Poona, India, 1948
Poona India 8th Public Talk 17th October, 1948
We have touched upon many things during the course of these Sunday
talks, but it seems to me that one of the most important questions to
discuss and find out the significance of is that of time. The lives of
most of us are rather sluggish like still waters, they are dull, dreary,
ugly and insipid; and some of us, realizing this, bury ourselves in
political, social or religious activities, and thereby we think we can
enrich our lives. But surely, such action is not enrichment, because our
lives are still empty; though we may talk about political reform, yet
our minds and hearts continue to be dull. We may be very active socially
or may dedicate our lives to religion, yet the meaning of virtue is
still a matter of ideas, of mere ideation. So, do what we may, we find
our lives to be dull, they are without much significance; for mere
action without understanding does not bring about enrichment or freedom.
So, if I may, I would like to talk a little about what is time, because
I think the enrichment, the beauty and significance of that which is
timeless, of that which is true, can be experienced only when we
understand the whole process of time. After all, we are seeking, each in
his own way, a sense of happiness, of enrichment. Surely, a life that
has significance, the riches of true happiness, is not if time. Like
love, such a life is timeless; and to understand that which is timeless,
we must not approach it through time, but rather understand time. We
must not utilize time as a means of attaining, realizing, apprehending
the timeless. But that is what we are doing most of our lives: spending
time in trying to grasp that which is timeless. So, it is important to
understand what we mean by time, because I think it is possible to be
free of time. It is very important to understand time as a whole, and
not partially; but I will have to deal with it as rapidly and as briefly
as possible, because I have many questions to answer and this is the
last evening of these talks. So, I hope you will not mind if I am very
brief and to the point.
It is interesting to realize that our lives are mostly spent in time -
time; not in the sense of chronological sequence, of minutes, hours,
days and years, but in the sense of psychological cal memory. We live by
time, w are the result of time. Our minds are the product of many
yesterdays, and the present is merely the passage of the past to the
future. So, our minds, our activities, our being are founded on time;
without time we cannot think, because thought is the result of time,
thought is the product of many yesterdays, and there is no thought
without memory. Memory is time; for there are two kinds of time, the
chronological and the psychological. There is time a; yesterday by the
watch and as yesterday by memory. You cannot reject chronological time,
which would be absurd - then you would miss your train. But is there
really any time at all apart from chronological time? Obviously, there
is timE as yesterday; but is there time as the mind thinks of it? That
is, is there time apart from the mind? Surely, time, psychological time,
is the product of the mind. Without the foundation of thought there is
no time - time merely being memory as yesterday in conjunction with
today, which moulds tomorrow. That is, memory of yesterday's experience
in response to the present is creating the future - which is still the
process of thought, a path of the mind. So, the thought process brings
about psychological progress in time; but is it real, as real as
chronological time? And can we use that time which is of the mind as a
means of understanding the eternal, the timeless? Because, as I said,
happiness is not of yesterday, happiness is not the product of time,
happiness is always in the present, a timeless state. I do not know if
you have noticed that when you have ecstasy, a creative joy, a series of
bright clouds surrounded by dark clouds, in that moment there is no
time: there is only the immediate present. But the mind, coming in after
the experiencing in the present, remembers and wishes to continue it,
gathering more and more of itself, thereby creating time. So, time is
created by the `more; time is acquisition, and time is also detachment,
which is still an acquisition of the mind. Therefore, merely
disciplining the mind in time, conditioning thought within the framework
of time, which is memory, surely does not reveal that which is
timeless.
So, there is chronological time, and there is the time of the mind,
the time which is mind itself, and we are always confusing these two
issues. Obviously, chronological time is confused with the
psychological, with the psyche of one's being; and with that
chronological mentality we try to become, we try to achieve. So, this
whole process of becoming is of time; and one must surely enquire if
there really is such a thing as becoming, becoming in the sense of
finding reality, God, happiness. Can you use time as a means to the
timeless? That is, through a wrong means can the right end be achieved?
