Banaras 1949
Banaras 2nd Public Talk 23rd January 1949
One has to differentiate between the experiences caused by belief,
and experiencing. Belief obviously is detrimental to experiencing; and
it is only through direct experiencing, not through belief, that one can
find the reality of anything. Belief is unnecessary, whereas
experiencing is essential, especially in a world where there are so many
contradictions, and so many specialists, each offering his own
solution. We, the ordinary people, have to find out the truth of all
this confusion and of all this misery. And so we have to inquire whether
belief is essen- tial, and if belief helps in experiencing reality.
Now, as we see, the world is torn between two camps: those who
believe that material life is of primary importance - the material life
of society, the alteration of the environment, the reconditioning of man
to environment - , and those who believe that spiritual life is
primary. The extreme left believes in the modification and the
transformation of the environment: and there are those who believe that
the spiritual life of man is alone of primary importance.
Now, you and I have to find out the truth of this matter. According
to it our life shall be right. The specialists say that environment
comes first, and there are those who say that spirit comes first; and
you and I have to find out what is the truth of this matter. It is not a
question of belief, because belief has no validity with regard to
experience. On which shall we lay emphasis: the environment, or the
spiritual life? And how are you and I going to find the truth of this
matter? Not by endless reading, not by following the experts of the left
or of the right; not by following those who believe that the material
life of society is of primary importance; and not by studying all their
books, all their expert knowledge, nor by following those who believe
that spiritual life comes first, with all their literature. Merely to
believe the one or the other is, surely, not to find the truth of the
matter.
And yet most of us are caught in belief, most of us are uncertain.
Sometimes we think this, and sometimes we think that. We are not sure;
we are as confused as the experts in their certainty. We cannot take
anything for granted, we cannot follow the one or the other, because
they both lead to confusion, because any acceptance of authority in
these matters is obviously detrimental to society. Leadership in society
is a factor of deterioration of society; and yet you and I, being
caught between the two and not knowing what to do, have to find out what
the truth of this matter is - and not according to any specialist.
So, how do you set about it? Sir, that is one of the primary
questions at the present time: We have those who put all their energy,
all their capacities, all their power and thought into the alteration of
the environment, which they hope will ultimately transform the
individual; and there are those who, more and more would turn to belief,
to orthodoxy, to organized religion, and so on. These two are at war
with each other, and you and I must decide - not decide which side we
should take, because it is not a question of taking sides. But we must
be sure of the truth of these.
Also, we cannot obviously depend on our particular prejudices,
because our prejudices will not show us the truth of the matter. If you
have been conditioned in a religious environment, you will say spirit
comes first. Another, brought up differently, will say the material life
of society is of primary importance.
Now, how are you and I, ordinary people, not dependent on the
accumulation of knowledge, theory, proofs, his theoretical proofs - how
are we, you and I, going to find out the truth of all this? Is it not a
vital question? Because on that discovery our future responsibility of
action depends. So it is not a question of belief; belief again is a
form of conditioning, and belief will not help us to find the truth of
this matter.
So, first, to find the truth of this, must we not be free from our
religious back ground, as well as our materialistic back ground? Which
means that we cannot merely accept; we must be free from the
conditioning which makes us think that the materialistic life of society
is of primary importance, as well as from the conditioning which makes
us believe that the spiritual life, the life of the spirit, is of
primary importance. We must be free of both in order to find the truth
of both. Surely, that is an obvious thing, is it not? To find the truth
of something, you must approach it afresh, anew, without any prejudice.
So, to find the truth of this, you and I must liberate ourselves from
our back ground, from our environment; is it possible? That is, do we
live by bread alone? Or, is there some other factor that shapes the
outward end, the environment, according to our inner psychology? And to
find the truth of this matter is obviously of primary importance to each
responsible and earnest person, because on this his action will depend;
and to find the truth of that, one has to study oneself, and one has to
be aware of oneself in action. Does the material aspect of society play
the primary part in your life? Does environment play the principal role
in your life? With most of us it obviously does. Does environment shape
our thoughts, feelings? And where does the so-called spiritual life
begin, and where does the environmental influence cease? Surely, to find
that out, one must study one's own actions, thoughts and feelings. In
other words, there must be self-knowledge - not the knowledge found in a
book, gathered from various sources, but as you live from day to day,
from moment to moment, that knowledge of the self at whatever level you
find it.
