condemning, there can be no
understanding. If I want to understand you, I must not condemn you,
obviously. So, it is that quiet mind, that still mind, which brings
about transformation. When the mind is no longer resisting, no longer
avoiding, no longer discarding or blaming what is, but is simply
passively aware, then in that passivity of the mind you will find, if
you really go into the problem, that there comes a transformation. So,
transformation is not the result of time: it is the result of a quiet
mind, a steady mind, a mind that is still, tranquil, passive. The mind
is not passive when it is seeking a result; and the mind will seek a
result as long as it wishes to transform, change, or modify what is. But
if the mind simply has the intention to understand what is and is
therefore still, in that stillness you will find there is an
understanding of what is, and therefore a transformation. We actually do
this when we are confronted with anything in which we are interested.
Observe yourself, and you will see this extraordinary process going on.
When you are interested in something, your mind is quiet. It has not
gone to sleep, it is extremely alert and sensitive, and is therefore
capable of receiving hints, intimations; and it is this stillness, this
alert passivity, that brings a transformation. This does not involve
using time as a means of transformation, modification, or change.
Revolution is only possible now, not in the future; regeneration is
today, not tomorrow. If you will experiment with what I have been
saying, you will find that there is immediate regeneration, a newness, a
quality of freshness; because, the mind is always still when it is
interested, when it desires or has the intention to understand. The
difficulty with most of us is that we have not the intention to
understand, because we are afraid that, if we understood, it might bring
about a revolutionary action in our life; and therefore we resist. It
is the defence mechanism that is at work when we use time or an ideal as
a means of gradual transformation.
So, regeneration is only possible in the present, not in the future,
not tomorrow. A man who relies on time as a means through which he can
gain happiness, or realize truth or God, is merely deceiving himself; he
is living in ignorance, and therefore in conflict. But a man who sees
that time is not the way out of our difficulty, and who is therefore
free from the false, such a man naturally has the intention to
understand; therefore his mind is quiet spontaneously, without
compulsion, without practice. When the mind is still, tranquil, not
seeking any answer or any solution, neither resisting nor avoiding - it
is only then that there can be a regeneration, because then the mind is
capable of perceiving what is true; and it is truth that liberates, not
your effort to be free.
I will answer some of the questions that have been given to me.
Question: You speak so much about the need for ceaseless alertness. I
find my work dulls me so irresistibly, that to talk of alertness after a
day's work is merely putting salt on the wound.
Krishnamurti: Sir, this is an important question. Please let us
examine it together carefully and see what it involves. Now, most of us
are dulled by what we call our work, the job, the routine. Those who
live work, and those who are forced to work out of necessity and who see
that work makes them, dull - they are both dull. Both those who love
their work, and those who resist it, are made dull, are they not? A man
who loves his work, what does he do? He thinks about it from morning to
night, he is constantly occupied with it. He is so identified with his
work that he cannot look at it - he is himself the action, the work; and
to such a person, what happens? He lives in a cage, he lives in
isolation with his work. In that isolation he may be very clever, very
inventive, very subtle, but still he is isolated; and he is made dull
because he is resisting all other work, all other approaches. His work
is therefore a form of escape from life - from his wife, from his social
duties, from innumerable demands, and so on. And there is the man in
the other category, the man who, like most of you, is compelled to do
something he dislikes and who resists it. He is the factory worker, the
bank clerk, the lawyer, or whatever our various jobs are.
Now, what is it that makes us dull? Is it the work itself? Or is it
our resistance to work, or our avoidance of other impacts upon us? Do
you follow the point? I hope I am making it clear. That is, the man who
loves his work is so enclosed in it, so enmeshed, that it becomes an
addiction. Therefore his love of work is an escape from life. And the
man who resists work, who wishes he were doing something else, for him
there is the ceaseless conflict of resistance to what he is doing. So,
our problem is, does work make the mind dull? Or is dullness brought
about by resistance to work on the one hand, and by the use of work to
avoid the impacts of life, on the other? That is, does action, work,
make the mind dull? Or is the mind made dull by avoidance, by conflict,
by resistance? Obviously, it is not work, but resistance, that dulls the
mind. If you have no resistance and accept work, what happens? The work
does not make you dull,because only a part of your mind is working with
the job that you have to do. The rest of your being, the unconscious,
the hidden, is occupied with those thoughts in which you are really
interested. So there is no conflict. This may sound rather complex; but
if you will carefully follow it, you will see that the mind is made
dull, not by work, but by resistance to work, or by resistance to life.
