Ojai 1949
Ojai 3rd Public Talk 23rd July 1949
Last Saturday and Sunday, we were discussing the importance of
self-knowledge; because, as I explained, I do not see how we can have
any foundation for right thinking without self-knowledge; how any
action, however inclusive, however collective or individualistic, can
possibly be a harmonious and true action, without fully knowing oneself.
Without knowing oneself, there is no possibility of really searching
out what is true, what is significant, what are the right values in
life. Without self-knowledge, we cannot go beyond the self-projected
illusions of the mind. Self-knowledge, as we explained, implies not only
the action of relationship between one individual and another, but also
the action of relationship with society; and there can be no complete,
harmonious society, without this knowledge. So, it is really very
important and significant that one should know oneself as completely and
fully as possible. And, is this knowledge possible? Can one know
integrally not partially, the total process of oneself? Because, as I
said, without knowing oneself, one has no basis for thinking. One gets
caught in illusions: political, religious, social illusions - they are
limitless, endless. Is it possible to know oneself? And, how is it
possible to know oneself - what are the means, what are the ways, what
are the processes?
I think to find out what are the ways, one must find out first, must
one not?, what are the impediments; and by studying what we consider
important in life, those things which we have accepted - the values, the
standards, the beliefs, the innumerable things that we hold - by
examining them, perhaps we shall find out the ways of our own thinking,
and thereby know ourselves. That is, by understanding the things that we
accept, by questioning them, going into them - by that very process we
shall know the ways of our own thinking, our responses, our reactions;
and through them, we shall know ourselves as we are. Surely, that is the
only way we can find out the manner of our thinking, our responses: by
studying, by going fully into the values, the standards, the beliefs,
that we have accepted for generations. And, seeing behind these values,
we shall know how we respond, what our reactions are to them; and
thereby, perhaps, we shall be able to uncover the ways of our own
thinking. In other words, to know oneself, surely, is to study the
responses, the reactions that one has in relation to something. One
cannot know oneself through isolation. That is an obvious fact. You may
withdraw to a mountain, into a cave, or pursue some illusion on the
banks of a river; but, if one isolates oneself, there can be no
relationship, and isolation is death. It is only in relationship that
one can know oneself as one is. So, by studying the things that we have
accepted, by going into them fully, not superficially, perhaps we shall
be able to understand ourselves.
Now, one of the things, it seems to me, that most of us eagerly
accept and take for granted, is the question of beliefs. I am not
attacking beliefs. What we are trying to do this evening is to find out
why we accept beliefs; and if we can understand the motives, the
causation of acceptance, then perhaps we may be able not only to
understand why we do it, but also be free of it. Because, one can see
how political and religious beliefs, national and various other types of
beliefs, do separate people, do create conflict, confusion, and
antagonism - which is an obvious fact; and yet we are unwilling to give
them up. There is the Hindu belief, the Christian belief, the Buddhist -
innumerable sectarian and national beliefs, various political
ideologies, all contending with each other, trying to convert each
other. One can see, obviously, that belief is separating people,
creating intolerance; and is it possible to live without belief? One can
find that out, only if one can study oneself in relationship to a
belief. Is it possible to live in this world without a belief - not
change beliefs, not substitute one belief for another, but be entirely
free from all beliefs, so that one meets life anew each minute? This,
after all, is the truth: to have the capacity of meeting everything
anew, from moment to moment, without the conditioning reaction of the
past, so that there is not the cumulative effect which acts as a barrier
between oneself and that which is.
Obviously, most of us accept or take on beliefs because, first of
all, there is fear. We feel that, without a belief, we shall be lost.
Then we use belief as a means of conduct, as a pattern, according to
which we direct our lives. And also we think that, through belief, there
can be collective action. So, in other words, we think that belief is
necessary for action. And is that so? Is belief necessary for action?
That is, belief being an idea, is ideation necessary for action? Which
comes first: idea, or action? Surely, first there is action, which is
either pleasurable or painful, and according to that we build up various
theories. Action invariably comes first, does it not? And, when there
is fear, when there is the desire to believe in order to act, then
ideation comes in.
Now, if you consider, you will see that one of the reasons for the
desire to accept a belief, is fear. Because, if we had no belief, what
would happen to us? Wouldn't we be very frightened of what might happen?
