Hindu Vedic Philosophy (The Paramardha Tattwam): Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY

Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 2

4:33 PM | Posted in Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 2

TRUTH AND ACTUALITY

Jiddu Krishnamurti

TRUTH AND ACTUALITY

Jiddu Krishnamurti

Our question is, whether the mind and our whole being can ever

be free completely of fear. Education, society, governments,

religions have encouraged this fear; religions are based on fear.

And fear also is cultivated through the worship of authority - the

authority of a book, the authority of the priest, the authority of

those who know and so on. We are carefully nurtured in fear. And

we are asking whether it is at all possible to be totally free of it. So

we have to find out what is fear. Is it the want of something? -

which is desire, longing. Is it the uncertainty of tomorrow? Or the

pain and the suffering of yesterday? Is it this division between you

and me, in which there is no relationship at all? Is it that centre

which thought has created as the "me" - the me being the form, the

name, the attributes - fear of loosing that "me"? Is that one of the

causes of fear? Or is it the remembrance of something past,

pleasant, happy, and the fear of losing it? Or the fear of suffering,

physiologically and psychologically? Is there a centre from which

all fear springs? - like a tree, though it has got a hundred branches

it has a solid trunk and roots, and it is no good merely pruning the

branches. So we have to go to the very root of fear. Because if you

can be totally free of fear, then heaven is with you.

What is the root of it? Is it time? Please we are investigating,

questioning, we are not theorizing, we are not coming to any

conclusion, because there is nothing to conclude. The moment you

see the root of it, actually, with your eyes, with your feeling, with

your heart, with your mind - actually see it - then you can deal with

it; that is if you are serious. We are asking: is it time? - time being

not only chronological time by the watch, as yesterday, today and

tomorrow, but also psychological time, the remembrance of

yesterday, the pleasures of yesterday, and the pains, the grief, the

anxieties of yesterday. We are asking whether the root of fear is

time. Time to fulfil, time to become, time to achieve, time to

realize God, or whatever you like to call it. Psychologically, what

is time? Is there such a thing - please listen - as psychological time

at all? Or have we invented psychological time? Psychologically is

there tomorrow? If one says there is no time psychologically as

tomorrow, it will be a great shock to you, won't it? Because you

say, "Tomorrow I shall be happy; tomorrow I will achieve

something; tomorrow I will become the executive of some

business; tomorrow I will become the enlightened one; tomorrow

the guru promises something and I'll achieve it". To us tomorrow is

tremendously important. And is there a tomorrow psychologically?

We have accepted it: that is our whole traditional education, that

there is a tomorrow. And when you look psychologically,

investigate into yourself, is there a tomorrow? Or has thought,

being fragmentary in itself, projected the tomorrow? Please, we

will go into this, it is very important to understand.

One suffers physically, there is a great deal of pain. And the

remembrance of that pain is marked, is an experience which the

brain contains and therefore there is the remembrance of that pain.

And thought says, "I hope I never have that pain again: that is

tomorrow. There has been great pleasure yesterday, sexual or

whatever kind of pleasure one has, and thought says, "Tomorrow I

must have that pleasure again". You have a great experience - at

least you think it is a great experience - and it has become a

memory; and you realize it is a memory yet you pursue it

tomorrow. So thought is movement in time. Is the root of fear

time? - time as comcomparison with you, "me" more important

than you, "me" that is going to achieve something, become

something, get rid of something.

So thought as time, thought as becoming, is the root of fear. We

have said that time is necessary to learn a language, time is

necessary to learn any technique. And we think we can apply the

same process to psychological existence. I need several weeks to

learn a language, and I say in order to learn about myself, what I

am, what I have to achieve, I need time. We are questioning the

whole of that. Whether there is time at all psychologically,

actually; or is it an invention of thought and therefore fear arises?

That is our problem; and consciously we have divided

consciousness into the conscious and the hidden. Again division by

thought. And we say, "I may be able to get rid of conscious fears,

but it is almost impossible to be free of the unconscious fears with

their deep roots in the unconscious". We say that it is much more

difficult to be free of unconscious fears, that is the racial fears, the

family fears, the tribal fears, the fears that are deeply rooted,

instinctive. We have divided consciousness into two levels and

then we ask: how can a human being delve into the unconscious?

Having divided it then we ask this question.