Surely, the right means must be employed for the right end, because the
means and the end are one. When we try to find the timeless in terms of
becoming, which implies disciplining, conditioning, rejecting,
accepting, acquiring and denying, all of which involves time, we are
using the wrong means for the right end; therefore, our means will
produce a wrong end. As long as you are using the wrong means, which is
time, to find the timeless, the timeless is not; for time is not the
means to the timeless. Therefore, to find the timeless, to realize that
which is eternal, time must stop - which means the whole process of
thinking must come to an end; and, if you examine it really closely,
widely and intelligently, it is not as difficult as it appears. Because,
there are moments when the mind is absolutely still, not put together,
but still of itself. Surely, there is a difference between a mind that
is made still, and a mind that is still. But those moments of stillness
are mere remembrances, and remembrances become the time clement which
prevents the further experiencing of those moments.
So, as I said, for thought to come to an end and for the timeless to
be, you must understand memory; for without memory, there is no thought;
without memory, there is no time. Memory is merely incomplete
experience; for that which you experience fully, completely, is without
any response, and in that state there is no memory. At the moment when
you are experiencing something, there is no memory, there is no
experiencer apart from the experienced, there is neither the observer
nor the observed; there is only a state of experiencing in which time is
not. Time comes in only when experiencing has become a memory; and most
of you are living on the memory of yesterday's experiencing, either
your own, or that of your guru, and so on and on. Therefore, if we
understand this psychological functioning of memory, which springs from
chronological action, we cannot confuse the two. We must see the whole
problem of time without apprehension and without a desire to continue;
because, most of us desire to continue, and it is this continuity that
must come to an end. Continuity is merely time, and continuity cannot
lead to the timeless. To understand time is to understand memory, and to
understand memory is to become aware of our relationship to all things -
to nature, to people, to pro- perty, and to ideas. Relationship reveals
the process of memory, and the understanding of that process is
self-knowledge. Without understanding the process of the self, at
whatever level that self is placed, you cannot be free of memory, and
therefore you are not free of time; and hence the timeless is not.
Question: Have dreams any meaning? If so, how should one interpret them?
Krishnamurti: What do we mean by `dream'? When we are asleep, when
the body is asleep, the mind is functioning; and when we wake up, we
remember certain impressions, symbols, word-expressions or pictures.
That is what we mean by dreams, is it not? - those impressions that are
recollected upon waking, those symbols, intimations, hints to the
conscious mind concerning things not fully understood. That is, during
our waking consciousness the mind is completely occupied with earning a
livelihood, with immediate relationships, with amusements, and so on.
So, the conscious mind leads a very superficial life. But our life is
not merely the superficial layer, it is going on at different levels all
the time. These different levels are constantly trying to convey their
meaning, their significance, to the conscious mind; and when the
conscious mind is quiet, as during sleep, the hints and the intimations
of the hidden are communicated in the form of symbols, and on waking,
these symbols are remembered as dreams. Then, having dreams, you try to
interpret those dreams, or you go to a psychoanalyst to have them
interpreted for you. That is what actually takes place. Perhaps you do
not go to the interpreter, because it is too expensive, and it does not
lead you to hope; but still you depend on interpretation, you want your
dreams to be explained, you look to their meaning, you search out their
significance, you try to analyze them; and in that process of
interpretation, of analysis, there is always hope, doubt and
uncertainty.
Now, need we dream at all? There are dreams which are very
superficial. When you overeat at night, naturally you have violent
dreams. There are dreams which are the result of the suppression of
sexual and other cravings. When they are suppressed, they assert
themselves while you are asleep, and you remember them as dreams when
you awake. There are many forms of dreams, but my point is this: Heed
one dream at all? If it is possible not to dream, then there is nothing
that needs to be interpreted. Psychologists - not that I have read them,
but I know several - have told me that it is impossible not to dream. I
think it is possible not to dream, and you can experiment with it for
yourself and therefore put aside the fear of interpretation, with its
anxieties, with it uncertainties. As I said, you dream because the
conscious mind is no aware of what is actually taking place every
minute, is not aware of all the intimations, hints, impressions and
responses that are constantly coming on. And is it not possible to be
passively aware so that everything is immediately perceived and
understood? Surely, it can be done. It is only when there is passive
awareness of each problem that it is immediately resolved, and not
carried over to the next day. Now, when you have a problem and that
problem causes considerable worry, what happens? You go to bed and you
say, `I will sleep on it'. Next morning when you look at the problem you
see it can be solved, and you are free. What actually happens is that
the conscious mind having searched and worried, becomes quiet; and then
the unconscious mind, which goes on working on the problem, gives its
hints, its intimations, and when you wake up the problem is solved.
