Ojai 1949
Ojai 2nd Public Talk 17th July 1949
As I was suggesting yesterday, we should be able to listen to what is
being said without rejection, or acceptance. We should be able to
listen so that, if something new is being said, we do not im- mediately
reject it - which does not mean either, that we must accept everything
that is being said. That would be really absurd; because then we would
merely be building up authority, and where there is authority, there can
be no thinking, feeling; there can be no discovery of the new. And, as
most of us are inclined to accept something eagerly, without true
understanding, there is a danger, is there not?, that we may accept
without thought or investigation, without looking deeply into it. This
morning I may perhaps say something new, or put something differently,
which you may pass by, if you do not listen with that ease, with that
quietness which brings understanding.
I want to discuss this morning a subject which may be rather
difficult: The question of action, activity and relationship. Then I
will answer questions. But before I do that, we have to understand first
what we mean by activity, what we mean by action. Because, our whole
life seems based on action, or rather, activity - I want to
differentiate between activity and action. We seem to be so engrossed in
doing things; we are so restless, so consumed with movement, doing
something at any cost, getting on, achieving, striving for success. And
what is the place of activity in relationship? Because, as we were
discussing yesterday, life is a question of relationship. Nothing can
exist in isolation; and if relationship is merely an activity, then
relationship has not much significance. I do not know if you have
noticed that the moment you cease to be active, there is immediately a
feeling of nervous apprehension; you feel as though you are not alive,
not alert, so you must keep going. And there is the fear of being alone -
of going out for a walk alone, of being by yourself, without a book,
without a radio, without talking; the fear of sitting quietly without
doing something all the time with your hands or with your mind or with
your heart.
So, to understand activity, surely we must understand relationship,
must we not? If we treat relationship as a distraction, as an escape
from something else, relationship then is merely an activity. And is not
most of our relationship merely a distraction, and therefore but a
series of activities involved in relationship? As I said, relationship
has true significance only when it is a process of self-revelation, when
it is the revealing to oneself in the very action of relationship. But
most of us do not want to be revealed in relationship. On the contrary,
we use relationship as a means of covering up our own insufficiency, our
own troubles, our own uncertainty. So, relationship becomes mere
movement, mere activity. I do not know if you have noticed that
relationship is very painful; and that as long as it is not a revealing
process, in which you are discovering yourself, relationship is merely a
means of escape from yourself.
I think it is important to understand this; because, as we were
discussing yesterday, the question of self-knowledge lies in the
unfolding of relationship, whether to things, to people, or to ideas.
Can relationship be based on an idea? And, surely, any act based on an
idea must be merely the continuation of that idea, which is activity.
Action is not based on an idea. Action is immediate, spontaneous,
direct, without the process of thought involved. But when we base action
on an idea, then it becomes an activity; and if we base our
relationship on an idea, then surely such a relationship is merely an
activity, without comprehension. It is merely carrying out a formula, a
pattern, an idea. Because we want something out of relationship, such
relationship is always restricting, limiting, confining.
Idea is, is it not?, the outcome of a want, of a desire, of a
purpose. If I am related to you because I need you, physiologically or
psychologically, then that relationship is obviously based on idea, is
it not; because I want something from you. And such a relationship based
on an idea, cannot be a self-revealing process. It is merely a
momentum, an activity, a monotony, in which habit is established. Hence,
such relationship is always a strain, a pain, a contention, a struggle,
causing us agony.
Is it possible to be related without idea, without demand, without
owner- ship, possession? Can we commune with each other - which is real
relationship on all the different levels of consciousness - if we are
related to each other through a desire, a physical or psychological
need? And can there be relationship without these conditioning causes,
arising from want? As I said, this is quite a difficult problem. One has
to go very deeply and very quietly into it. It is not a question of
accepting or rejecting.
We know what our relationship is at present - a contention, a
struggle, a pain, or mere habit. If we can understand fully, completely,
relationship with the one, then perhaps there is a possibility of
understanding relationship with the many, that is, with society. If I do
not understand my relationship with the one, I certainly shall not
understand my relationship with the whole, with society, with the many.