If we had no pattern of action, based on a belief - either in God, or
in Communism, or in Socialism, or in Imperialism, or in some kind of
religious formula, some dogma in which we are conditioned - we would
feel utterly lost, wouldn't we? And is not this acceptance of a belief,
the covering up of that fear - the fear of being really nothing, of
being empty? After all, a cup is useful only when it is empty; and a
mind that is filled with beliefs, with dogmas, with assertions, with
quotations, is really an uncreative mind, it is merely a repetitive
mind. And, to escape from that fear - that fear of emptiness, that fear
of loneliness, that fear of stagnation, of not arriving, not succeeding,
not achieving, not being something, not becoming something - is surely
one of the reasons, is it not?, why we accept beliefs so eagerly and
greedily. And, through acceptance of belief, do we understand ourselves?
On the contrary. A belief, religious or political, obviously hinders
the understanding of ourselves. It acts as a screen through which we are
looking at ourselves. And, can we look at ourselves without beliefs? If
we remove those beliefs, the many beliefs that one has, is there
anything left to look at? If we have no beliefs with which the mind has
identified itself, then the mind, without identification, is capable of
looking at itself as it is - and then, surely, there is the beginning of
the understanding of oneself. If one is afraid, if there is fear which
is covered over by a belief; and if, in understanding beliefs, one comes
face to face with fear, without the screen of beliefs - is it not
possible then to be free from that reaction of fear? That is, to know
one is afraid, and to stay there, without any escape? To be with what
is, is surely much more significant, much more worthwhile, than to
escape from what is, through a belief.
So, one begins to see that there are various forms of escape from
oneself, from one's own emptiness, from one's own poverty of being -
escapes such as knowledge, such as amusement, various forms of
addictions and distractions, both learned and stupid, clever or not
worthwhile. We are surrounded by these, we are them; and if the mind can
see the significance of the things to which it is held, then, perhaps,
we shall be face to face with what we are, whatever it be; and I think
the moment we are capable of doing that, then there is a real
transformation. Because then, there is no question of fear; for fear
exists only in relationship to something. When there is you and
something else to which you are related, and when you dislike that thing
to which you are related and try to avoid it - then there is fear. But
when you are that very thing, then there is no question of avoidance. A
fact gives fear only when you bring an emotional reaction to it; but
when a fact is faced as it is, there is no fear. And when what we call
fear is no longer named, but only looked at, without it being given a
term, then, surely, there takes place a revolution, there is no longer
that sense either of avoidance or acceptance.
So, to understand belief, not superficially but profoundly, one must
find out why the mind attaches itself to various forms of beliefs, why
beliefs have become so significant in our lives: belief about death,
about life, about what happens after death; beliefs asserting that there
is God or there is no God; that there is reality or there is no
reality; and various political beliefs. Are these beliefs not all
indicative of our own sense of inward poverty, and, do they not reveal a
process of escape, or act as a defence? And in studying our beliefs, do
we not begin to know ourselves as we are, not only at the upper levels
of our mind, of our consciousness, but deeper down? So, the more one
studies oneself in relationship to something else, such as beliefs, the
more the mind becomes quiet, without false regimentation, without
compulsion. The more the mind knows itself, the more quiet it is,
obviously. The more you know something, the more you are familiar with
it, the more the mind becomes quiet. And the mind must be really quiet,
not made quiet. Surely, there is a vast difference between a mind that
is made quiet, and a mind that is quiet. You can compel a mind by
circumstances, by various disciplines, tricks, and so on, to be quiet.
But that is not quietude, that is not peace; that is death. But a mind
that is quiet because it understands the various forms of fear, and
because it understands itself - such a mind is creative, such a mind is
renewing itself constantly. It is only the mind that is self-enclosed by
its own fears and beliefs, that stagnates. But a mind that understands
its relationship to the values about it - not imposing a standard of
values, but understanding what is - surely, such a mind becomes quiet,
is quiet. It is not a question of becoming. It is only then, surely,
that the mind is capable of perceiving what is real from moment to
moment Reality is, surely, not something at the end, an end result of
accumulative action. Reality is to be perceived only from moment to
moment; and it can be perceived only when there is not the accumulative
effect of the past on the moment, the now.
There are many questions, and I will answer some of them.
Question: Why do you talk?