So, it is possible to meet every problem afresh, anew, and not carry
it over. You can meet every problem, anew, with quickness, with
rapidity, only when you do not condemn, when you do not justify, because
only then can the problem tell you its whole significance; and it is
possible to live so alertly, so passively aware, that each problem gives
its full significance as it arises. You can test this out for
yourselves, you do not have to accept another's word for it. But the
whole conscious mind must be alert, watchful, so that there is no part
of it that is sluggish and that has therefore to be quickened through
dreams, through symbols. Only when the conscious mind is aware, not
merely at one depth or in one layer, but fully and entirely, is it
possible not to dream.
Dreams are also self-projections, the interpretation through symbols
of different experiences. Also the conversation one has with people in a
dream is obviously still self-projection - which does not mean that it
is impossible for thought to meet thought, for one identified thought to
meet another identified thought. This is too vast a subject to go
completely into now; but one can see that as long as we deal with
problems partially and not fully, as long as there is conditioned
response to challenge, there must be these intimations, these hints from
that part of the mind which is alert, either through dreams, or through
rude shocks. As long as problems are not fully understood, you will
dream, and those dreams need interpretation. Interpretations are never
complete, for they always arise out of fear, anxiety; there is in them
an element of the unknown, and the conscious mind always rejects that
which is unknown. Whereas, if one can experience each challenge
completely, fully, then there is no necessity for dreams nor for an
interpreter of dreams.
Question: What is the meaning of right relationship with nature?
Krishnamurti: Sir I do not know if you have discovered your
relationship with nature. There is no `right' relationship, there is
only the understanding of relationship. Right relationship implies the
mere acceptance of a formula, as does right thought. Right thought and
right thinking are two different things. Right thought is merely
conforming to what is right, what is respectable, whereas right thinking
is movement, it is the product of understanding; and understanding is
constantly undergoing modification, change. Similarly, there is a
difference between right relationship, and understanding our
relationship with nature. What is your relationship with nature? -
nature being the rivers, the trees, the swift-flying birds, the fish in
the water, the minerals under the earth, the waterfalls and shallow
pools. What is your relationship to them? Most of us are not aware of
that relationship. We never look at a tree, or if we do, it is with a
view of using that tree, either to sit in its shade, or to cut it down
for lumber. In other words, we look at trees with utilitarian purpose;
we never look at a tree without projecting ourselves and utilizing it
for our own convenience. We treat the earth and its products in the same
way. There is no love of earth, there is only usage of earth. If one
really loved the earth, there would be frugality in using the things of
the earth. That is, Sir, if we were to understand our relationship with
the earth, we should be very careful in the use we made of the things of
the earth. The understanding of one's relationship with nature is as
difficult as understanding one's relationship with one's neighbour, wife
and children. But we have not given a thought to it, we have never sat
down to look at the stars, the moon or the trees. We are too busy with
social or political activities. Obviously, these activities are escapes
from ourselves; and to worship nature is also an escape from ourselves.
We are always using nature, either as an escape, or for utilitarian ends
- we never actually stop and love the earth or the things of the earth.