And if my relationship with the one is based on a need, on
gratification, then my relationship with society must be the same.
Therefore, there must follow contention, with the one and with the many.
And is it possible to live, with the one and with the many, without
demand? Surely, that is the problem, is it not? Not only between you and
me, but between me and society. And to understand that problem, to
inquire into it very deeply, you have to go into the question of
self-knowledge; because, without knowing yourself as you are, without
knowing exactly what is, obviously, you cannot have right relationship
with another. Do what you will - escape, worship, read, go to cinemas,
turn on radios - as long as there is no understanding of yourself, you
cannot have right relationship. Hence the contention, battle,
antagonism, confusion, not only in you, but outside of you and about
you. As long as we use relationship, merely as a means of gratification,
of escape, as a distraction which is mere activity, there can be no
self-knowledge. But self-knowledge is understood, is uncovered, its
process is revealed, through relationship - that is, if you are willing
to go into the question of relationship and expose yourself to it.
Because, after all, you cannot live without relationship. But we want to
use that relationship to be comfortable, to be gratified to be
something. That is, we use relationship based on an idea; which means,
the mind plays the important part in relationship. And as mind is
concerned always with protecting itself, with remaining always within
the known, it reduces all relationship to the level of habit, or of
security; and therefore, relationship becomes merely an activity.
So, you see that relationship, if we allow it, can be a process of
self-revelation; but, since we do not allow it, relationship becomes
merely a gratifying activity. As long as the mind merely uses
relationship for its own security, that relationship is bound to create
confusion and antagonism. And is it possible to live in relationship
without the idea of demand, of want, of gratification? Which means, is
it possible to love without the interference of the mind? We love with
the mind, our hearts are filled with the things of the mind; but surely,
the fabrications of the mind cannot be love. You cannot think about
love. You can think about the person whom you love; but that thought is
not love, and so, gradually, thought takes the place of love. And, when
the mind becomes supreme, the all-important, then obviously, there can
be no affection. Surely, that is our problem, is it not? We have filled
our hearts with the things of the mind. And the things of the mind are
essentially ideas - what should be, and what should not be. Can
relationship be based on an idea? And if it is, is it not a
self-enclosing activity and therefore inevitable that there should be
contention, strife, and misery? But if the mind does not interfere, then
it is not erecting a barrier it is not disciplining suppressing or
sublimating itself. This is extremely difficult, because it is not
through determination, practice, or discipline, that the mind can cease
to interfere; the mind will cease to interfere only when there is full
comprehension of its own process. Then only is it possible to have right
relationship with the one and with the many, free of contention and
discord. Question: I gather definitely from you that learning and
knowledge are impediments. To what are they impediments?
Krishnamurti: Obviously, knowledge and learning are an impediment to
the understanding of the new, the timeless, the eternal. Surely,
developing a perfect technique does not make you creative. You may know
how to paint marvellously, you may have the technique; but you may not
be a creative painter. You may know how to write poems, technically most
perfect; but you may not be a poet. To be a poet implies, does it not?,
being capable of receiving the new; to be sensitive enough to respond
to something new, fresh. But, with most of us, knowledge, or learning
has become an addiction, and we think that through knowing we shall be
creative. A mind that is crowded, encased in facts, in knowledge - is it
capable of receiving something new, sudden, spontaneous? If your mind
is crowded with the known, is there any space in it to receive something
that is of the unknown? Surely, knowledge is always of the known; and
with the known, we are trying to understand the unknown, something which
is beyond measure.
Take, for example, a very ordinary thing that happens to most of us:
those who are religious - whatever that word may mean for the moment -
try to imagine what God is, or try to think about what God is. They have
read innumerable books, they have read about the experiences of the
various saints, the Masters, the Mahatmas, and all the rest, and they
try to imagine, or try to feel, what the experience of another is. That
is, with the known, you try to approach the unknown. Can you do it? Can
you think of something that is not knowable? You can only think of
something that you know. But there is this extraordinary perversion
taking place in the world at the present time: we think we shall
understand if we have more information, more books, more facts, more
printed matter.