It is said it can be done through careful analysis of the various

hidden fears, through dreams. That is the fashion. We never look

into the whole process of analysis, whether it be self-introspective,

or professional. In analysis is implied the analyser and the

analysed. Who is the analyser? Is he different from the analysed, or

is the analyser the analysed? And therefore it is utterly futile to

analyse. I wonder if you see that? If the analyser is the analysed,

then there is only observation, not analysis. But the analyser as

different from the analysed - that is what you all accept, all the

professionals, all the people who are trying to improve themselves

- God forbid! - they all accept that there is a division between the

analysed and the analyser. But the analyser is a fragment of

thought which has created that thing to be analysed. I wonder if

you follow this? So in analysis is implied a division and that

division implies time. And you have to keep on analysing until you

die.

So where analysis is totally false - I am using the word "false"

in the sense of incorrect, having no value - then you are only

concerned with observation. To observe! - we have to understand

what is observation. You are following all this? We started out by

enquiring if there is a different kind of energy. I am sorry we must

go back so that it is in your mind - not in your memory, then you

could read a book and repeat it to yourself, which is nothing. So we

are concerned with, or enquiring into energy. We know the energy

of thought which is mechanical, a process of friction, because

thought in its very nature is fragmentary, thought is never the

whole. And we have asked if there is a different kind of energy

altogether and we-are investigating that. And in enquiring into that

we see the whole movement of desire. Desire is the state of

wanting something, longing for something. And that desire is a

movement of thought as time and measure: "I have had this, and I

must have more". And we said in the understanding of fear, the

root of fear may be time as movement. If you go into it you will

see that it is the root of it: that is the actual fact. Then, is it possible

for the mind to be totally free of fear? For the brain, which has

accumulated knowledge, can only function effectively when there

is complete security - but that security may be in some neurotic

activity, in some belief, in the belief that you are the great nation;

and all belief is neurotic, obviously, because it is not actual. So the

brain can only function effectively, sanely, rationally, when it feels

completely secure, and fear does not give it security. To be free of

that fear, we asked whether analysis is necessary. And we see that

analysis does not solve fear. So when you have an insight into the

process of analysis, you stop analysing. And then there is only the

question of observation, seeing. If you don't analyse, what are you

to do? You can only look. And it is very important to And out how

to look.

What does it mean to look? What does it mean to look at this

question of desire as movement in time and measure?

How do you see it? Do you see it as an idea, as a formula,

because you have heard the speaker talking about it? Therefore you

abstract what you hear into an idea and pursue that idea - which is

still looking away from fear. So when you observe, it is very

important to find out how you observe.

Can you observe your fear without the movement of escaping,

suppressing, rationalizing, or giving it a name? That is, can you

look at fear, your fear or not having a job tomorrow, of not being

loved, a dozen forms of fear, can you look at it without naming,

without the observer? - because the observer is the observed. I

don't know if you follow this? So the observer is fear, not "he" is

observing "fear".

Can you observe without the observer? - the observer being the

past. Then is there fear? You follow? We have the energy to look

at something as an observer. I look at you and say, "You are a

Christian, a Hindu, Buddhist", whatever you are, or I look at you

saying, "I don't like you", or "I like you". If you believe in the same

thing as I believe in you are my friend; if I don't believe the same

thing as you do, you are my enemy. So can you look at another

without all those movements of thought, of remembrance, of hope,

all that, just look? Look at that fear which is the root of time. Then

is there fear at all? You understand? You will And this out only if

you test it, if you work at it, not just play with it.

Then there is the other form of desire, which not only creates

fear but also pleasure. Desire is a form of pleasure. Pleasure is

different from joy. Pleasure you can cultivate, which the modem

world is doing, sexually and in every form of cultural

encouragement - pleasure, tremendous pleasure and the pursuit of

pleasure. And in the very pursuit of pleasure there must be fear

also, because they are the two sides of the same coin. joy you

cannot invite; if it happens then thought takes charge of it and

remembers it and pursues that joy which you had a year ago, or

yesterday, and which becomes pleasure. And when there is

enjoyment - seeing a beautiful sunset, a lovely tree, or the deep

shadow of a lake - then that enjoyment is registered in the brain as

memory and the pursuit of that memory is pleasure. There is fear,

pleasure, joy. Is it possible - this is a much more complex problem

- is it possible to observe a sunset, the beauty of a person, the

lovely shape of an ancient tree in a solitary field, the enjoyment of

it, the beauty of it - observe it without registering it in the brain,

which then becomes memory, and the pursuit of that tomorrow?