We never enjoy the rich fields, though we utilize them to feed and
clothe ourselves. We never like to till the earth with our hands - we
are ashamed to work with our hands. There is an extraordinary thing that
takes place when you work the earth with your hands. But this work is
done only by the lower castes; we upper classes are much too important
apparently to use our own hands! So, we have lost our relationship with
nature. If once we understood that relationship, its real significance
then we would not divide property into yours and mine; though one might
own a piece of land and build a house on it, it would not be `mine' or
`yours' in the exclusive sense - it would be more a means of taking
shelter. Because we do not love the earth and the things of the earth
but merely utilize them, we are insensitive to the beauty of a
waterfall, we have lost the touch of life, we have never sat with our
backs against the trunk of a tree; and since we do not love nature, we
do not know how to love human beings and animals. Go down the street and
watch how the bullocks are treated, their tails all out of shape. You
shake your head and say, `Very sad'. But we have lost the sense of
tenderness, that sensitivity, that response to things of beauty; and it
is only in the renewal of that sensitivity that we can have
understanding of what is true relationship. That sensitivity does not
come in the mere hanging of a few pictures, or in painting a tree, or
putting a few flowers in your hair; sensitivity comes only when this
utilitarian outlook is put aside. It does not mean that you cannot use
the earth; but you must use the earth as it is to be used. Earth is
there to be loved, to be cared for, not to be divided as `yours' and
`mine'. It is foolish to plant a tree in a compound and call it `mine'.
It is only when one is free of exclusiveness that there is a possibility
of having sensitivity, not only to nature, but to human beings and to
the ceaseless challenges of life.
Question: While talking about right means of livelihood, you said
that the profession of the army, of the lawyer, and of government
service, were obviously not right means of livelihood. Are you not
advocating sanyasism, withdrawal from society, and is that not running
away from social conflicts and supporting the injustice and exploitation
around us?
Krishnamurti: To transform anything or to understand anything you
must first examine what is; then only is there a possibility of a
renewal, a regeneration, a transformation. Merely to transform what is
without understanding it, is a waste of time, a retrogression. Reform
without understanding is retrogression, because we do not face what is;
but if we begin to understand exactly what is, then we shall know how to
act. You cannot act without first observing, discussing, and
understanding what is. We must examine society as it is, with its
weaknesses, its foibles; and to examine it we must see directly our
connection, our relationship with it, not through a posedly intellectual
or theoretical explanation.
Now, as society exists at present, there is no choice between right
livelihood and wrong livelihood. You take any you can get, if you are
lucky enough to get one at all. So, to the man who is pressed for an
immediate job, there is no problem. He takes what he can get because he
must eat. But to those of you who are not so immediately pressed, it
should be a problem, and that is what we are discussing: what is the
right means of livelihood in a society which is based on acquisition and
class differences, on nationalism, greed, violence, and so on? Given
these things, can there be right livelihood? Obviously not. And there
are obviously wrong professions, wrong means of livelihood, such as the
army, the lawyer, the police and the government.
The army exists, not for peace, but for war. It is the function of
the army to create war, it is the function of the general to plan for
war. If he does not, you will throw him out, won't you? You will get rid
of him. The function of the general staff is to plan and prepare for
future wars, and a general staff that does not plan for future wars is
obviously inefficient. So the army is not a profession for peace,
therefore it is not a right means of livelihood. I know the implications
as well as you do. Armies will exist as long as sovereign governments
exist, with their nationalism and frontiers; and since you support
sovereign governments, you must support nationalism and war. Therefore,
as long as you are a nationalist you have no choice about right
livelihood.
Similarly, the police. The function of the police is to protect and
to maintain things as they are. It also becomes the instrument of
investigation, of inquisition, not only in the hands of totalitarian
governments, but in the hands of any government. The function of the
police is to snoop around, to investigate into the private life of
people. The more revolutionary you become, outwardly or inwardly, the
more dangerous you are to government. That is why governments, and
especially totalitarian governments, liquidate those who are outwardly
or inwardly creating a revolution. So, obviously, the profession of
police is not a right means of livelihood.
Similarly, the lawyer. He thrives on contention: it is essential for
his livelihood that you and I should fight and wrangle. (Laughter). You
laugh it off. Probably many of you are lawyers, and your laugh indicates
a mere nervous response to a fact; and through avoidance of that fact,
you will still go on being lawyers. You may say that you are a victim of
society; but you are victimized because you accept society as it is.