So, the truth of the matter lies in the understanding of yourself in
relationship to environment, in relationship to an idea called the
spirit. Surely? As we discussed yesterday and the last few days, life is
a question of relationship. Living, existence, implies relationship;
and it is only in relationship, in understanding relationship, that we
shall begin to discover the truth of this matter: whether material life
is of primary importance or not. Therefore, we have to experience it in
understanding relationship, and not merely cling to belief. Then
experiencing will give us the reality of these two.
So, self-knowledge, then, is of primary importance in the discovery
of truth, which means that one has to be aware of every thought and
feeling and see from whence these responses come; and one can be aware,
so clearly, so extensively, only if there is no condemnation or
justification. That is, if we are aware of a thought, of a feeling, and
follow it through without any condemnation, then we shall be able to see
whether it is a response to the environment, or merely a reaction to a
materialistic demand, or if that thought has a different source.
So, through awareness, without condemnation, without justification,
we shall begin to understand ourselves - ourselves being the various
responses to various stimuli, responses to the environment, which is
relationship. Therefore relationship, or rather the understanding of
relationship, becomes very important: the relationship of ourselves to
property, of ourselves to people, of ourselves to ideas, and that
movement of relationship cannot be understood if there is any sense of
condemnation or justification. If you want to understand a thing,
obviously you must not condemn it. If you want to understand your child,
your son, you have to study him, you have to observe him, you have to
study his various moods, when he is at play, and so on. So likewise, we
must study ourselves, all the time, not just at a given time; and we can
study ourselves only when there is no condemnation, and it is extremely
difficult not to condemn, because condemnation or comparison is an
escape from what is; and to study what is, requires an extraordinary
alertness of mind, and that alertness is dulled when it is merely caught
in comparison, when there is condemnation. To condemn is not to
understand, surely. It is so much easier to condemn a child, a person,
rather than to understand that person. To understand that person
requires attention, interest.
So, our problem is the comprehension of ourselves, as our selves, for
each one of us is both the environment and some thing more. The
something more is not the result of a belief. We have to discover it, we
have to experience it; and belief is an impediment to experiencing. So,
we must take ourselves as we are and study ourselves as we are; and
this study can be done only in relationship, and not in isolation.
I have been given several questions. Now, it is very easy to ask a
question. Anybody can ask a question. But a right question, when asked
seriously, will find a right response. Now you have asked me several
questions here, and, if I may suggest, there is a way of listening which
will help in understanding the problem. You have a problem, you have
put to me a question and you want an answer. Surely there is a way of
listening which is receptive. It is like sitting in front of a picture
and absorbing the content of that picture, without struggling to
understand the picture. I do not know if it has happened to you, that
when you see some of the modern surrealist, abstract pictures, the first
inclination is to condemn them, to say what nonsense, what is it all
about - because you are trained to appreciate classical art. But there
is another way of looking at those pictures, that is, without
condemnation, but with receptivity, so that the pictures may tell you
their story. Surely, that is the only way to understand anything: to be
receptive - not, of course, to every absurd thing - but, so receptive
that your particular question receives the answer which will be true if
you listen to it rightly.
Surely, the subconscious is much more eager to understand than the
conscious, because the conscious is agitated, worried, pulled about,
torn has innumerable problems. But there is surely, a part of the mind
which is not agitated, which is eager to find out. Now, if we can give
an opportunity for that part of the mind to listen, to be receptive,
then, I am sure, you will find that your questions will be answered
without your struggling to understand them. That is, to put it
differently, understanding is not a matter of effort. The understanding
of any problem that one has, does not come through your constantly
worrying over that problem. Similarly, if I may suggest, listen to
understand rather than to refute or to confirm your own particular
vanities and prejudices.
Question: Can the past dissolve all at once, or does it invariably need time?
Krishnamurti: We are the result of the past. Our thought is founded
upon yesterday, and many thousand yesterdays. We are the result of time,
and our responses, our present attitudes, are the cumulative effect of
many thousand moments, incidents and experiences. So the past is, for
the majority of us, the present, which is a fact, which cannot be
denied. You, your thoughts, your actions, your responses, are the result
of the past. Now the questioner wants to know if that past can be wiped
out immediately, which means not in time, but immediately wiped out; or
does this cumulative past require time for the mind to be freed in the
present? It is important to understand the question. That is, as each
one of us is the result of the past, with a back ground of innumerable
influences, constantly varying, constantly changing, is it possible to
wipe out that background without going through the process of time? Is
that clear? The question is clear, surely.