Surely, to be aware of something that is not the projection of the
known, there must be the elimination through the understanding of the
process of the known. Why is it that the mind clings always to the
known? Is it not because the mind is constantly seeking certainty,
security? Its very nature is fixed in the known, in time; and how can
such a mind, whose very foundation is based on the past, on time,
experience the timeless? It may conceive, formulate, picture the
unknown, but that is all absurd. The unknown can come into being only
when the known is understood, dissolved, put aside. And that is
extremely difficult; because the moment you have an experience of
anything, the mind translates it into the terms of the known and reduces
it to the past. I do not know if you have noticed that every experience
is immediately translated into the known, given a name, tabulated, and
recorded. So, the movement of the known, is knowledge. And, obviously,
such knowledge, learning is a hindrance.
Suppose you had never read a book, religious or psychological, and
you had to find the meaning, the significance, of life. How would you
set about it? Suppose there were no Masters, no religious organizations,
no Buddha, no Christ, and you had to begin from the beginning. How
would you set about it? First, you would have to understand your process
of thinking, would you not? - and not project yourself, your thoughts,
into the future and create a God which pleases you; that would be too
childish. So, first you would have to understand the process of your
thinking. Surely, that is the only way to discover anything new, is it
not?
When we say that learning or knowledge is an impediment, is a
hindrance, surely we are not including technical knowledge - how to
drive a car, how to run machinery, or the efficiency which such
knowledge brings. We have in mind quite a different thing: that sense of
creative happiness which no amount of knowledge or learning will bring.
And, to be creative in the truest sense of that word, is to be free of
the past from moment to moment. Because, it is the past that is
continually shadowing the present. Merely to cling to information, to
the experiences of others, to what someone has said, however great, and
try to approximate your action to that - all that is knowledge, is it
not? But, to discover anything new, you must start on your own; you must
start on a journey completely denuded, especially of knowledge. Because
it is very easy, through knowledge and belief, to have experiences; but
those experiences are merely the products of self-projection, and
therefore utterly unreal, false. And if you are to discover for yourself
what is the new, it is no good carrying the burden of the old,
especially knowledge - the knowledge of another, however great. Now, you
use knowledge as a means of self-protection, security, and you want to
be quite sure that you have the same experiences as the Buddha, or the
Christ, or X. But a man who is protecting himself constantly through
knowledge, is obviously not a truth-seeker.
For the discovery of truth, there is no path. You must enter the
uncharted sea - which is not depressing, which is not being adventurous.
Surely, when you want to find something new, when you are experimenting
with anything, your mind has to be very quiet, has it not? But if your
mind is crowded, filled with facts, knowledge, they act as an impediment
to the new; and our difficulty is, for most of us, the mind has become
so important, so predominantly significant, that it interferes
constantly with anything that may be new, with anything that may exist
simultaneously with the known. So, knowledge and learning are
impediments for those who would seek, for those who would try to
understand that which is timeless.
Question: I gather from your various talks that thought must cease
before there can be understanding. What is that thinking which must come
to an end? What do you mean by thinking and thought?
Krishnamurti: I hope you are interested in all this. After all, you
should be; because that is what you are doing. The only instrument we
have is the mind, thought; and what do we mean by thinking? What do we
mean by thought? How does it arise? What is its function? So, let us
investigate it together. Though I may answer it, you too, please, think
it out; let us think it out together.
What is thought? Surely, thought is the result of the past, isn't it?
Thought is founded upon the reaction of the past, of yesterday, and of
many, many, many yesterdays. You would not be capable of thinking if
there were no yesterdays. So, thought is the result of the conditioned
responses, established in the mind as the past. The mind is the result
of the past. That is, thinking is the response of memory. If you had no
memory, there would be no thinking. If you had no memory of the way to
your house, you could not get there. So, thinking is the response of
memory. Memory is a process, a residue of experiences - whether
immediate, or of the past. Contact, sensation, desire, create
experience. That is, through contact, sensation, desire, there is
experience; that experience leaves a residue, which we call memory,
whether pleasant or unpleasant, profitable or unprofitable. From that
residue there is a response, which we call thinking, conditioned
according to different environmental influences, and so on and so on.