That is, to see something beautiful and end it, not carry it on.

There is another principle in man. Besides fear and pleasure,

there is the principle of suffering. Is there an end to suffering? We

want suffering to end physically, therefore we take drugs and do all

kinds of yoga tricks and all that. But we have never been able to

solve this question of suffering, human suffering, not only of a

particular human being but the suffering of the whole of humanity.

There is your suffering, and millions and millions of people in the

world are suffering, through war, through starvation, through

brutality, through violence, through bombs. And can that suffering

in you as a human being end? Can it come to an end in you,

because your consciousness is the consciousness of the world, is

the consciousness of every other human being? You may have a

different peripheral behaviour but basically, deeply, your

consciousness is the consciousness of every other human being in

the world. Suffering, pleasure, fear, ambition, all that is your

consciousness. So you are the world. And if you are completely

free of fear you affect the consciousness of the world. Do you

understand how extraordinarily important it is that we human

beings change, fundamentally, because that will affect the

consciousness of every other human being? Hitler, Stalin affected

all the consciousness of the world, what the priests have achieved

in the name of somebody has affected the world. So if you as

human beings radically transform, are free of fear, you will

naturally affect the consciousness of the world.

Similarly, when there is freedom from suffering there is

compassion, not before. You can talk about it, write books about it,

discuss what compassion is, but the ending of sorrow is the

beginning of compassion. The human mind has put up with

suffering, endless suffering, having your children killed in wars,

and willingness to accept further suffering by future wars.

Suffering through education-modern education to achieve a certain

technological knowledge and nothing else - that brings great

sorrow. So compassion, which is love, can only come when you

understand fully the depth of suffering and the ending of suffering.

Can that suffering end, not in somebody else, but in you? The

Christians have made a parody of suffering - sorry to use that word

- but it is actually so. The Hindus have made it into an intellectual

affair: what you have done in a past life you are paying for it the

present life, and in the future there will be happiness if you behave

properly now. But they never behave properly now; so they carry

on with this belief which is utterly meaningless. But a man who is

serious is concerned with compassion and with what it means to

love; because without that you can do what you like, build all the

skyscrapers in the world, have marvellous economic conditions

and social behaviour, but without it life becomes a desert.

So to understand what it means to live with compassion, you

must understand what suffering is. There is suffering from physical

pain, physical disease, physical accident, which generally affects

the mind, distorts the mind - if you have had physical pain for

some time it twists your mind; and to be so aware that the physical

pain cannot touch the mind requires tremendous inward awareness.

And apart from the physical, there is suffering of every kind,

suffering in loneliness, suffering when you are not loved, the

longing to be loved and never finding it satisfactory; because we

make love into something to be satisfied, we want love to be

gratified. There is suffering because of death; suffering because

there is never a moment of complete wholeness, a complete sense

of totality, but always living in fragmentation, which is

contradiction, strife, confusion, misery. And to escape from that we

go to temples, and to various forms of entertainment, religious and

non-religious, take drugs, group therapy, and individual therapy.

You know all those tricks we play upon ourselves and upon others

- if you are clever enough to play tricks upon others. So there is

this immense suffering brought by man against man. We bring

suffering to the animals, we kill them, we eat them, we have

destroyed species after species because our love is fragmented. We

love God and kill human beings.

Can that end? Can suffering totally end so that there is complete

and whole compassion? Because suffering means, the root

meaning of that word is to have passion - not the Christian passion,

not lust, that is too cheap, easy, but to have compassion, which

means passion for all, for all things, and that can only come when

there is total freedom from suffering.

You know it is a very complex problem, like fear and pleasure,

they are all interrelated. Can one go into it and see whether the

mind and the brain can ever be free completely of all psychological

suffering, inward suffering. If we don't understand that and are not

free of it we will bring suffering to others, as we have done, though

you believe in God, in Christ, in Buddha, in all kinds of beliefs -

and you have killed men generation after generation. You

understand what we do, what our politicians do in India and here.

Why is it that human beings who think of themselves as

extraordinarily alive and intelligent, why have they allowed

themselves to suffer? There is suffering when there is jealousy;

jealousy is a form of hate. And envy is part of our structure, part of

our nature, which is to compare ourselves with somebody else; and

can you live without comparison? We think that without

comparison we shall not evolve, we shall not grow, we shall not be

somebody. But have you ever tried - really, actually tried - to live

without comparing yourself with anybody? You have read the lives

of saints and if you are inclined that way, as you get older you

want to become like that; not when you are young, you spit on all

that. But as you are approaching the grave you wake up.