Say, for example, you have to do a certain piece of work which may take
five or six hours. If you say, "What a bore, what an awful thing, I wish
I could be doing something else", obviously your mind is resisting that
work. Part of your mind is wishing you were doing something else. This
division, brought about through resistance, creates dullness, because
you are using your effort wastefully, wishing you were doing something
else. Now if you do not resist it, but do what is actually necessary,
then you say, "I have to earn my livelihood and I will earn that
livelihood rightly". But right livelihood does not mean the army, the
police, or being a lawyer, because they thrive on contention,
disturbance, cunning subterfuge and so on. This is quite a difficult
problem in itself, which we will perhaps discuss later if we have time.
So, if you are occupied in doing something which you have to do to
earn your livelihood, and if you resist it, obviously the mind becomes
dull; because that very resistance is like running an engine with the
brake on. What happens to the poor engine? Its performance becomes dull,
does it not? If you have driven a car, you know what will happen if you
keep putting on the brake - you will not only wear out the brake, but
you will wear out the engine. That is exactly what you are doing when
you resist work. Whereas, if you accept what you have to do, and do it
as intelligently and as fully as possible, then what happens? Because
you are no longer resisting, the other layers of your consciousness are
active irrespective of what you are doing; you are giving only the
conscious mind to your work, and the unconscious, the hidden part of
your mind is occupied with other things in which there is much more
vitality, much more depth. Though you face the work, the unconscious
takes over and functions.
Now, if you observe, what actually happens in your daily life? You
are interested, say, in finding God, in having peace. That is your real
interest, with which your conscious as well as your unconscious mind is
occupied: to find happiness, to find reality, to live rightly,
beautifully, clearly. But you have to earn a livelihood, because there
is no such thing as living in isolation: that which is, is in
relationship. So, being interested in peace, and since your work in
daily life interferes with that, you resist work. You say, "I wish I had
more time to think, to meditate, to practise the violin" - or whatever
it be. When you do that, when you merely resist the work you have to do,
that very resistance is a waste of effort which makes the mind dull;
whereas, if you realize that we all do various things which have got to
be done - writing letters, talking, clearing away the cow dung, or what
you will - and therefore don't resist, but say, "I have got to do that
work", then you will do it willingly and without boredom. If there is no
resistance, the moment that work is over, you will find that the mind
is peaceful; because the unconscious, the deeper layers of the mind, are
interested in peace, you will find that peace begins to come. So, there
is no division between action which may be routine, which may be
uninteresting, and your pursuit of reality: they are compatible when the
mind is no longer resisting, when the mind is no longer made dull
through resistance. It is the resistance that creates the division
between peace and action. Resistance is based on an idea, and resistance
cannot bring about action. It is only action that liberates, not the
resistance to work.
So, it is important to understand that the mind is made dull through
resistance, through condemnation, blame, and avoidance. The mind is not
dull when there is no resistance. When there is no blame, no
condemnation, then it is alive, active. Resistance is merely isolation;
and the mind of man who, consciously or unconsciously, is continually
isolating himself, is made dull by this resistance.
Question: Do you love the people you talk to? Do you love the dull
and ugly crowd, the shapeless faces, the stinking atmosphere of stale
desires, of putrid memories, the decaying of many needless lives? No one
can love them. What is it that makes you slave away in spite of your
repugnance, which is both obvious and understandable?
Krishnamurti: No Sirs there is no repugnance, which is apparently
obvious and understandable to you. I am not repelled. I only see it like
I see a fact. A fact is never ugly. When you are talking seriously, a
man may be scratching his ear, or playing with his legs, or looking
about. As for you, you just observe it - which does not mean that you
are revolted, that you want to avoid it, or that you hate the fact. A
smell is a smell - you just take it; and it is very important to
understand that point. To see a fact as a fact is an important reality.
But the moment you regret or avoid it, call it a name, give it an
emotional content, obviously there is repugnance, avoidance, and then
resistance comes into being. Now, that is not my attitude at all, and I
am afraid the questioner has me wrongly there. It is like seeing that a
person has a red sari or a white coat; but if you give emotional content
to the red and the white, saying this is beautiful or that is ugly,
then you are repelled or attracted.