Krishnamurti: I think this question is quite interesting - for me to
answer and also for you to answer. Not only why do I talk, but why do
you listen? No; seriously, if I talked for self-expression, then I would
be exploiting you. If my talking is a necessity for me in order to feel
myself flattered, egotistic, self-aggressive, and all the rest of it,
then I must use you; then you and I have no relationship, because you
are a necessity for my egotism. I need you then to bolster myself up, to
feel myself rich, free, applauded, having so many people listening to
me. Then I am using you; then one uses another. Then, surely, there is
no relationship between you and me, because you are useful to me. When I
use you, what relationship have I with you? None. And, if I speak
because I have various sets of ideas which I want to convey to you, then
ideas become very important; and I do not believe that ideas ever bring
about a fundamental, radical change, a revolution in life. Ideas can
never be new; ideas can never bring about a transformation, a creative
surge; because ideas are merely the response of a continued past,
modified or altered, but still of the past. If I talk because I want you
to change, or I want you to accept my particular way of thinking,
belong to my particular society, become my particular disciple - then
you as an individual are a nonentity, because then I am only concerned
with transforming you according to a particular view. Then you are not
important; then the pattern is important. So, why am I talking? If it is
none of these things, why am I talking? We will answer that presently.
Then the question is, why are you listening? Isn't that equally
important? Perhaps more. If you are listening to get some new ideas, or a
new way of looking at life, then you will be disappointed, because I am
not going to give you new ideas. If you are listening to experience
something you think I have experienced, then you are merely imitating,
hoping to capture something which you think I have. Surely, the real
things of life cannot be vicariously experienced. Or, because you are in
trouble, sorrow, pain, have innumerable conflicts, you come here to
find out how to get out of them. Again, I am afraid I cannot help you.
All that I can do is to point out your own difficulty, and we can then
talk it over with each other; but it is for you yourself to see.
Therefore, it is very important to find out for yourself why you come
here and listen. Because, if you have one purpose, one intention, and I
another, we shall never meet. Then, there is no relationship between you
and me, there is no communion between you and me. You want to go north,
and I am going south. We will pass each other by. But, surely, that is
not the intention of these gatherings. What we are trying to do is to
undertake a journey together, and experience together as we go along -
not that I am teaching you, or you are listening to me, but together we
are exploring, if that is possible; so that you are not only the master
but also the disciple in discovering and understanding. There is not
then this division of the high and the low, the one that is learned and
the one that is ignorant, the one that has achieved and the one that is
still on the way to achievement. Such divisions, surely, distort
relationship; and, without understanding relationship, there can be no
understanding of reality.
I have told you why I speak. Perhaps you will think then that I need
you in order to discover. Surely not. I have something to say: you can
take it or leave it. And, if you take it, it is not that you are taking
it from me. I merely act as a mirror in which you see yourself. You
might not like that mirror and so discard it; but, when you do look into
the mirror, look at it very clearly, unemotionally, without the blur of
sentimentality. And, surely, it is important, is it not?, to find out
why you come and listen. If it is merely an afternoon's amusement, if
instead of going to a cinema you come here, then it is utterly
valueless. If it is merely for the sake of argumentation, or to catch
new sets of ideas so that you can use them when you lecture, or write a
book, or discuss - again, that is valueless. But if you come really to
discover yourself in relationship, which might help in your relationship
with others, then it has significance; then it is worthwhile; then it
will not be like so many other meetings which you attend. Surely, these
gatherings are intended, not for you to listen to me, but to see
yourself reflected in the mirror which I am trying to describe. You
don't have to accept what you see - that would be foolish. But if you
look at the mirror dispassionately, as you would listen to music, as you
would sit under a tree and watch the shadows of an evening, without
condemnation, without any kind of justification - merely look at it - ,
that very awareness of what is, does a most extraordinary thing, if
there is no resistance. Surely, that is what we are trying to do in all
these talks. So, real freedom comes, but not through effort; effort can
never bring about freedom. Effort can only bring about substitution,
suppression, or sublimation; but none of those things is freedom.
Freedom comes only when there is no longer effort to be something. Then,
the truth of what is, acts; and that is freedom.
Question: Is there a distinction between my intention in listening to you, and in going from one teacher to another?