There are different forms of suffering. Can you look at it,

observe it without trying to escape from it? - just remain solidly

with that thing. When my wife - I am not married - runs away from

me, or looks at another man - by law she belongs to me and I hold

her - and when she runs away from me I am jealous; because I

possess, and in possession I feel satisfied, I feel safe; and also it is

good to be possessed, that also gives satisfaction. And that

jealousy, that envy, that hatred, can you look at it without any

movement of thought and remain with it? You understand what I

am saying? Jealousy is a reaction, a reaction which has been named

through memory as jealousy, and I have been educated to run away

from it, to rationalize it, or to indulge in it, and hate with anger and

all the rest of it. But without doing any of that, can my mind solidly

remain with it without any movement? You understand what I am

saying? Do it and you will see what happens.

In the same way when you suffer, psychologically, remain with

it completely without a single movement of thought. Then you will

see out of that suffering comes that strange thing called passion.

And if you have no passion of that kind you cannot be creative.

Out of that suffering comes compassion. And that energy differs

totally from the mechanistic energy of thought.

TRUTH AND ACTUALITY PART II CHAPTER 6

1ST PUBLIC DIALOGUE BROCKWOOD PARK

9TH SEPTEMBER 1975

Krishnamurti: This is in the nature of a dialogue between two

friends, talking over their problems, who are concerned not only

with their own personal affairs, but also with what is happening in

the world. Being serious, these two friends have the urge to

transform themselves and see what they can do about the world

and all the misery and confusion that is going on. So could we this

morning spend some time together having a friendly conversation,

not trying to be clever, nor opposing one opinion against another

opinion or belief, and together examine earnestly and deeply some

of the problems that we have? In this, communication becomes

rather important; and any one question is not only personal but

universal. So if that is understood, then what shall we talk over

together this morning?

Questioner: The compilation of your biography has caused

much confusion and quite a lot of questions. I have boiled them

down to a few. May I at least hand them over to you.

K: Do you want to discuss the biography written by Mary

Lutyens? Do you want to go into that?

Q: No.

K: Thank God! (laughter).

Q(1): Briefly and then finish with it. Q(2): I would propose that

you go into the question of correct and incorrect thinking: that is a

problem. Both kinds of thought, or thinking processes, are

mechanical processes.

K: I see. Can we discuss this? Do you want to talk over the

biography - have many of you read it? Some of you. I was just

looking at it this morning (laughter). Most of it I have forgotten

and if you want to talk over some of the questions that have been

given me, shall we do that briefly?

Basically the question is: what is the relationship between the

present K and the former K? (laughter). I should think very little.

The basic question is, how was it that the boy who was found

there, "discovered" as it was called, how was it that he was not

conditioned at all from the beginning, though he was brought up in

a very orthodox, traditional Brahmin family with its superstitions,

arrogance and extraordinary religious sense of morality and so on?

Why wasn't he conditioned then? And also later during those

periods of the Masters, Initiations and so on - if you have read

about it - why wasn't he conditioned? And what is the relationship

between that person and the present person? Are you really

interested in all this?

Audience: Yes.

K: I am not. The past is dead, buried and gone. I don't know

how to tackle this. One of the questions is about the Masters, as

they are explained not only in Theosophy but in the Hindu tradition

and in the Tibetan tradition, which maintain that there is a

Bodhisattva; and that he manifests himself and that is called in

Sanskrit Avatar, which means manifestation. This boy was

discovered and prepared for that manifestation. And he went

through all kinds of things. And one question that may be asked is,

must others go through the same process. Christopher Columbus

discovered America with sailing boats in dangerous seas and so on,

and must we go through all that to go to America? You understand

my question? It is much simpler to go by air! That is one question.

How that boy was brought up is totally irrelevant; what is relevant

is the present teaching and nothing else.

There is a very ancient tradition about the Bodhisattva that there

is a state of consciousness, let me put it that way, which is the

essence of compassion. And when the world is in chaos that

essence of compassion manifests itself. That is the whole idea

behind the Avatar and the Bodhisattva. And there are various

gradations, initiations, various Masters and so on, and also there is

the idea that when he manifests all the others keep quiet. You

understand? And that essence of compassion has manifested at

other times. What is important in all this, if one may talk about it

briefly, is: can the mind passing through all kinds of experiences,

either imagined or real - because truth has nothing to do with

experience, one cannot possibly experience truth, it is there, you

can't experience it - but going through all those various imagined,

illusory, or real states, can the mind be left unconditioned? The

question is, can the mind be unconditioned always, not only in

childhood. I wonder if you understand this question? That is the

underlying problem or issue in this.