Now, what is the past? What do we mean by the past? Surely we do not
mean the chronological past, the second that was before, we don't mean
that, that is just over. We mean, surely, the accumulated experiences,
the accumulated responses, memories, traditions, knowledge, the
subconscious storehouse of innumerable thoughts, feelings, influences
and responses, With that background, it is not possible to understand
reality, be cause reality must be of no time: it is timeless. So, one
cannot understand the timeless with a mind which is the out come of
time. The questioner wants to know if it is possible to free the mind,
or for the mind, which is the result of time, to cease to be,
immediately; or must one go through a long series of examinations and
analyses, and so free the mind from its background. You see the
difficulty in the question.
Now, the mind is the background; the mind is the result of time; the
mind is the past, the mind is not the future. It can project itself into
the future; and the mind uses the present as a passage to the future,
so it is still - whatever it does, whatever its activity, its future
activity, its present activity, its past activity - in the net of time.
And is it possible for the mind to cease completely. which means, for
the thought process to come to an end? Now, there are obviously many
layers to the mind; what we call consciousness, has many layers, each
layer interrelated with the other layer, each layer dependent on the
other, interacting; and our whole consciousness is not only
experiencing, but also naming or terming, and also storing up as memory.
That is the whole process of consciousness, is it not? Or is this all
too difficult?
When we talk about consciousness, do we not mean the experiencing,
the naming or the terming of that experience, and thereby storing up
that experience in memory? Surely, all this, at different levels, is
consciousness. And, can the mind, which is the result of time, go
through the process of analysis, step by step, in order to free itself
from the background; or is it possible to be free entirely from time and
look at reality directly?
Now, let us see. Are you interested in this? Because you know, this
is really quite an important question; because it is possible, as I will
presently explain, to be free of the background, therefore to renew
life immediately, without dependence on time; to recreate ourselves
immediately and not depend on time. If you are interested, I will
proceed, and you will see.
To be free of the background, many of the analysts say that you must
examine every response, every complex, every hindrance, every blockage,
which implies a process of time, obviously; which means the analyser
must understand what he is analysing; and he must not misinterpret what
he analyses. Because, if he mistranslates what he analyses, it will lead
him to wrong conclusions, and therefore establish another background.
Do you follow? Therefore the analyser must be capable of analysing his
thoughts, feelings, without the slightest deviation; and he must not
miss one step in his analysis, because to take a wrong step, to draw a
wrong conclusion, is to reestablish a background along a different line,
on a different level. And this problem also arises: Is the analyser
different from what he analyses? Are not the analyser and the thing that
is analysed a joint phenomenon? Sir, I am not sure you are interested
in this, but I will go on.
Surely the experiencer and the experience are a joint phenomenon,
they are not two separate processes. So, first of all, let us see the
difficulty of analysing. It is almost impossible to analyse the whole
content of our consciousness, and thereby be free through that process.
Because, after all, who is the analyser? The analyser is not different,
though he may think he is different, from that which he is analysing. He
may separate himself from that which he analyses, but the analyser is
part of that which he analyses. I have a thought, I have a feeling, say,
for example, I am angry. The person who analyses anger is still part of
anger; and therefore the analyser as well as the analysed are a joint
phenomenon, they are not two separate forces or processes; and so the
difficulty of analysing ourselves, unfolding, looking at ourselves page
after page, watching every reaction, every response, is incalculably
difficult and long. Surely? Therefore, that is not the way to free
ourselves from the background. Is it? So there must be a much simpler, a
more direct way; and that is what you and I are going to find out. But
to find out we must discard that which is false, and not hold on to it.
So analysis is not the way, and we must be free of the process of
analysis. As you would not take a path which you know does not lead
anywhere, similarly the process of analysis will not lead anywhere,
therefore, you do not take that path; therefore, it is out of your
system.
Then what have you left? You are only used to analysis, are you not?