That is, the mind - not only the upper levels of consciousness, but the
whole process - is the residue of the past. After all, you and I are the
result of the past. Our whole conscious process of living, thinking,
feeling, is based on the past; and, most of us live in the upper levels
of consciousness, the superficial mind. There we are active, there we
have our problems, innumerable contentions, everyday questions; and with
that we are satisfied. But surely, what is on the surface, the little
that shows, is not the whole content of consciousness. To understand the
whole content of consciousness, the superficial mind must be quiet, if
only for a few seconds, a few minutes. Then it is possible, is it not?,
to receive what is the unknown.
Now, if thought is merely the response of the past, then the thought
process must cease for something new, must it not? If thought is the
result of time, which it is, then, to have the intimation of the
timeless, of something which you do not know, the thought process must
come to an end, must it not? To receive something new, the old must
cease. If you have a modern picture, and if you don't understand it, you
cannot approach it with your classical training; at least for the time
being, you must put it aside to understand the new. Similarly, if you
are to understand that which is new, timeless, then the mind, which is
the instrument of thought, which is the residue of the past, must come
to an end; and the process of ending thought - though that may sound
rather crazy - does not come through discipline, through so-called
meditation. We will discuss presently, in the following weeks, what is
right meditation, and so on. But we can see that any action on the part
of the mind to make itself come to an end, is still a process of
thought.
So, this problem is really quite arduous to go into and quite subtle.
Because, there can be no happiness, there can be no joy, no bliss,
unless there is creative renewal; and this creative renewal cannot take
place if the mind is constantly projecting itself into the future, into
the tomorrow, into the next second. And, as it does that all the time,
we are uncreative. We may produce babies; but to be inwardly creative,
to have that extraordinary sense of renewal in which there is constant
newness, freshness, in which the mind is totally absent - that sense of
creativeness cannot take place if the mind is constantly projecting
itself into the future, into the tomorrow. That is why it is important
to understand the whole thought process. Without understanding the
thought process - all its subtleties, its varieties, its depth - you
cannot come to the other. You may talk about it, but you have to stop
thinking - though it sounds crazy. To have that renewal, that freshness,
that extraordinary sense of otherness, the mind must understand itself.
And that is why it is important that there should be deeper and wider
awareness of self-knowledge.
Question: I agree with you that knowledge has not brought happiness. I
have been trying to be receptive, to be intuitive and eager for hints
from within. Am I on the right track?
Krishnamurti: To understand this question, we must understand what we
mean by consciousness; because, what you call intuition may be the
projection of your own desire. There are so many people who say, "I
believe in reincarnation. I feel it is so. My intuition tells me." It is
obviously their desire to prolong, to continue themselves. Because they
are so scared of death, they want to be assured that there is a next
life, another opportunity, and so on, and so on. Therefore,
`intuitively' they feel it is correct. So, to understand this question,
we must understand what you mean by within and without. Is it possible
to receive intimations of that which is within when you are continually
seeking an end - when you want to attain, when you want to cultivate,
when you want to be happy? Surely, to receive intimations from within,
the mind, the upper mind, must be completely free from all entanglements
and prejudices, from all want, from all nationalism; otherwise, your
`intimations' will make you into the greatest nationalist, and a terror
to the rest of the world.
So, our question is, how is it possible to receive the intimation of
the unknown without warping it, without translating it into our
conditioned thought pattern? To understand that, we must go into the
question of what is consciousness. What do we mean by being conscious?
What is the process of consciousness? When do you say you are conscious?
Surely, you say, "I am conscious", when you are experiencing, do you
not? When there is an experience - whether pleasurable or not
pleasurable is irrelevant - then, there is an awareness of your being
conscious of that experience. Then, from that experiencing, the next
step is, you name it, you term it, do you not? You say it is pleasure,
it is not pleasure; this I remember, that I do not remember. So you give
it a name. Then you record it, do you not? By the very pro- cess of
giving it a name, you are recording it. Are you following all this, or
is it too Sunday-morningish? (Laughter).