So as we say, all that is irrelevant. I do not know if you know

anything about the ancient tradition of India and Tibet and of

China and Japan, about the awakening of certain energy, called

Kundalini. There are now all over America, and in Europe, various

groups trying to awaken their little energy called Kundalini. You

have heard about all this, haven't you? And there are groups

practising it. I saw one group on television where a man was

teaching them how to awaken Kundalini, that energy, doing all

kinds of tricks with all kinds of words and gestures - which all

becomes so utterly meaningless and absurd. And there is

apparently such an awakening, which I won't go into, because it is

much too complex and probably it is not necessary or relevant. So I

think I have answered this question, haven't I?

The other question asked was: Is there a non-mechanistic

activity? is there a movement - movement means time - is there a

state of mind, which is not only mechanical but not in the field of

time? That is what the question raised involves. Do you want to

discuss that, or something else? Somebody also sent a written

question, "What does it mean to be aware? Is awareness different

from attention? Is awareness to be practised systematically or does

it come about naturally?" That is the question. Are there any other

questions?

Q(1): Would you go into the question of what it means, finding

one's true will?

Q(2): What is the difference between denial and suppression?

Q(3): When being together with another person I lose all my

awareness; not when I am alone.

K: Can we discuss awareness, begin with that and explore the

whole thing, including the will of one's own destiny?

Q: What about earnestness and effort?

K: Earnestness and effort, yes. We are now discussing

awareness. Does choice indicate freedom? I choose to belong to

this society or to that society, to that cult, to a particular religion or

not, I choose a particular job - choice. Does choice indicate

freedom? Or does freedom deny choice? Please let us talk this over

together.

Q: Freedom means that no choice is needed.

K: But we choose, and we think because we have the capacity

to choose that we have freedom. I choose between the Liberal

Party and the Communist party. And in choosing I feel I am free.

Or I choose one particular guru or another, and that gives me a

feeling that I am free. So does choice lead to awareness? Q: No.

K: Go slowly.

Q: Choice is the expression of conditioning, is it not?

K: That is what I want to find out.

Q: It seems to me that one either reacts out of habit, or one

responds without thinking.

K: We will come to that. We will go into what it means to

respond without choice. We are used to choosing; that is our

conditioning.

Q: Like and dislike.

K: All that is implied in choice. I chose you as my friend, I deny

my friendship to another. One wants to find out if awareness

includes choice. Or is awareness a state of mind, a state of

observation in which there is no choice whatsoever? Is that

possible? One is educated from childhood to choose and that is our

tradition, that is our habit, that is our mechanical, instinctive

reaction. And we think, because we choose there is freedom. What

does awareness mean: to be aware? It implies, doesn't it, not only

physical sensitivity, but also sensitivity to the environment, to

nature, sensitivity to other people's reactions and to my own

reactions. Not, I am sensitive, but to other people I am not

sensitive: that is not sensitivity.

So awareness implies, doesn't it, a total sensitivity: to colour, to

nature, to all my reactions, how I respond to others, all that is

implied in awareness, isn't it? I am aware of this tent, the shape of

it and so on. One is aware of nature, the world of nature, the beauty

of trees, the silence of the trees, the shape and beauty and the depth

and the solitude of trees. And one is aware also of one's

relationship to others, intimate and not intimate. In that awareness

is there any kind of choice? - in a total awareness, neurologically,

physically, psychologically, to everything around one, the

influences, to all the noises and so on. Is one aware? - not only of

one's own beliefs but those of others, the opinions, judgements,

evaluations, the conclusions, all that is implied - otherwise one is

not aware. And can you practise awareness by going to a school or

college, or going to a guru who will teach you how to be aware? Is

that awareness? Which means, is sensitivity to be cultivated

through practice?

Q: That becomes selfishness, concentration on oneself.

K: Yes, that is, unless there is total sensitivity, awareness

merely becomes concentration on oneself.

Q: Which excludes awareness.

K: Yes, that is right. But there are so many schools, so many

gurus, so many ashramas, retreats, where this thing is practised.