Now, the point in this question is why do I talk? Why do I wear
myself out, if I don't love the people who have "shapeless faces, stale
desires, putrid memories", and so on? And the questioner says that no
one can love them. Now, does one love people, or is there love? Is love
independent of people, and therefore you love people, or is one in a
state of love? Do you follow what I mean? If I say, "I love people", and
slave away, wear myself out talking, then the people become very
important, and not love. That is, if I have the intention to convert you
to a particular belief, and slave away at it from morning till night
because I think I can make you happy if you believe in my particular
formula, then it is the formula, the belief that I love, not you. Then I
put up with all the ugliness, "the stale desires, the putrid memories,
the stinking atmosphere", and I say it is part of the whole routine; I
become a martyr to my belief, which I think will help you. So, I am in
love with my belief; and as my belief is my own projection, therefore I
am in love with myself. After all, a man who loves a belief, an idea, a
scheme, identifies himself with that formula, and that formula is a
projection of himself. Obviously, he never identifies himself with
something of which he does not approve. If he likes me, that very liking
is his own projection.
Now, if I may say it without being personal, to me it is quite
different. I am not trying to convert you, to proselytize you or to do
propaganda against any particular religion. I am just stating the facts,
because I feel the very understanding of these facts will help man to
live more happily. When you love something, when you love a person, what
is the actual state? Are you in love with the person, or are you in a
state of love? Surely, the person attracts or repels you only when you
are not in that state. When you are in that state of love, there is no
repugnance. It is like a flower giving perfume: next to it a cow may
have left its mark, but the flower is still a flower giving forth its
perfume. But a man comes along and, seeing the cow dung beside the
flower, regards it differently. Sir, in this question is involved the
whole problem of attraction and repulsion. We want to be attracted, that
is, to identify ourselves with that which is pleasant, and avoid that
which is ugly. But if you merely look at things as they are, the fact
itself is never ugly or repellent - it is simply a fact. A man who loves
is consumed by his love, he is not concerned with whether people have
shapeless faces, stale desires and putrid memories. "Don't you know,
Sirs? When you are in love with someone, actually you are not very much
concerned with what that person looks like, whether it is a shapeless
face or a beautiful face. When there is love, you are not concerned;
though you observe the facts, the facts do not repel you. It is not
love, but the empty heart, the arid mind, the stale intellect, that is
repelled or attracted. And when one loves, there is no "slaving away.
"There is ever a renewal, a freshness, a joy - not in talking, not in
putting out a lot of words, but in that state itself. It is when one
does not love that all these things matter - whether you are attractive
or repellent, whether face is shapeless or beautiful, and so on and on.
So, why I "slave away" is not important. Our problem is that we have
no love. Because our hearts are empty, our minds dull, weary, exhausted,
we seek to fill the empty heart with the things made by the mind or by
the hand; or we repeat words, mantrams, do pujas. Those things will not
fill the heart; on the contrary, they will empty the heart of whatever
it has. The heart can be filled only when the mind is quiet. When the
mind is not creating, fabricating, caught up in ideas - only then is the
heart alive. Then one knows what it is to have that warmth, the
richness in holding the hand of another.
Question: Is not all caress sexual? Is not all sex a form of
revitalization, through interpretation and exchange? The mere exchange
of loving glances is also an act of sex. Why do you castigate sex by
linking it up with the emptiness of our lives? Do empty people know sex?
They know only evacuation.
Krishnamurti: I am afraid it is only the empty people who know sex,
because sex then is an escape, a mere release. I call him empty who has
no love; and for him sex becomes a problem, an issue, a thing to be
avoided or to be indulged. The heart is empty when the mind is full of
its own ideas, fabrications and mechanization. Because the mind is full,
the heart is empty; and it is only the empty heart that knows sex.
Sirs, have you not noticed? An affectionate man, a man full of
tenderness, kindliness, consideration, is not sexual. It is the man who
is intellectual, full of knowledge, knowledge being different from
wisdom; the man who has schemes, who wants to save the world, who is
full of intellection, full of mentation - it is he who is caught up in
sex. Because his life is shallow, his heart empty, sex becomes important
- and that is what is happening in the present civilization. We have
over-cultivated our intellect, and the mind is caught in its own
creations as the radio, the motor car, the mechanized amusements, the
technical knowledge, and the various addictions the mind indulges in.
