Ojai 1949
Ojai 1st Public Talk 16th July 1949
I think it is very important that we should be most earnest. Those
who come to these gatherings, those who go to various meetings of this
kind, think they are very earnest and serious. But I would like to find
out what we mean by being earnest, by being serious. Is it earnestness,
does it show seriousness, if we go from one lecturer or talker to
another, from one leader to another, from one teacher to another; if we
go to different groups, or pass through different organizations, in
search of something? So, before we begin to find out what it is to be
earnest, surely we must find out what it is that we are seeking.
What is it that most of us are seeking? What is it that each one of
us wants? Especially in this restless world, where everybody is trying
to find some kind of peace, some kind of happiness, a refuge, surely it
is important to find out, isn't it?, what it is that we are trying to
seek, what it is that we are trying to discover. Probably most of us are
seeking some kind of happiness, some kind of peace; in a world that is
ridden with turmoil, wars, contention, strife, we want a refuge, where
there can be some peace. I think that is what most of us want. And so we
pursue, go from one leader to another, from one religious organization
to another, from one teacher to another.
Now, is it that we are seeking happiness, or is it that we are
seeking gratification of some kind, from which we hope to derive
happiness? Surely, there is a difference between happiness and
gratification. Can you seek happiness? perhaps you can find
gratification; but, surely, you cannot find happiness. Happiness is
derivative, surely; it is a by-product of something else. So, before we
give our minds and hearts to something which demands a great deal of
earnestness, attention, thought, care, we must find out, must we not?,
what it is that we are seeking; whether it is happiness, or
gratification. I am afraid most of us are seeking gratification. We want
to be gratified, we want to find a sense of fullness at the end of our
search.
Now, can you seek anything? Why do you come to these meetings? Why
are you all sitting here and listening to me? It would be very
interesting to find out why you are listening, why you take the trouble
to come from long distances on a hot day, and listen. And, to what are
you listening? Are you trying to find a solution for your troubles, and
is that why you go from one lecturer to another, and through various
religious organizations, and read books, and so on and on; or, are you
trying to find out the cause of all the trouble, the misery, contention
and strife? Surely, that does not demand that you should read a great
deal, that you should attend innumerable meetings, or search out
teachers? What it demands is clarity of intention, isn't it?
After all, if one is seeking peace, one can find it very easily. One
can devote oneself blindly to some kind of a cause, to an idea, and take
shelter there. Surely, that does not solve the problem. Mere isolation
in an enclosing idea is not a release from conflict. So, we must find,
must we not?, what it is, inwardly, as well as outwardly, that each one
of us wants. If we are clear on that matter, then we don't have to go
anywhere, to any teacher, to any church, to any organization. So, our
difficulty is, is it not?, to be clear in ourselves regarding our
intention. Can we be clear? And does that clarity come through searching
through trying to find out what others say, from the highest teacher to
the ordinary preacher in a church round the corner? Have you got to go
to somebody to find out? And yet, that is what we are doing, is it not?
We read innumerable books, we attend many meetings and discuss, we join
various organizations - trying thereby to find a remedy to the conflict,
to the miseries in our lives. Or, if we don't do all that, we think we
have found; that is, we say that a particular organization, a particular
teacher, a particular book satisfies us; we have found everything we
want in that; and we remain in that, crystallized and enclosed.
So, we have to come to the point when we ask ourselves, really
earnestly and profoundly, if peace, happiness, reality, God, or what you
will, can be given to us by someone else. Can this incessant search,
this longing, give us that extraordinary sense of reality, that creative
being, which comes when we really understand ourselves? Does
self-knowledge come through search, through following someone else,
through belonging to any particular organization, through reading books,
and so on? After all, that is the main issue, is it not?, that as long
as I do not understand myself, I have no basis for thought, and all my
search will be in vain. I can escape into illusions, I can run away from
contention, strife, struggle; I can worship another; I can look for my
salvation through somebody else. But as long as I am ignorant of myself,
as long as I am unaware of the total process of myself, I have no basis
for thought, for affection, for action.