Q: When it is practised it is just the old trick again.

K: This is so obvious. One goes to India or japan to learn what

it means to be aware - Zen practice, all that. Or is awareness a

movement of constant observation? Not only what I feel, what I

think, but what other people say about me - to listen, if they say it

in front of me - and to be aware of nature, of what is going on in

the world. That is total awareness. Obviously it can't be practised.

Q: It is a non-movement, isn't it?

K: No, it is movement in the sense of, "alive".

Q: It is a participation.

K: Participation implies action. If there is action through choice,

that is one kind of action; if there is an action of total awareness,

that is a totally different kind of action, "being aware"? You

understand? To be aware of the people around one, the colour,

their attitudes, their walk, the way they eat, the way they think -

without indulging in judgement.

Q: Is it something to do with motive? If you have a motive...

K: Of course. Motive comes into being when there is choice;

that is implied. When I have a motive then choice takes place. I

chose you because I like you, or you flatter me, or you give me

something or other; another doesn't, therefore there is choice and

so on. So is this possible? - this sense of total awareness.

Q: Is there a degree of awareness?

K: That is, is awareness a process of time?

Q: Can one man be more aware than another?

K: Why should I enquire if you are more aware than I am? just

a minute, let us go into it. Why this comparision? Is this not also

part of our education, our social conditioning, which says we must

compare to progress? - compare one musician with another, one

painter with another and so on. And we think by comparing we

begin to understand. Comparing means measurement, which

implies time, thought, and is it possible to live without comparing

at all? You understand? One is brought up, educated in schools,

colleges and universities to compare oneself with "A", who is

much cleverer than myself, and to try to reach his level - this

constant measurement, this constant comparison, and therefore

constant imitation, which is mechanical! So can we find out for

ourselves whether it is possible to be totally sensitive and therefore

aware?

Q: Can you know if you are totally aware or not? Can we be

aware of our awareness?

K: No (laughter). Q: You can be aware when you are not aware.

K: Watch it in yourself; verbally it becomes speculative. When

you are aware do you know you are aware?

Q: No.

K: Find out. Test it, madam, test it. Do you know when you are

happy? The moment you are aware that you are happy it is no

longer happiness.

Q: You know when you have got a pain.

K: That is a different matter. When I have pain I am aware of it

and I act, do something about it. That is one part of being aware,

unless I am paralysed - most people are, in other directions!

So we are asking ourselves, not asking somebody else to tell us,

but one is asking oneself if there is that quality of awareness? Does

one watch the sky, the evening stars, the moon, the birds, people's

reactions, the whole of it? And what is the difference between that

awareness and attention? In awareness is there a centre from which

you are aware? When I say, "I am aware", then I move from a

centre, I respond to nature from a centre, I respond to my friends,

to my wife, husband or whatever it is - that centre being my

conditioning, my prejudices, my desires, my fears and all the rest

of it. In that awareness there is a centre. In attention there is no

centre at all. Now please listen to this for two minutes. You are

now listening to what is being said and you are giving total

attention. That means you are not comparing, you do not say, "I

already know what you are going to say", or, "I have read what you

have said etc. etc". All that has gone, you are completely attentive

and therefore there is no centre and that attention has no border. I

don't know if you have noticed?

So, by being aware one discovers that one responds from a

centre, from a prejudice, from a conclusion, from a belief, from a

conditioning, which is the centre. And from that centre you react,

you respond. And when there is an awareness of that centre, that

centre yields and in that there is a total attention. I wonder if you

understand this? And this you cannot practise; it would be too

childish, mechanical. So we go to the next question, which is: "Is

there an activity which is not mechanistic?" That means, is there a

part of the brain which is non-mechanical. Do you want to go into

this? No, no, please, this isn't a game. First of all one has to go into

the question of what is a mechanical mind.

Is the brain, which has evolved through millennia, is that totally

mechanical? Or is there a part of the brain which is not mechanical,

which has never been touched by the machine of evolution? I

wonder if you see.

Q: What do you mean by mechanical?

K: We are going to discuss that, sir. Part of this mechanical

process is functioning within the field of conditioning. That is,

when I act according to a pattern - Catholic, Protestant,

Communist, Hindu, whatever it is, a pattern set by society, by my

reading, or other influences, and accept that pattern or belief - then

that is part of the mechanical process. The other part of the

mechanical process is, having had experiences of innumerable

kinds which have left memories, to act according to those

memories: that is mechanical. Like a computer, which is purely

mechanical. Now they are trying to prove it is not so mechanical,

but let's leave that alone for the moment.