When such a mind is caught, there is only one release for it, which is
sex. Sirs, look at what is happening within each one of us, don't look
at somebody else. Examine your own life and you will see how you are
caught in this problem, how extraordinarily empty your life is. What is
your life, Sirs? Bright, arid, empty, dull, weary, is it not? You go to
your offices, do your jobs, repeat your mantrams, perform your pujas.
When you are in the office, you are subjugated, dull, you have to follow
a routine; you have become mechanical in your religion, it is mere
acceptance of authority. So, religiously, in the world of business, in
your education, in your daily life, what is actually happening? There is
no creative state of being, is there? You are not happy, you are not
vital, you are not joyous. Intellectually, religiously, economically,
socially, politically, you are dull, regimented, are you not? This
regimentation is the result of your own fears, your own hopes, your own
frustrations; and since for a human being so caught there is no release,
naturally he looks to sex for a release - there he can indulge himself,
there he can seek happiness. So, sex becomes automatic, habitual,
routine, and that also becomes a dulling, a vicious process. That is
your life, actually, if you look at it, if you don't try to dodge it, if
you don't try to excuse it. The actual fact is, you are not creative.
You may have babies, innumerable babies, but that is not creative
action, that is an accidental action of existence.
So, a mind that is not alert, vital, a heart that is not
affectionate, full, how can it be creative? And not being creative, you
seek stimulation through sex, through amusement, cinemas, theatres,
through watching others play while you remain a spectator; others paint
the scene or dance, and you yourself are but an observer. That is not
creation. Similarly, so many books are printed in the world because you
merely read. You are not the creator. Where there is no creation, the
only release is through sex, and then you make your wife or husband the
prostitute. Sirs, you have no idea of the implications, the wickedness,
the cruelty of all this. I know you are uncomfortable. You are not
thinking it out. You are shutting your mind, and therefore sex has
become an immense problem in modern civilization - either promiscuity,
or the mechanical habit of sexual release in marriage. Sex will remain a
problem as long as there is no creative state of being. You may use
birth control, you may adopt various practices, but you are not free of
sex. Sublimation is not freedom, suppression is not freedom, control is
not freedom. There is freedom only when there is affection, when there
is love. Love is pure; and when that is missing, your trying to become
pure through the sublimation of sex is mere stupidity. The factor that
purifies is love, not your desire to be pure. A man who loves is pure,
though he may be sexual; and without love, sex is what it is now in your
lives - a routine, an ugly process, a thing to be avoided, ignored,
done away with, or indulged in.
So, this problem of sex will exist as long as there is no creative
release. There can be no creative release, religiously, if you accept
authority, whether of tradition, the sacred books, or the priest; for
authority compels, distorts, perverts. Where there is authority there is
compulsion, and you accept authority because you hope through religion
to have security; and while the mind is seeking security, intellectually
or religiously, there can be no creative understanding, there can be no
creative release. It is the mind, the mechanism of the mind that is
always seeking security, always wanting certainty. The mind is ever
moving from the known to the known; and mere cultivation of the mind, of
the intellect, is not a release. On the contrary, the intellect can
grasp only the known, never the unknown. Therefore the mere cultivation
of the mind through more and more knowledge, more and more technique, is
not creative. A mind that wishes to be creative must set aside the
desire to be secure, which means the desire to find authority. Truth can
come into being only when the mind is free from the known, when the
mind is free from security, the desire to be certain. But look at our
education: mere passing of examinations to get a job, adding a few
letters after your name. It has become so mechanical, it is but the
cultivation of the mind, which is memory. In that way there is no
release either.
So, socially, religiously, in every way, you are caught and held.
Therefore a man who wishes to solve this problem of sex must disentangle
himself from the thoughts of his own making; and when he is in that
state of freedom, there is creativeness which is understanding of the
heart. When one loves, there is chastity; it is the lack of love that is
unchaste, and without love no human problem can be solved. But instead
of understanding the hindrances that prevent love, we merely try to
sublimate, suppress. or find a substitute for the sexual appetite; and
substitution, sublimation or suppression is called the attainment of
reality. On the contrary, where there is suppression, there is no
comprehension; where there is substitution, there is ignor- ance. Our
difficulty is that we are caught in this habit of withholding
suppressing, sublimating. Surely, one has to look at this habit, to be
aware of its full significance, not just for one or two moments, but all
through life. One has to see how one is caught in the machine of
routine; and to break away from that needs understanding,
self-knowledge. Therefore, it is important to understand oneself; but
that understanding becomes extremely difficult if there is no intention
to study and to understand oneself. The problem of sex, which is now so
important, so vast in our lives, loses its meaning when there is the
tenderness, the warmth, the kindliness, the mercy of love.