But that is the last thing we want: to know ourselves. Surely, that
is the only foundation on which we can build. But, before we can build,
before we can transform, before we can condemn or destroy, we must know
that which we are. So, to go out seeking, changing teachers, gurus,
practising yoga, breathing, performing rituals, following Masters, and
all the rest of it, is utterly useless, is it not? It has no meaning,
even though the very people whom we follow may say: Study yourself.
Because, what we are, the world is. If we are petty, jealous, vain,
greedy - that is what we create about us, that is the society in which
we live.
So, it seems to me, that before we set out on a journey to find
reality, to find God, before we can act, before we can have any
relationship with another, which is society, surely it is essential that
we begin to understand ourselves first. And I consider the earnest
person to be one who is completely concerned with this, first, and not
with how to arrive at a particular goal. Because, if you and I do not
understand ourselves, how can we, in action, bring about a
transformation in society, in relationship, in anything that we do? And
it does not mean, obviously, that self-knowledge is opposed to, or
isolated from, relationship. It does not mean, obviously, emphasis on
the individual, the me, as opposed to the mass, as opposed to another. I
do not know if some of you have seriously undertaken to study
yourselves, watching every word, and its responses; watching every
movement of thought and feeling - just watching it, being conscious of
your bodily responses, whether you act from your physical centres, or
whether you act from an idea; how you respond to the world condition. I
do not know if you have ever seriously gone into this question at all.
Perhaps sporadically, as a last resort, when everything else has failed
and you are bored, some of you have tried it.
Now, without knowing yourself, without knowing your own way of
thinking, and why you think certain things, without knowing the
background of your conditioning, and why you have certain beliefs about
art and religion, about your country and your neighbour, and about
yourself, how can you think truly about anything? Without knowing your
background, without knowing the substance of your thought and whence it
comes - surely, your search is utterly futile, your action has no
meaning, has it? Whether you are an American, or a Hindu, or what your
religion is, has no meaning either.
So, before we can find out what the end purpose of life is, what it
all means - wars, national antagonisms, conflicts, the whole mess -
surely, we must begin with ourselves, must we not? It sounds so simple,
but it is extremely difficult. Because, to follow oneself, to see how
one's thought operates, one has to be extraordinarily alert: so that, as
one begins to be more and more alert to the intricacies of one's own
thinking and responses and feelings, one begins to have a greater
awareness, not only of oneself, but of another with whom one is in
relationship. To know oneself, is to study oneself in action, which is
relationship. But, the difficulty is that we are so impatient; we want
to get on, we want to reach an end. And so we have neither the time nor
the occasion, to give ourselves the opportunity, to study, to observe.
Or, we have com- mitted ourselves to various activities - to earning a
livelihood, to rearing children - or have taken on certain
responsibilities of various organizations; we have so committed
ourselves in different ways, that we have hardly any time for
self-reflection, to observe, to study. So, really, the responsibility of
the reaction depends on oneself, not on another. And the pursuit, as in
America and all the world over, of gurus and their systems, reading the
latest books on this and that, and so on, seems to me so utterly empty,
so utterly futile; for you may wander all over the earth, but you have
to come back to yourself. And, as most of us are totally unaware of
ourselves, it is extremely difficult to begin to see clearly the process
of our thinking and feeling and acting. And that is the thing I am
going to deal with during the weeks that are to follow in which I am to
talk.
The more you know yourself, the more clarity there is. Self-knowledge
has no end - you don't come to an achievement, you don't come to a
conclusion. It is an endless river. And as one studies it, as one goes
into it more and more, one finds peace. Only when the mind is tranquil -
through self-knowledge and not through imposed self-discipline - only
then, in that tranquillity, in that silence, can reality come into
being. It is only then that there can be bliss, that there can be
creative action. And it seems to me that without this understanding,
without this experience, merely to read books, to attend talks, to do
propaganda, is so infantile - just an activity without much meaning.