So, law is not a right means of livelihood. There can be right means of
livelihood only when you do not accept the present state of things; and
the moment you do not accept it, you do not accept law as a profession.
Similarly, you cannot expect to find right means of livelihood in the
big corporations of business men who are amassing wealth, nor in the
bureaucratic routine of government with its officials and red tape.
Governments are only interested in maintaining things as they are, and
if you become an engineer for the government, you are directly or
indirectly helping war.
So, as long as you accept society as it is, any profession, whether
the army, the police, the law, or the government, is obviously not a
right means of livelihood. Seeing that, what is an earnest man to do? Is
he to run away and bury himself in some village? Even there, he has to
live somehow. He can beg, but the very food that is given to him comes
indirectly from the lawyer, the policeman, the soldier, the government.
And he cannot live in isolation, because that again is impossible; to
live in isolation is to lie, both psychologically and physiologically.
So, what is one to do? All that one can do, if one is earnest, if one is
intelligent about this whole process, is to reject the present state of
things and give to society all that one is capable of. That is, Sir,
you accept food, clothing and shelter from so- ciety, and you must give
something to society in return. As long as you use the army, the police,
the law, the government, as your means of livelihood, you maintain
things as they are, you support dissension, inquisition and war. But if
you reject the things of society and accept only the essentials, you
must give something in return. It is more important to find out what you
are giving to society than to ask what is the right means of
livelihood.
Now, what are you giving to society? What is society? Society is
relationship with one or with many, it is your relationship with
another. What are you giving to another? Are you giving anything to
another in the real sense of the word, or merely taking payment for
something? As long as you do not find out what you are giving, whatever
you take from society is bound to be a wrong means of livelihood. This
is not a clever answer, and therefore you have to ponder, enquire into
the whole question of your relationship to society. You may ask me in
return, `What are you giving to society in order that you be clothed,
given shelter and food?' I am giving to society that of which I am
talking today - which is not merely the verbal service any fool can
give. I am giving to society what to me is true. You may reject it and
say, `Nonsense, it is not true'. But I am giving what to me is true, and
I am far more concerned with that than with what society gives me. Sir,
when you do not use society or your neighbour as a means of
self-extension, you are completely content with the things that society
gives you in the way of food, clothing and shelter. Therefore you are
not greedy; and not being greedy, your relationship with society is
entirely different. The moment you do not use society as a means of
self-extension, you reject the things of society, and therefore there is
a revolution in your relationship. You are not depending on another for
your psychological needs - and it is only then that you can have a
right means of livelihood.
You may say this is all a very complicated answer, but it is not.
Life has no simple answer. The man who looks for a simple answer to life
has obviously a dull mind, a stupid mind. Life has no conclusion, life
has no definite pattern; life is living, altering, changing. There is no
positive, definite answer to life, but we can understand its whole
significance and meaning. To understand, we must first see that we are
using life as a means of self-extension, as a means of self-fulfilment;
and because we are using life as a means of self-fulfilment, we create a
society which is corrupt, which must begin to decay the very moment it
comes into existence. So, an organized society has inherent in it the
seed of decay.
It is very important for each one of us to find out what his
relationship is with society, whether it is based?n greed - which means
self-extension, self-fulfilment, in which is implied power, position,
authority - or if one merely accepts from society such essentials as
food, clothing and shelter. If your relationship is one of need and not
of greed, then you will find the right means of livelihood wherever you
are, even when society I is corrupt. So, as the present society is
disintegrating very rapidly, one has to find out; and those whose
relationship is one of need only, will create a new culture, they will
be the nucleus of society in which the necessities of life are equitably
distributed and are not used as a means of self-extension. As long as
society remains for you as a means of self-extension, there must be a
craving for power, and it is power that creates a society of classes
divided as the high and the low, the rich and the poor, the man who has
and the man who has not, the literate and the illiterate, each
struggling with the other, all based on acquisitiveness and not on need.