Krishnamurti: Surely, it is for you to find out, isn't it? Why do you
go from one teacher to another, from one organization to another, from
one belief to another? Or, why are you so closed in by one belief -
Christian, or what you will? Why? Why do we do this? This is happening
not in America only, but right through the world - this appalling
restlessness, this desire to find. Why? Do you think by searching, you
will find? But, before you can search, you must have the instrument for
search, must you not? You must be capable of searching - not merely
start out to search. To search, to have the capacity to search, you must
understand yourself, surely. How can you search without first knowing
yourself, without knowing what it is you are searching for, and what it
is that is searching? The Hindus come over here and give their stuff -
the yogis, the swamis, you know; and you go over there and preach, and
convert. Why? It will be a happy world when there are neither teachers
nor pupils.
What is it really that we are seeking? Is it that we are bored with
life, bored with one set of ceremonies, one set of dogmas, church
rituals, and so we go to another because it is something new, more
exciting - Sanskrit words, men with beards, togas, and all the rest of
it? Is that the reason? Or, do we want to find a refuge, an escape, in
Buddhism, in Hinduism, or in some other organized religious belief? Or,
are we seeking gratification? It is very difficult to distinguish and be
aware of what we are really seeking. Because, from period to period we
vary; when we are bored, when we are tired, when we are miserable, we
want something ultimate, lasting, final, absolute. It is only a very few
who are consistent in their search - in their inquiry, rather. Most of
us want distraction. If we are intellectual, we want intellectual
distraction, and so on, and so on.
So, can one genuinely, authentically, for oneself, find out what it
is that one wants? Not what one should have, or what one thinks one
ought to have; but to find out for oneself, inwardly, what it is that
one wants, what it is that one is searching after so ceaselessly. And,
can one find, when one seeks? Surely, we will find that which we are
seeking; but, when we get what we want, it soon fades away, it turns to
ashes. So, before we start out searching, gathering what we want, surely
it is important, isn't it?, to find out who the searcher is, and what
he is seeking; because, if the seeker does not understand himself, then
what he finds will be merely a self-projected illusion. And, you may
live in that illusion happily for the rest of your life, but it will
still be illusion.
So, before you seek, before you go from teacher to teacher, from
organization to organization, from belief to belief, surely it is
important to find out who is the person that is seeking, and what he is
seeking - not just vaguely go from shop to shop, hoping to find the
right dress. So, surely, the thing of primary importance is to know
yourself, not to go out and search - which does not mean that you should
become an introvert and avoid all action, which is impossible. You can
know yourself only in relationship, not in isolation. So, what is the
distinction between one's intention in coming here and listening, and in
going to another teacher? Surely, there is no distinction if one merely
comes here to get something - to be pacified, to be comforted, to be
given new ideas, to be persuaded to join or to leave some organization,
or God knows what else. Surely, here there is no refuge, no
organization. Here, you and I are trying to see exactly what is, if we
can, - see ourselves as we are - , which is extremely difficult, because
we are so cunning; you know the innumerable tricks that we play upon
ourselves. Here we are trying to strip ourselves naked and see
ourselves; for, in that stripping, there comes wisdom; and it is that
wisdom which gives happiness. But, if your intention is to find comfort,
something which will hide you from yourself, something which will offer
an escape, then, obviously, there are many ways of doing it - through
religion, politics, amusement, knowledge - you know, the whole gamut of
it. And, I do not see how any form of addiction, any form of
distraction, any escape, however pleasant or however uncomfortable, to
which one so eagerly adjusts oneself because it promises a reward at the
end, can bring about that self-knowledge which is so essential, and
which alone can give creative peace.
Question: Our mind knows only the known. What is it in us that drives us to find the unknown, reality, God?
Krishnamurti: Does your mind urge towards the unknown? Is there an
urge in us for the unknown, for reality, for God? Please think seriously
about it. This is not a rhetorical question, but actually let us find
out. Is there an inward urge in each one of us to find the unknown? Is
there? How can you find the unknown? If you do not know it, how can you
find it? Please, I am not being clever. Don't brush it off that way. So,
is it an urge for reality? Or, is it merely a desire for the known,
expanded? Do you understand what I mean? I have known many things; they
have not given me happiness, satisfaction, joy. So, now I want something
else that will give me greater joy, greater happiness, greater hope,
greater vitality - what you will. And, can the known, which is my mind -
because, my mind is the known, the result of the known, the result of
the past - , can that mind seek the unknown? If I do not know reality,
the unknown, how can I search for it? Surely, it must come, I cannot go
after it. If I go after it, I am going after something which is the
known, projected from me.