Whereas, if one is able to understand oneself, and thereby bring about
that creative happiness, that experiencing of something that is not of
the mind, then perhaps there can be a transformation in the immediate
relationship about us, and so in the world in which we live.
Question: Do I have to be at any special level of consciousness to understand you?
Krishnamurti: To understand anything - not only what I am saying, but
to understand anything - what is required? To understand yourself, to
understand your husband, your wife, to understand a picture, to
understand the scenery, the trees, what is required? Right attention,
isn't it? Because, to understand something, you must give your whole
being to it, your undivided, full, deep attention, must you not? And how
can there be deep, full attention, when you are distracted? - for
example, when you are taking down notes as I am talking, you catch a
good phrase, probably, and you say, "By Jove, I am going to take that
down, I am going to use it in my talk." How can there be full attention
when you are merely concerned with words? That is, you are concentrated
on the verbal level, and so are incapable of going beyond that verbal
level. Words are only a means of communication. But, if you are not
capable of communicating, and merely stick to words, obviously there
cannot be full attention; therefore, there is no right understanding.
So, listening is an art, is it not? To understand something, you must
give full attention, and that is not possible when there is any kind of
distraction: taking notes, or when you are sitting uncomfortably, or
when you are struggling to understand by making an effort. Making an
effort to understand is obviously a hindrance to understanding, because
your whole attention has gone into making the effort. I do not know if
you have ever noticed that when you are interested in something that
another is saying, you are not making an effort, you are not building up
a wall of resistance against distraction. There are no distractions
when you are interested; you are giving your full attention eagerly,
spontaneously, to something that is being said. When there is vital
interest, there is spontaneous attention. But most of us find such
attention very difficult; because, consciously, on the upper level of
the mind, you may want to understand, but inwardly there is resistance;
or, inwardly there may be a desire to understand, but outwardly,
superficially, there is resistance.
So, to give full attention to something there must be integration of
your whole being. Because, at one level of consciousness you may want to
find out, you may want to know; but at another level, that very knowing
may mean destruction, because it may make you change your whole life.
So, there is an inward contention, an inward struggle, of which you are
perhaps unaware. Though you think you are paying attention, there is
really a distraction going on inwardly or outwardly; and that is the
difficulty.
So, to understand anything, one must give complete attention; and
that is why I have been suggesting at various meetings that no notes
should be taken, that you are not here to do propaganda, for me or for
yourself; that you should listen only in order to understand. Our
difficulty in understanding, is that our mind is never quiet. We never
look at anything quietly, in a receptive mood. A lot of rubbish is
thrown at us by newspapers, magazines, politicians, tub-thumpers; every
preacher around the corner tells us what to do and what not to do. All
that is constantly pouring in; and, naturally, there is also an inward
resistance to it all. There can be no understanding as long as the mind
is disturbed. As long as the mind is not very quiet, silent, tranquil
receptive, sensitive, it is not possible to understand; and this
sensitivity of the mind is not merely at the upper level of
consciousness, in the superficial mind. There must be tranquillity right
through, an integrated tranquillity. When you are in the presence of
something very beautiful, if you begin to chatter you will not sense its
meaning. But the moment you are quiet, the moment you are sensitive,
its beauty comes to you. Similarly, if we would understand anything, not
only must we be physically still, but our minds must be extremely alert
yet tranquil. That alert passivity of the mind does not come about
through compulsion. You cannot train the mind to be silent; then it is
merely like a trained monkey, outwardly quiet, but inwardly boiling. So,
listening is an art; and you must give your time, your thought, your
whole being, to that which you want to understand.
Question: Can I understand easier what you are saying by teaching it to others?