The observer observing - the observer and the observed being a joint
phenomenon - , the observer trying to analyse that which he observes,
will not free him from his background. If that is so, and it is, you
abandon that process, do you not? I do not know if you follow all this.
If you see that it is a false way, if you realize not merely verbally
but actually that it is a false process, then what happens to your
analysis? You stop analysing, do you not? Then what have you left? Watch
it, Sir, follow it, if you will kindly, and you will see how rapidly
and swiftly one can be free from the background. If that is not the way,
what else have you left? What is the state of the mind which is
accustomed to analysis, to probing, looking into, dissecting, drawing
conclusions, and so on? If that process has stopped, what is the state
of your mind?
You say that the mind is blank. Now, proceed further into that blank
mind. In other words, when you discard what is known as being false,
what has happened to your mind? After all, what have you discarded? You
have discarded the false process which is the outcome of a background.
Is that not so? With one blow, as it were, you have discarded the whole
thing. Therefore your mind, when you discard the analytical process with
all its implications and see it as false, is freed from yesterday, ind
therefore is capable of looking directly, without going through the
process of time, and thereby discarding the background immediately.
Sir, to put the whole question differently, thought is the result of
time. Is it not? Thought is the result of environment, of social and
religious influences, which is all part of time. Now, can thought be
free of time? That is, thought which is the result of time, can it stop
and be free from the process of time? Thought can be controlled, shaped;
but the control of thought is still within the field of time, and so
our difficulty is: how can a mind that is the result of time, of many
thousand yesterdays, be instantaneously free of this complex background?
And you can be free of it, not tomorrow, but in the present, in the
now. That can be done only when you realize that which is false; and the
false is obviously the analytical process, and that is the only thing
we have; and when the analytical process completely stops, not through
enforcement, but through understanding the inevitable falseness of that
process, then you will find that your mind is completely dissociated
from the past - which does not mean that you do not recognize the past,
but your mind has no direct communion with the past. So it can free
itself from the past immediately, now; and this dissociation from the
past, this complete freedom from yesterday, psychologically, not
chronologically, but psychologically, is possible and that is the only
way to understand reality.
Now, to put it very simply, when you want to understand something,
what is the state of your mind? When you want to understand your child,
when you want to understand somebody, something that someone is saying,
what is the state of your mind? You are not analysing, criticizing,
judging what the other is saying; you are listening, are you not? Your
mind is in a state where the thought pro cess is not active, but is very
alert. Yes? And that alertness is not of time, is it? You are merely
being alert, passively receptive, and yet fully aware; and it is only in
this state that there is understanding. Surely, when the mind is
agitated, questioning, worrying, dissecting, analysing, there is no
understanding. And when there is the intensity to understand, the mind
is obviously tranquil. This, of course, you have to experiment with, not
take my word for it. But you can see that the more and more you
analyse, the less and less you understand. You may understand certain
events, certain experiences; but the whole content of consciousness
cannot be emptied through the analytical process. It can be emptied only
when you see the falseness of the approach through analysis. When you
see the false as the false, then you begin to see what is true; and it
is truth that is going to liberate you from the back ground. To receive
that truth, the mind must cease to be analytical, must not be caught in
the thought process, which obviously is analysis, which brings us to
quite a different question, which is: What is right meditation? - which
we will discuss at another time.
Question: I need the sunshine of the teacher's love to enable me to
flower. Is such a psychological need not of the same order as the need
for food, clothing, and shelter? You seem to condemn all psychological
needs. What is the truth of this matter?
Krishnamurti: Presumably, most of you have some kind of a teacher,
have you not? Some kind of guru, either in the Himalayas, or here, round
the corner. Do you not? Some kind of guide. Now why do you need him?
You do not, obviously, need him for material purposes, unless he
promises you a good job the day-after tomorrow. So, presumably, you need
him for psychological purposes, do you not? Now, why do you need him?
Basically, obviously, you need him because you say, "I am confused, I do
not know how to live in this world; things are too contradictory. There
is confusion, there is misery, there is death, decay, degradation,
disintegration; and I need somebody to advise me what to do." Is that
not the reason why you need a guru, why you go to a guru? You say,
"Being confused, I need a teacher who will help me to clear up the
confusion, or rather help me to resolve the confusion." Is that not it?
So your need is psychological. You do not treat your Prime Minister as
your guru, because he merely deals with the material life of society.