Mechanical action is accepting tradition and following tradition.

One of the aspects of that tradition is acceptance and obedience to

a government, to priests. And the mechanical part of the brain is

following consciously or unconsciously a line set by thought as the

goal and purpose. All that and more is mechanical; and we live that

way.

Q: Is thought of itself mechanical? K: Of course, that is the

whole point. One has to discover this for oneself, not be told by

others, then it becomes mechanical. If we discover for ourselves

how mechanical our thinking, our feeling, our attitudes, our

opinions are, if one is aware of that, it means thought is invariably

mechanistic - thought being the response of memory, experience,

knowledge, which is the past. And responding according to the

pattern of the past is mechanical, which is thought.

Q: All thought?

K: All thought, of course. Whether noble, ignoble, sexual, or

technological thought, it is all thought.

Q: Thought of the great genius also?

K: Absolutely. Wait, we must go into the question of what is a

genius. No, we won't go into that yet.

If all thought is mechanical, the expression which you often use,

"clear thinking", seems to be a contradiction.

K: No, no. Clear thinking is to see clearly, clear thinking is to

think clearly, objectively, sanely, rationally, wholly.

Q: It is still thought.

K: It is still thought, of course it is.

Q: So what is the use of it? (laughter).

K: If there was clear thought I wouldn't belong to any political

party! I might create a global party - that is another matter.

Q: Can we get back to your question as to whether there is a

part of the brain which is untouched by conditioning?

K: That's right, sir; this requires very careful, hesitant, enquiry.

Not saying, "Yes, there is", or, "No, there isn't". "I have

experienced a state where there is no mechanicalness" - that is too

silly. But to really enquire and find out, you need a great deal of

subtlety, great attentive quality to go step by step into it, not jump.

So we say most of our lives are mechanical. The pursuit of

pleasure is mechanical - but we are pursuing pleasure. Now, how

shall we find out if there is a part of the brain that is not

conditioned? This a very serious question, it is not for

sentimentalists, romantic people, or emotional people; this requires

very clear thinking. When you think very clearly you see the

limitation of thinking.

Q: Are we going to look very clearly at the barriers which

interfere with an unconditioned mind?

K: No, we are trying to understand, or explore together, the

mechanical mind first. Without understanding the totality of that

you can't find out the other. We have asked the question: "Is there a

part of the brain, part of our total mind - in which is included the

brain, emotions, neurological responses - which is not completely

mechanical?" When I put that question to myself I might imagine

that it is not all mechanical because I want the other; therefore I

deceive myself. I pretend that I have got the other. So I must

completely understand the movement of desire. You follow this?

Not suppress it, but under. stand it, have an insight into it - which

me;ms fear, time, and all that we talked about the day before

yesterday. So we are now enquiring whether our total activity is

mechanistic? That means am I, are you, clinging to memories? The

Hitlerian memories and all that, the memories of various

pleasurable and painful experiences, the memories of sexual

fulfilment and the pleasures and so on. That is: is one living in the

past?

Q: Always, I am.

K: Of course! So all that you are is the past, which is

mechanical. So knowledge is mechanical. I wonder if you see this?

Q: Why is it so difficult to see this?

K: Because we are not aware of our inward responses, of what

actually is going on within ourselves - not to imagine what is going

on, or speculate about it, or repeat what we have been told by

somebody else, but actually to be aware of what is going on.

Q: Aren't we guided to awareness by experience?

K: No. Now wait a minute. What do you mean by experience?

The word itself means, "to go through" - to go through, finish, not

retain. You have said something that hurts me, that has left a mark

on the brain, and when I meet you that memory responds.

Obviously. And is it possible when you hurt me, say something

cruel, or justified, or violent, to observe it and not register it? Try

it, sir; you try it, test it out.

Q: It is very difficult because the memory has already been hurt;

we never forget it.

K: Do go into this. From childhood we are hurt, it happens to

everybody, in school, at home, at college, in universities, the whole

of society is a process of hurting others. One has been hurt and one

lives in that consciously or unconsciously. So there are two

problems involved: the past hurt retained in the brain, and not to be

hurt; the memory of hurts, and never to be hurt; Now is that

possible?

Q: If "you" are not there.

K: Go into it. You will discover it for yourself and find out.