It is acquisitiveness which gives power, position and prestige, and as
long as that exists, your relationship with society must be a wrong
means of livelihood. There can be right means of livelihood when you
look to society only for your needs - and then your relationship with
society is very simple. Simplicity is not the `more', nor is it the
putting on of a loin cloth and renouncing the world. Merely limiting
yourself to a few things is not simplicity. Simplicity of the mind is
essential, and that simplicity of the mind cannot exist if the mind is
used for self-extension, self-fulfilment, whether that self-fulfilment
comes through the pursuit of God, of knowledge, of money, property or
position. The mind that is seeking God is not a simple mind, for its God
is its own projection. The simple man is he who sees exactly what is
and understands it - he does not demand anything more. Such a mind is
content, it understands what is - which docs not mean accepting society
as it is, with its exploitation, classes, wars, and so on. But a mind
that sees and understands what is, and therefore acts, such a mind has
few needs, it is very simple, quiet; and it is only when the mind is
quiet that it can receive the eternal.
Question: Every art has a technique of its own, and it takes effort
to master the technique. How can one reconcile creativeness with
technical achievement?
Krishnamurti: You cannot reconcile creativeness with technical
achievement. You may be perfect in playing the piano, and not be
creative; you may play the piano most brilliantly, and not be a
musician. You may be able to handle colour, to put paint on canvas most
cleverly, and not be a creative painter. You may create a face, an image
out of a stone, because you have learned the technique, and not be a
master creator. Creation comes first, not technique, and that is why we
are miserable all our lives. We have technique, how to put up a house,
how to build a bridge, how to assemble a motor, how to educate our
children through a system; we have learned all these techniques, but our
hearts and minds are empty. We are first class machines, we know how to
operate most beautifully, but we do not love a living thing. You may be
a good engineer, you may be a pianist, you may write in a good style in
English or Marathi or whatever your language is; but creativeness is
not found through technique. If you have something to say, you create
your own style; but when you have nothing to say, even if you have a
beautiful style, what you write is only the traditional routine, a
repetition in new words of the same old thing. So, if you watch yourself
very critically, you will see that technique does not lead to
creativeness, but when you have creativeness, you can have technique
within a week. To express something there must be something to express,
you must have a song in your heart to sing. You must have sensitivity to
receive in order to express, and the expression is of very little
importance. The expression is important only when you want to convey it
to another, but it has very little importance when you write for your
own amusement.
So, having lost the song, we pursue the singer. We learn from the
singer the technique of song, but there is no song; and I say the song
is essential, the joy of singing is essential. When the joy is there,
the technique can be built up from nothing; you will invent your own
technique, you won't have to study elocution or style. When you have,
you see, and the very seeing of beauty is an art. The expression of that
seeing becomes beautiful, technically perfect, when you have something
to say. To have a song in your heart, that is the important thing, not
the technique - though technique is essential. What is important is to
be creative. It is really an important problem, because you are not
creative; you may produce children galore, but that is merely
accidental, that is not creative. You may be able to write about
creative thinkers, but that is not being creative. You may watch, you
may be spectators at a play, but you are not the actors. Since the mere
learning of a technique is more and more emphasized, you have to find
what it is to be creative.
How is one to be creative? Creativeness is not imitation. Our whole
life is imitative, not only on the verbal level, but inwardly and
psychologically also; it is nothing but imitation, conformity and
regimentation. Do you think there can be creativeness when you are
thinking according to a pattern, a technique? There is creativeness only
when there is freedom from imitation, from regimentation, which means,
freedom from authority, not only external authority, but the inward
authority of experience which has become memory. Again, there cannot be
creativeness if there is fear; for fear produces imitation, fear creates
copy, fear engenders the desire to be secure, to be certain, which in
turn creates authority; and there cannot be creativeness as long as the
mind moves from the known to the known. As long as the mind is held by
technique, as long as the mind is engaged in knowledge, there cannot be
creativeness. Knowledge is of the past, of the known; and as long as the
mind moves from the known to the known, there cannot be creativeness.