So, there is consciousness only when there is experiencing, terming,
and recording. Don't accept what I am saying - watch it yourself, and
you will see this is how it operates. This is going on at all the
levels, all the time, consciously or unconsciously. And, at the deeper
levels of consciousness, the process is almost instantaneous, as on the
upper level; but the difference is, is it not?, that on the upper level
there is choice, there is choosing; at the wider, deeper level, there is
instant recognition, without choice. And, the upper mind or the
superficial mind can receive the intimation only when this terming or
naming or recording process comes to an end - which happens when the
problem is much too great, or much too difficult. You try to solve a
problem, and there is no answer. Then you let it go. The moment you let
it go, there is a response, there is an intimation; because the mind,
the conscious mind, is no longer struggling, trying to find an answer.
It is quiet. The very exhaustion is a process of quietness; and
therefore, the mind is capable of receiving the intimation. But the
so-called intuition that the majority of people have, is really their
own wish-fulfillment. That is why there are so many wars, organized
beliefs, antagonisms, so much contention, because each one thinks his
intuition is so true, that for it he is willing to die, or ill-treat
others.
I am afraid the person who thinks he is following intuition is
obviously on the wrong track; because, to understand all this, one must
transcend reason. To transcend reason, you must first know what the
reasoning process is. You cannot go beyond something which you do not
know; to go beyond it, you must know what it is; you must understand the
whole meaning of reason, how to reason, how to go into it - you cannot
jump beyond it. That does not mean that you must have a very clever
brain, that you must be a great student, someone erudite. It needs
honesty of thinking, clarity, the desire to be open, to invite what is,
without fear of suffering.
Then the barrier between the inner and the outer is non-existent. The
inner then is the outer, and the outer is the inner. But to have that
integration there must be a comprehension of the process of the mind.
Question: Please explain clearly what part memory has in our life.
You seem to distinguish between two forms of memory. Actually, is there
not only memory, which is our only means of consciousness, and that
which makes us aware of time and space? Therefore, can we dispense with
memory, as you seem to suggest?
Krishnamurti: Let us investigate the question anew. Let us forget
what has been said, and let us try to find out what we mean. We said
this morning that thought is a result of the past, which is an obvious
fact; whether you like it or not, it is so. Thought is founded on the
past. There can be no thought without being conscious; and, as I said,
consciousness is a process of experiencing, terming, which is recording.
That is what you do all the time: if you see that, (pointing to a tree)
you call it a tree and name it, and you think you have had an
experience. This process of naming is part of memory, is it not? And it
is a very convenient way of experiencing. You think you have experienced
a thing by naming it. You call me a Hindu, and you think you have
understood all Hindus; I call you an American, and it is over. So we
think we understand something by giving it a name. We give it a name in
order to recognize it, as a species, or this or that; but that is not
understanding, experiencing a thing. And we do it out of slackness - it
is so much easier to dispense with people by giving them a name.
So, this process of experiencing, which is contact, sensation,
desire, consciousness, identification, and experience - this process,
with naming, is considered consciousness, isn't it? Part of that
consciousness is awake, and the other part is dormant. The conscious
mind, our everyday mind, the upper level of our mind is awake. The rest
is sleeping. Now when we sleep, the conscious, upper mind, is silent;
and therefore it is able to receive hints, intimations, translated as
dreams, but which need further interpretation. Now, the questioner wants
to know what we mean by memory, what is its function, and whether we
can dispense with it. So, the question really is: What is the function
of thought? Memory has no function apart from thinking. So, the question
is, what is the function of thought? Can thought be divided at all? Is
it to be dispensed with?
So, what is the function of thought? We say, thought is the response
of memory, which it is; and memory is incomplete experience, termed and
thought out for self-protection, and so on, and so on. Now, if thought
is the result of memory, what function has thought in life? When do you
use thought? I wonder if you have ever considered this? You use your
thought when you want to go to your home, do you not? You think how to
get to your place. This is one kind of thought. When does your thought
function? When you are protecting yourself, isn't it? When you are
seeking security: economic, social, psychological. Isn't that so? When
you want to safeguard yourself. That is, thought functions when there is
the urge for self-protection. When you are kind to another, is that a
thought process? When you love another, is that a thought process? When
you love another and use that love as a means of self-enrichment, then
obviously, it is a thought process; then, it is no longer love. So,
thought process comes into being when there is fear, when there is the
desire to possess, when there is conflict - in other words, thought
process comes into being when the self, the me, becomes important.