Krishnamurti: You may learn, by telling it to others, a new way of
putting things, a clever way of transmitting what you want to say; but,
surely, that is not understanding. If you don't understand yourself, how
in the name of names can you tell it to somebody else? Surely, that is
merely propaganda, isn't it? You don't understand something, but you
tell others about it; and you think a truth can be repeated. Do you
think, if you have an experience, you can tell it to others? You may be
able to communicate verbally; but can you tell others of your experience
- that is, can you convey the experiencing of a thing? You may describe
the experience, but you cannot convey the state of experiencing. So, a
truth that is repeated, ceases to be a truth. It is only the lie that
can be repeated; but the moment you `repeat' a truth, it loses its
meaning. And most of us are concerned with repeating, but are not
experiencing. A man who is experiencing something is not concerned with
mere repetition, with trying to convert others, with propaganda. But
unfortunately, most of us are concerned with propaganda; because,
through propaganda, we try not only to convince others, but also gain a
living by exploiting others; it gradually becomes a racket.
So, if you are not caught up in mere verbalization, but are really
occupied with experiencing, then you and I are in communion. But, if you
want to do propaganda - and I say truth cannot be propagandized - then
there is no relationship between us. And I am afraid that is our
difficulty at the present time. You want to tell others, without
experiencing; and in telling, you hope to experience. That is mere
sensation, mere gratification; it has no significance. It has no
validity, no reality behind it. But, a reality experienced, if
communicated, creates no bondage. So, experiencing is much more
important, has greater significance, than communication on the verbal
level. Question: It seems to me that the movement of life is experienced
in relationship with people and ideas. To de tach oneself from such
stimulation is to live in a depressing vacuum. I need distractions to
feel alive.
Krishnamurti: In this question is involved the whole problem of
detachment and relationship. Now, why do we want to be detached? What is
this instinct in most of us that wants to push away, that wants to be
detached? It may be, that for most of us this idea of detachment has
come into being because so many religious teachers have talked about it:
"You must be detached in order to find reality; you must renounce, you
must give up, and then only will you find reality." And can we be
detached in relationship? What do we mean by relationship? So, we will
have to go into this question a little carefully.
Now, why have we this instinctive response, this constant looking to
detachment? The various religious teachers have said, you must be
detached. Why? First of all, the problem is, why are we attached? Not
how to be detached, but why is it that you are attached? Surely, if you
can find the answer to that, then there is no question of detachment, is
there? Why are we attached to attractions, to sensations, to things of
the mind or of the heart? If we can discover why we are attached, then
perhaps we will find the right answer - not how to be detached.
Why are you attached? And what would happen if you were not attached?
If you were not attached to your particular name, property, position -
you know, the whole mass of things that makes up you: your furniture,
your car, your characteristics, your idiosyncrasies, your virtues, your
beliefs, your ideas - what would happen? If you were not attached, you
would find yourself to be as nothing, would you not? If you were not
attached to your comforts, to your position, to your vanity, you would
be suddenly lost, would you not? So, the fear of emptiness, the fear of
being nothing makes you attached to something - whether it is to your
family, to your husband, wife, to a chair, to a car, to your country -
it doesn't matter what. The fear of being nothing makes one cling to
something; and in the process of holding on, there is conflict, there is
pain. Because, what you hold onto soon disintegrates, dies; your car,
your position, your property, your husband. So, in the process of
holding, there is pain; and in order to avoid pain, we say we must be
detached. You look into yourself and you will see that this is so. Fear
of loneliness, fear of being nothing, fear of emptiness, makes us attach
ourselves to something: to a country, to an idea, to a God, to some
organization, to a Master, to a discipline, what you will. In the
process of attachment, there is pain; and to avoid that pain, we try to
cultivate detachment, and so we keep up this circle which is always
painful, in which there is always a struggle.
Now, why can't we be as nothing, a nonentity? Not merely on the
verbal level, but inwardly? Then there is no problem of attachment or
detachment, is there? And, in that state, can there be relationship?