As long as the mind is moving in a series of changes, there cannot be
creativeness, because change is merely modified continuity. There can be
creativeness only in ending, not in continuity. Most of us do not want
to end, we all want to continue, and our continuance is merely the
continuance of memory. Memory can be placed at the level of the Atman,
or at a lower level, but still it is memory. As long as all these things
exist, there cannot be creativeness. It is not difficult to be free of
these things, but one needs attention, observation, intention to
understand; then, I assure you, creativeness comes into being.
When a man wishes to create, he must ask himself and see what it is
he wants to create. Is it motor cars, war machines, gadgets? The mere
pursuit of things distracts the mind and interferes with generosity,
with the instinctive response to beauty. That is what we are all doing
with our minds. As long as the mind is active, formulating, fabricating,
criticizing, there cannot be creativeness; and, I assure you, that
creativeness comes silently, with extraordinary swiftness, without any
enforcement, when you understand the truth that the mind must be empty
for creativeness to take place. When you see the truth of that, then
instantaneously there is creativeness. You do not have to paint a
picture, you do not have to sit on the platform, you do not have to
invent new mathematical theorems; for creativeness does not necessarily
demand expression. The very expression of it begins to destroy it. That
does not mean that you must not express it; but if the expression
becomes more important than creativeness, then creativeness recedes, For
you, expression is so important - to paint a picture and put your name
at the bottom! Then you want to see who is criticizing it, who is going
to buy it, how many critics have written about it and what they say; and
when you are knighted, you think you have achieved some, thing! That is
not creativeness, that is decay, disintegration. Creativeness comes
into being only when the mind, with its prompting's and corruption,
ceases; and for the mind to come to an end is not a difficult task, nor
is it the ultimate task that you should undertake. On the contrary it is
the immediate task. Our lives are in the present, with its miseries,
with its confusion, its extraordinarily mounting sorrow and strife. So,
the only thing is for the mind, which is thought, to come to an end, and
then, I assure you, you will know creativeness. There is creativeness
only when the mind, understanding its own insufficiency, its own
poverty, its own loneliness, comes to an end. Being aware of itself, it
puts an end to itself; then that which is creative, that which is
immeasurable, comes subtly and swiftly. To put an end to the process of
thought is to be passively aware of one's own insufficiency, one's own
poverty one's own void, emptiness, without struggling against it; only
then there comes that thing which is not the product of the mind; and
that which is not the product of the mind is creativeness.
Question: You are telling us every day that the root cause of our
trouble and ugliness in life is the absence of love. How is one to find
the pearl of real love?
Krishnamurti: To answer this question fully, one must think
negatively, because negative thinking is the highest form of thinking.
Mere positive thinking is conformity to a pattern, therefore it is not
thinking at all - it is adjustment to an idea, and an idea is merely the
product of the mind, therefore unreal. So, to think this problem
through completely, fully, we must approach it negatively - which does
not mean denial of life. Do not jump to conclusions, but follow step by
step, if you kindly will. if you will follow this experience deeply and
not merely verbally, then as we proceed you will find out what love is.
We are going to enquire into love. Mere conclusions are not love; the
word `love' is not love. Let us begin very near, in order to go very
far.
Now, do you call it love when in your relationship with your wife
there is possessiveness, jealousy, fear, constant nagging, dominating
and asserting? Can that be called love? When you possess a person, and
thereby create a society which helps you to possess the person, do you
call that love? When you use somebody for your sexual convenience, or in
any other way, do you call that love? Obviously it is not. That is,
where there is jealousy, where there is fear, where there is
possessiveness, there is no love. You may call it love, but it is not
love. Surely, love does not admit of contention, of jealousy. When you
possess, there is fear; and though you may call it love, it is far from
love. Experience it, Sirs and ladies, as we go along. You are married
and have children, you have wives or husbands whom you possess, whom you
use, of whom you are afraid or jealous. Be aware of that and see if it
is love. You may see a beggar in the street, you give him a coin and
express a word of sympathy. Is that love? Is sympathy love? What does
that mean? By giving a coin to the beggar, sympathizing with his state,
have you solved the problem? I am not saying that you should not be
sympathetic - we are enquiring into the question of love. Is it love
when you give a coin to the beggar? You have something to give; and when
you give it, is that love? That is, when you are conscious of giving,
is that love? Obviously, when you give consciously, it is you who are
important, not the beggar. So, when you give and you express sympathy,
you are important, are you not? Why should you have something to give?