Surely? Because, after all, thought is concerned with me; when the I,
the me, predominates, then the thought process as self-protection
begins. Otherwise you don't think, you are unaware of your thought
process, are you not? It is only when there is conflict that you are
aware of the thought process - either to protect or to discard, to
accept or to deny.
Now, the questioner wants to know what part memory plays in our life.
If we understand that the thought process begins only when the me
becomes important, and that the me is important only when there is the
desire to safeguard itself, then we see that most of our life is spent
in safeguarding ourselves. Therefore, thought has a very important part
in our life; because most of us are concerned with ourselves. Most of us
are concerned with how to protect ourselves, how to gain, how to
arrive, how to achieve, how to become more perfect, how to have this
virtue and that virtue, how to discard, how to deny, how to be detached,
how to find happiness, how to be more beautiful, how to love, how to be
loved - you know how we are concerned with ourselves.
So, we are consumed in the thought process. We are the thought
process. We are not separate from the thought. And thought is memory;
how to be more of something. That is, when there is the urge to be the
more or the less, the positive or the negative, then thought process
comes into being. The thought process does not come into being when
there is the recognition of what is. A fact does not demand a thought
process; but if you want to avoid a fact, then the thought process
begins. If I accept that I am what I am, then thought is not; but
something else takes place when I accept what is. Quite a different
process, which is not the process of thought, comes into being. So, as
long as there is the desire for the more, or the less, there must be
thought, there must be the process of memory. After all, if you want to
be a very rich man, a powerful man, a popular man, or a man of God, if
you want to become something, you must have memory. That is, you must
think about it; the mind must constantly sharpen itself to become
something.
Now, what part has that becoming in life? Surely, as long as we want
to be something, there must be contention; as long as our desire, our
urge, our pursuit, is to be the more, or to be the less - the positive
or the negative - there must be strife, antagonism. But it is extremely
arduous, extremely difficult, not to be the more or the less. Verbally
you may throw it off and say, "I am nobody", but that is merely living
on the verbal level, without much significance - it is empty-headedness.
That is why one has to understand the thought process, which is
consciousness; which means, the whole problem of time, of yesterday, of
tomorrow. And a man who is caught in yesterday, can never understand
that which is timeless. And most of us are caught in the net of time.
Our thought is basically entangled in the net of time - it is the net of
time. Our thought is the net of time; and with that thought process -
educated, cultivated, sharpened, made keen, subtle - we want to find
something that is beyond.
We go to one teacher after another, one hero after another, one
Master after another. Our mind is sharpening itself on all these, and
thereby hopes to find that which is beyond. But, thought can never find
that which is beyond, because thought is the result of time, and that
which is of the known, cannot receive the unknown. Therefore, the man
who is entangled in the known is never creative; he may have moments of
creativeness, as some painters do, some musicians, some writers; but
they get entangled in the known - popularity, money, a hundred other
things; and then they are lost. And that is why those who are trying to
understand themselves - not to find, because that is a wrong process,
you cannot find - , must cease to search. All that you can do is
understand yourself, understand the intricacies, the extraordinary
subtlety of your thought and your being. And that can be understood only
in relationship, which is action; and that action is denied when
relationship is based on an idea; then relationship is mere activity, it
is not action; and activity merely dulls the mind and the heart. It is
only action that makes the mind alert and the heart subtle, so that it
is capable of receiving, of being sensitive. That is why it is important
that there be self-knowledge, before you seek. If you seek, you will
find, but it will not be the truth.
Therefore, this craze, this fear, this anxiety to arrive, to search
out, to find, must end; then, with self-knowledge, ever wide and deep,
there comes that sense of reality which cannot be invited. It comes into
being and only then is there creative happiness.
July 17, 1949.