Because that is what this questioner wants to know. He says that without
relationship to people and to ideas, one lives in a depressing vacuum.
Is that so? Is relationship a process of attachment? When you are
attached to somebody, are you related to that person? When I am attached
to you, hold on to you, possess you, am I related to you? You become a
necessity to me because, without you, I am lost, I am made
uncomfortable, I feel miserable, I feel lonely. So, you become a
necessity, a useful thing, a thing to fill my emptiness. You are not
important; what is important is that you fill my need. And is there any
relationship between us, when to me you are a need, a necessity, like a
piece of furniture?
To put it differently, can one live without relationship? And is
relationship merely a stimulation? Because, without that, which you call
distraction, you feel lost, you do not feel alive. That is, you treat
relationship as a distraction, which makes you feel alive. That is what
the questioner says. So, can one live in the world without relationship?
Obviously not. There is nothing that can live in isolation. Some of us,
perhaps, would like to live in isolation; but one cannot do it.
Therefore, relationship becomes merely a distraction, which makes you
feel as though you were alive: quarrelling with each other, having
struggles, contention, and so on, gives one a sense of aliveness. So,
relationship becomes merely a distraction. And, as the questioner says,
without distractions, you feel you are dead. Therefore, you use
relationship merely as a means of distraction; and distraction, whether
drink, going to cinemas, accumulating knowledge - any form of
distraction - , obviously dulls the mind and heart, does it not? A dull
mind, a dull heart - how can it have any relationship with another? It
is only a sensitive mind, a heart that is awakened to affection, that
can be related to something.
So, as long as you treat relationship as a distraction, you are
obviously living in a vacuum, because you are frightened to go out of
that state of distraction. Hence you are afraid of any kind of
detachment, any kind of separation. Relationship then is a distraction
which makes you feel alive. Whereas, true relationship, which is not a
distraction, is really a state in which you are constantly in a process
of understanding yourself in relation to something. That is,
relationship is a process of self-revelation, not of distraction; and
that self-revelation is very painful, because in relationship you soon
find yourself out, if you are open to discover it. But as most of us do
not want to discover ourselves, as most of us would rather hide
ourselves in relationship, relationship becomes blindly painful, and we
try to detach ourselves from it. Relationship is not a stimulation. Why
do you want to be stimulated through relationship? And if you are, then
relationship, like stimulation, becomes dull. I do not know if you have
noticed that any kind of stimulation eventually dulls the mind and the
sensitivity of the heart.
So, the question of detachment should never arise; because only the
man who possesses, thinks of renouncing; but he never questions why he
possesses, what is the background that has made him possessive. When he
understands the process of possessing, then there is naturally freedom
from possession - not the cultivation of an opposite, as detachment. And
relationship is merely a stimulation, a distraction, as long as we are
using another as a means of self-gratification, or as a necessity, in
order to escape from ourselves. You become very important to me, because
in myself I am very poor; in myself I am nothing therefore you are
everything. Such a relationship is bound to be a conflict, a pain; and a
thing that gives pain is no longer a distraction. Therefore, we want to
escape from that relationship, which we call detachment.
So, as long as we use the mind in relationship, there can be no
understanding of relationship. Because, after all, it is the mind that
makes us be detached. When there is love, there is no question of
attachment or detachment. The moment there is the cessation of that
love, then the question of attachment and detachment begins. Love is not
the product of thought: you cannot think about love. It is a state of
being. And when the mind interferes, by its calculation, by its
jealousies, by its various cunning deceptions, then the problem in
relationship arises. Relationship has significance only when it is a
process of revealing oneself to oneself; and if, in that process, one
proceeds deeply, widely and extensively, then in relationship there is
peace - not the contention, not the antagonism between two people. Only
in that quietness, in that relationship in which there is the fruition
of self-knowledge, is there peace.
July 16, 1949