You look to him for your physical needs; whereas, here, you look to a
teacher for your psychological needs.
Now, what do you mean by the word `need'? I need sunshine, I need
food, clothes and shelter; and in the same way, do I need a teacher? To
answer that question, I must find out who has created this awful mess
around me and in me. If I am responsible for the confusion, I am the
only person that can clear up the confusion, which means that I must
understand the confusion myself; but you generally go to a teacher in
order that he may extricate you from the confusion, or show you the way,
give you directions on how to act with regard to the confusion. Or you
say "Well this world is false, I must find truth." And the guru or the
teacher says, "I have found truth", so you go to him to partake of that
truth.
Can confusion be cleared by another, however great? Surely this
confusion exists in our relationship; therefore we have to understand
our relationship with each other, with society, with property, with
ideas, and so on; and can someone give us the understanding of that
relationship? Someone may point out, may show, but I have to understand
my relationship, where I am. Sir, are you interested in this? My
difficulty is that I feel you are not interested, because you are
watching somebody else doing some thing. When you ask a question, you do
not feel the importance of listening to the answer. Therefore, you are
really treating your guru and your confusion very lightly. Really it
does not matter to you two pins what your guru says, but it is just a
habit: let us go to the guru. Therefore, life to you is not important,
is not vital, creative, something which must be understood. And I can
see it in your face, you are not vitally interested in this question.
You listen either to be confirmed in your search for gurus, or to
strengthen your own conviction that gurus are essential. But that way we
do not find the truth of the matter. You can find the truth of the
matter by searching out your heart, why you need a guru.
So, Sir, many things are involved in this question. You seem to think
that truth is static, and therefore a guru can lead you to it. As a man
can direct you to the station, so you think a guru can direct you to
truth. That means truth is static; but is truth static? You would like
it to be; for that which is static is very gratifying, at least you know
what it is and you can hold on to it. So, you are really seeking
gratification. You want security, you want the assurance of a guru, you
want him to say to you: you are doing very well, carry on, you want him
to give you mental comfort, an emotional pat on the back. So you go to a
guru that really gratifies you, invariably. That is why there are so
many gurus, as there are so many pupils; which means that you are not
really seeking truth, you want gratification; and the person who gives
you the greatest satisfaction, you call him your guru. That satisfaction
is either neurological, that is, physical, or psychological; and you
think in his presence you feel great peace, great quietness, a sense of
being understood. In other words, you want a glorified father or mother,
who will help you overcome the difficulty. Sir, have you ever sat
quietly under a tree? There also you will find great peace. You will
also feel that you are being understood. In other words, in the presence
of a very quiet person, you also become quiet; and this quietness you
attribute to the teacher, and then you put a garland around him, and
kick your servant. So, when you say you need a guru, surely all these
things are implied in it, are they not? And the guru that assures you an
escape, that guru becomes your need.
Now, confusion exists only in relationship; and why do we need
somebody else to help us to understand this confusion? And you might say
now, "What are you doing? Are you not acting as our guru?" Surely I am
not acting as your guru, because, first of all, I am not giving you any
gratification, I am not telling you what you should do from moment to
moment or from day to day; but I am just pointing something out to you;
you can take it or leave it, depending on you, not on me. I do not
demand a thing from you, neither your worship, nor your flattery, nor
your insults, nor your gods. I say this is a fact, take it or leave it.
But most of you will leave it for the obvious reason that you will not
find gratification in it. But the man who is really in earnest, who is
really serious in his intention to find out, he will have sufficient
food in what is being said, which is, that confusion exists only in your
relationship, and, therefore, let us understand that relationship.
To understand that relationship is to be aware, not to avoid it, to
see the whole content of relationship. The truth is not in the distance,
truth is near; truth is under every leaf, in every smile, in every
tear, in the words, in the feelings, thoughts, that one has. But it is
so covered up that we have to uncover it and see. To uncover is to
discover what is false; and the moment you know what is false, and when
that drops away, the truth is there.