Question: Are you sure that it is not the myth of world teachership
that keeps you going? To put it differently, are you not loyal to your
past? Is there not a desire in you to fulfil the many expectations put
in you? Are they not a hindrance to you? How can you go on unless you
destroy the myth?
Krishnamurti: The myth gives life, a spurious life, a life of
impotence. The myth becomes necessary when there is no understanding of
truth every minute. Most people's lives are guided by myths, which means
that they believe in something, and the belief is a myth. Either they
believe themselves to be the World Teacher, or they follow an ideal, or
they have a message for the world, or they believe in God, or they hold
to the left formula for the government of the world, or to the right.
Most people are caught in a myth, and if the myth is taken away, their
life is empty. Sirs, if all your beliefs, all your titles, all your
possessions, all your memories are removed, what are you? You are empty,
are you not? Therefore your possessions, your ideas, your beliefs are
myths which you must hold to, or you are lost.
Now, the questioner wants to know if it is not the myth of world
teacher-ship that keeps me going. I am really not interested in whether I
am or I am not; I am not particularly concerned, because I am
interested to find out what is, and to see the truth of what is from
moment to moment. Truth is not a continuity. That which continues has an
end, that which continues knows death. But that which is from moment to
moment is eternal, it is timeless, and to be aware of that which is
true from moment to moment is to be in the state of eternity. To know
the eternal there must be the moment-to moment life, not the continuous
life; for that which continues has an end, it knows death, whereas that
which is living from moment to moment, without the residue of yesterday,
is timeless - and that is not a myth. That state can be only when one
is not loyal to the past, because it is the past, yesterday, , that
corrupts, destroys and prevents the present, which is now, today,
Yesterday uses today as a passage to tomorrow, so the past molds the
present and projects the future; and that process, that continuity of
mind knows death, and such a mind can never discover reality.
So, it is neither the myth, nor loyalty to the past, nor the desire
to fulfil those expectations that have been placed in me,that makes me
go on. On the contrary, they are all a hindrance. The expectations, the
past and loyalty to the past, the attachment to a label - they are a
perverting influence, they give a fictitious life. That is why those
people who believe in a myth are very active and enthusiastic. Don't you
know people who believe in myths How they work, work, work; and the
moment they don't work, they come to an end. Sir, the man who works
making money, that is his myth. Just watch him when he retires at the
age of 50 or 60 - he declines very rapidly because his myth is taken
away. Similarly with the political leader; remove his myth and you will
see how soon he sinks, he disintegrates. It is the same with the man who
believes in something. Doubt, question, condemn, remove his belief, and
he is done for. Therefore, belief, loyalty or adherence to the past, or
living up to an expectation, is a hindrance.
So, you want to know why I keep going? Obviously,Sir, I feel I have
something to say. And also there is the natural affection for something,
the love of truth. When one loves, one keeps going; and love is not a
myth. You can build a myth about love, but to the man who knows love,
love is not a myth. He may be alone in a room, or sitting on a platform,
or digging in the garden - to him, it is the same, because his heart is
full. It is like having a well in your garden that is always filled
with fresh waters, the waters that quench the thirst, the waters that
purify, the waters that put away corruption; and when there is such
love, it is not mere mechanical routine to go from meeting to meeting,
from discussion to discussion, from interview to interview. That would
be a bore, and I could not do it. To do something which becomes a
routine thing would be to destroy oneself.
Sirs, when you love, when your heart is full, you will know what it
is to strive without effort, to live without conflict. It is the mind
that does not love that is taken up with flattery, that enjoys adulation
and avoids insult, that needs a crowd, a platform, that needs
confusion; but such a mind, such a heart, will not know love. The man
whose heart is filled with the things of the mind, his world is a world
of myth, and on myths he lives; but he who is free of myths, knows love.