So, our problem is not what it is in us that drives us to find the
unknown - that is clear enough. It is our own desire to be more secure,
more permanent, more established, more happy, to escape from turmoil,
from pain, confusion. Surely, that is our obvious drive. And, when there
is that drive, that urge, you will find a marvellous escape, a
marvellous refuge - in the Buddha, in the Christ, or in political
slogans, and all the rest of it. But, surely, that is not reality; that
is not the unknowable, the unknown. Therefore, the urge for the unknown
must come to an end, the search for the unknown must stop; which means,
there must be the under- standing of the cumulative known, which is the
mind. The mind must understand itself as the known, because that is all
it knows. You cannot think about something that you do not know. You can
only think about something that you know.
Our difficulty is for the mind not to proceed in the known; and that
can only happen when the mind understands itself and how all its
movement is from the past, projecting itself through the present, to the
future. It is one continuous movement of the known; and, can that
movement come to an end? It can come to an end only when the mechanism
of its own process is understood, only when the mind understands itself
and its workings, its ways, its purposes, its pursuits, its demands -
not only the superficial demands, but the deep inward urges and motives.
This is quite an arduous task; it isn't just in a meeting, or at a
lecture, or by reading a book, that you are going to find out. On the
contrary, it needs constant watchfulness, constant awareness of every
movement of thought - not only when you are waking, but also when you
are asleep. It must be a total process, not a sporadic, partial process.
And also, the intention must be right. That is, there must be a
cessation of the superstition that inwardly we all want the unknown. It
is an illusion to think that we are all seeking God - we are not. We
don't have to search for light. There will be light when there is no
darkness; and through darkness, we cannot find the light. All that we
can do is to remove those barriers that create darkness; and the removal
depends on the intention. If you are removing them in order to see
light, then you are not removing anything, you are only substituting the
word light for darkness. Even to look beyond the darkness, is an escape
from darkness.
So, we have to consider, not what it is that is driving us, but why
there is in us such confusion, such turmoil, such strife and antagonism -
all the stupid things of our existence. When these are not, then there
is light, we don't have to look for it. When stupidity is gone there is
intelligence. But the man who is stupid and tries to become intelligent,
is still stupid. Surely, stupidity can never be made wisdom; only when
stupidity ceases, is there wisdom, intelligence. But the man who is
stupid and tries to become intelligent, wise, obviously can never be. To
know what is stupidity, one must go into it, not superficially, but
fully, completely, deeply, profoundly, one must go into all the
different layers of stupidity; and when there is the cessation of that
stupidity, there is wisdom.
So, it is important to find out, not if there is something more,
something greater than the known, which is urging us to the unknown; but
to see what it is in us that is creating confusion, the wars, the class
differences, the snobbishness, the pursuit of the famous, the
accumulation of knowledge, the escape through music, through art,
through so many ways. It is important, surely, to see them as they are,
and to come back to ourselves as we are. And, from there we can proceed.
Then the throwing off of the known is comparatively easy. When the mind
is silent, when it is no longer projecting itself into the future, into
the tomorrow, wishing for something; when the mind is really quiet,
profoundly peaceful, the unknown comes into being. You don't have to
search for it. You cannot invite it. That which you can invite is only
that which you know. You cannot invite an unknown guest. You can only
invite one whom you know. But you do not know the unknown, God, reality,
or what you will. It must come. It can come only when the field is
right, when the soil is tilled. But, if you till in order for it to
come, then you will not have it.
So, our problem is not to seek the unknowable, but to understand the
accumulative processes of the mind, which is ever with the known. And
that is an arduous task: that demands attention, that demands a constant
awareness in which there is no sense of distraction, of identification,
of condemnation; it is being with what is. Then only can the mind be
still. No amount of meditation, discipline, can make the mind still, in
the real sense of that word. Only when the breezes stop does the lake
become quiet. You cannot make the lake quiet. So our job is not to
pursue the unknowable, but to understand the confusion, the turmoil the
misery, in ourselves; and then that thing darkly comes into being, in
which there is joy.
July 23, 1949