So truth is a thing that is living from moment to moment to be
discovered, not to be believed in, not to be quoted, not to be
formulated. But to see that truth, your mind, your heart must be extreme
pliable, alert. But most of us, unfortunately, do not want an alert,
pliable mind, a swift mind; we want to be put to sleep by mantras, pujas
- good God, in how many ways we put ourselves to sleep! Obviously we
need a certain environment, a certain atmosphere, solitude - not the
pursuit nor the avoidance of loneliness - , but a certain aloneness, in
which there is full attention; and that aloneness, that certain complete
attention, is there only when you are in trouble, when your problems
are really in tense; and, if you have a friend, if you have somebody who
can help you, you go to him; but surely, to treat him as your guru is
obviously immature, obviously childish. It is like seeking the mother's
apron strings.
I know all our instinct is, when we are in difficulty, to turn to
somebody, to the mother, to the father, or to a glorified father, whom
you call the Master or the guru. But if the guru is worth his salt, he
will obviously tell you to understand yourself in action, which is
relationship. Surely, Sir, you are far more important than the guru; you
are far more import ant than I; because it is your life, your misery,
your strife, your struggle. The guru, or I, or someone else may be free,
but what value has it to you? Therefore, the worship of the guru is
detrimental to your understanding of yourself. And there is a peculiar
factor in this: The more you show respect to the one, the less you show
respect to others. You sa lute your guru most profoundly, and kick your
servant. Therefore, your respect has very little significance. I know
these are all facts, and I know probably most of you do not like all
that has been said, because your mind wants to be comforted, because it
has been bruised so much. It is caught up in such troubles and miseries,
and it says, "For God's sake give me some hope, some refuge." Sir, only
the mind that is in despair can find reality. A mind that is completely
discontented can jump into reality; not a mind that is content, not a
mind that is respectable, hedged about by beliefs.
So you flower only in relationship; you flower only in love, not in
contention. But our hearts are withered; we have filled our hearts with
the things of the mind, and so we look to others to fill our minds with
their creations. Since we have no love, we try to find it with the
teacher, with someone else. Love is a thing that cannot be found. You
cannot buy it, you cannot immolate yourself to it. Love comes into being
only when the self is absent; and as long as you are seeking
gratification, escapes, refusing to understand your confusion in
relationship, you are merely emphasizing the self, and therefore denying
love.
Shall I answer some more questions, or is that enough? Are you not
tired? No? Sirs, are you being mesmerized by my voice and words? Surely,
Sirs, what we have discussed, what I said before answering the
questions, and these two questions, must be very disturbing to you? It
must be very disturbing; if it is not disturbing, something is wrong
with you. Because one is attacking the whole structure of your thought
process, your comfortable ways, and that disturbance must be very
fatiguing. And if you are not tired, if you are not disturbed, then what
is the point of your sitting here? Sirs, let us be very clear about
what we are trying to do, you and I. Probably, most of you will say, "I
know all this; Shankara, Buddha, somebody else has said this." Your very
statement indicates that, having read so much, superficially, you
relegate what is being said to one of the pigeonholes in your mind, and
thereby discard it. It is a convenient way of disposing of what you have
heard, which means you are listening merely on the verbal level, and
not taking in the full content of what is being said, and which creates a
disturbance. Sirs, peace cannot be had without a great deal of
searching; and what you and I are doing is searching out our minds and
hearts in order to find out what is true and what is false; and to
search out is to expend energy, vitality; it is as physically
exhausting, it should be as exhausting, as digging. But you see,
unfortunately, you are used to listening; you are merely the spectators
enjoying, observing what another is playing; therefore you are not
tired. The spectators are never tired, which indicates that they are
really not partaking in the game. And as I have said over and over
again, you are not the spectator, and I am not the player for you. You
are not here to listen to a song. What you and I are trying to do is to
find a song in our own hearts and not listen to the song of another. You
are accustomed to listening to the song of another, and so your hearts
are empty, and they will always be empty because you fill your hearts
with the song of another. That is not your song; then you are merely
gramophones, changing the records according to the moods, but you are
not musicians. And especially in times of great travail and trouble we
have to be the musicians, each one of us; we have to recreate ourselves
with song, which means to free, to empty the heart of those things which
are filled by the mind. Therefore, we have to understand the creations
of the mind, and see the falseness of those creations. Then we will not
fill our hearts with those creations. Then, when the heart is empty -
not, as in your case, filled with ashes - , when the heart is empty, and
the mind is quiet, then there is a song, the song that cannot be
destroyed or perverted because it is not put together by the mind.
January 23, 1949