You give a coin to the beggar; the multimillionaire also gives, and is
always sympathetic to poor humanity. What is the difference between you
and him? You have ten coins, and you give one; he has umpteen coins, and
he gives a few more. He has got that money through acquiring,
multiplying, revolutionizing, exploiting. When he gives, you call it
charity, philanthropy; you say, `How noble'. is that noble? (Laughter).
Do not laugh, Sirs, you also want to do the same thing. When you have
and you give something, is that love? Why is it that you have and others
have not? You say it is the fault of society. Who has created society?
You and I. Therefore, to attack society, we have to begin with
ourselves. So, your sympathy is not love. Is forgiveness love? Let us go
into it and you will see. I hope you are experiencing as I am talking,
not merely listening to words. Is forgiveness love? What is implied in
forgiveness? You insult me, and I resent it, remember it; and then,
either through compulsion or through repentance, I say, `I forgive you'.
First I retain, and then I reject. Which means what? I am still the
central figure. I am still important, it is I who am forgiving somebody.
Surely, as long as there is the attitude of forgiving, it is I who am
important, not the man who is supposed to have insulted me. So, when I
accumulate resentment and then deny that resentment, which you call
forgiveness, it is not love. A man who loves obviously has no enmity,
and to all these things he is indifferent. So, sympathy, forgiveness,
the relationship of possessiveness, jealousy and fear - all these things
are not love. They are all of the mind, are they not? As long as the
mind is the arbiter, there is no love; for the mind arbitrates only
through possessiveness, and its arbitration is merely possessiveness in
different forms. The mind can only corrupt love, it cannot give birth to
love, it cannot give beauty. You can write a poem about love, but that
is not love.
So, the mind is the product of time, and time exists when love is
denied; therefore, love is not of time. Love is not a coin to be
distributed. Giving you something, giving you satisfaction, giving you
courage to fight with - all these belong to the field of time, which is
of the mind. Therefore, mind destroys love. It is because we as
so-called civilized people are cultivating the mind, the intellect, the
verbal expression, the technique, that there is no love; and that is why
there is this confusion, why our troubles, our miseries multiply. It is
because we are seeking an answer through the mind that there is no
answer to any of our problems, that wars succeed wars, disasters follow
disasters. The mind has created these problems, and we are trying to
solve them on their own level, which is that of the mind. So, it is only
when the mind ceases that there is love, and it is only love that will
solve all our problems, like sunshine and darkness. There is no
relationship between the mind and love. Mind is of time, love is not of
time. You can think about a person whom you love, but you cannot think
about love. Love cannot be thought about; though you may identify
yourself with a person, a country, a church, the moment you think about
love, it is not love - it is merely mentation. What is thought about, is
not love; and there is emptiness in the heart only when the mind is
supremely active. Because the mind is active, it fills the empty heart
with the things of the mind; and with these things of the mind we play,
we create problems. The playing with problems is what we call activity,
and our solution of the problems is still of the mind. Do what you will,
build churches, invent new parties, follow new leaders, adopt political
slogans, they will never solve our problem The problems are the product
of the mind, and for the mind to solve its own problem, it has to stop;
for only when the mind stops is there love. Love cannot be thought
about, love cannot be cultivated, love cannot be practiced. The practice
of love, the practice of brotherhood, is still within the field of the
mind, therefore it is not love. When all this has stopped, then love
comes into being, then you will know what it is to love. Then love is
not quantitative, but qualitative. You do not say, `I love the whole
world; but when you know how to love one, you know how to love the
whole. Because we do not know how to love one, our love of humanity is
fictitious. When you love, there is neither one nor many: there is only
love. It is only when there is love that all our problems can be solved,
and then we shall know its bliss and its happiness.
October 17, 1948