That is, you have been hurt.

Q: The image of myself...

K: Go into it slowly. What is hurt? The image that you have

built about yourself, that has been hurt. Why do you have an image

about yourself? Because that is the tradition, part of our education,

part of our social reactions. There is an image about myself, and

there is an image about you in relation to my image. So I have got

half a dozen images and more. And that image about myself has

been hurt. You call me a fool and I shrink: it has been hurt. Now,

how am I to dissolve that hurt and not be hurt in the future,

tomorrow, or the next moment? You follow the question? There

are two problems involved in this. One, I have been hurt and that

creates a great deal of neurotic activity, resistance, self protection,

fear; all that is involved in the past hurt. Second, how not to be hurt

any more.

Q: One has to be totally involved.

K: Look at it and you will see. You have been hurt, haven't you

- I am not talking to you personally - and you resist, you are afraid

of being hurt more. So you build a wall round yourself, isolate

yourself, and the extreme form of that isolation is total withdrawal

from all relationship. And you remain in that but you have to live,

you have to act. So you are always acting from a centre that is hurt

and therefore acting neurotically. You can see this happening in the

world, in oneself. And how are those hurts to be totally dissolved

and not leave a mark? Also in the future how not to be hurt at all?

The question is clear, isn't it.

Now how do you approach this question? How to dissolve the

hurts, or how not to be hurt at all? Which is the question you put to

yourself, which do you want answered? Dissolve all the hurts, or

no more hurts? Which is it that comes to you naturally?

Q: No more hurts.

K: So the question is: "Is it possible not to be hurt?" Which

means is it possible not to have an image about yourself?

Q: If we see that image is false... K: Not false or true. Don't you

see, you are already operating in the field of thought? Is it possible

not to have an image at all about yourself, or about another,

naturally? And if there is no image, isn't that true freedom? Ah,

you don't see it.

Q: Sir, if what happens to you is of no importance to you, then

it doesn't matter and it won't hurt you. If you have managed to get

rid of your self-importance...

K: The gentleman says if you can get rid of your selfimportance,

your arrogance, your vanity, then you won't be hurt.

But how am I to get rid of all that garbage which I have collected?

(laughter).

Q: I think you can get rid of it by being entirely aware of the

relationship between yourself and your physical body and your

thinking. How you control your physical body and...

K: I don't want to control anything, my body, my mind, my

emotions. That is the traditional, mechanistic response. Sorry!

(laughter). Please go into this a little bit and you will see. First of

all, the idea of getting rid of an image implies that there is an entity

who is different from the image. Therefore he can kick the image.

But is the image different from the entity who says, "I must get rid

of it"? They are both the same, therefore there is no control. I

wonder if you see that. When you see that you are no longer

functioning mechanically.

Q: Surely by destroying one image we are immediately building

another one?

K: We are going to find out if it is possible to be free of all

images, not only the present ones but the future ones. Now why

does the mind create an image about itself? I say I am a Christian,

that is an image. I believe in the saviour, in Christ, in all the ritual,

why? Because that is my conditioning. Go to India and they say,

"What are you talking about, Christ? I have got my own gods, as

good as yours, if not better" (laughter). So that is their

conditioning. If I am born in Russia and educated there I say, "I

believe in neither. The State is my god and Marx is the first

prophet and so on and so on. So the image formation is brought

about through propaganda, conditioning, tradition.

Q: Is that related to the fact that out of fear one behaves in a

certain way which is not natural for one to behave; and therefore

one is not being oneself? And that is making the image you are

talking about.

K: The image is what we call ourself: "I must express myself",

"I must fulfil myself". "Myself" is the image according to the

environment and culture in which one has been born. I believe

there was a tribe in America, among the Red Indians, where

anybody who had an image about himself was killed (laughter),

was liquidated, because it led to ambition and all the rest of it. I

wonder what would happen if they did it to all of us. It would be a

lovely world, wouldn't it? (laughter).

So is it possible not to create images at all? That is, I am aware

that I have an image, brought about through culture, through

propaganda, tradition, the family, the whole pressure.

Q: We cling to the known.

K: That is the known, tradition is the known. And my mind is

afraid to let that known go, to let the image go, because the

moment it lets it go it might lose a profitable position in society,

might lose status, might lose a certain relationship; so it is

frightened and holds on to that image. The image is merely words,

it has no reality. It is a series of words, a sense of responses to

those words, a series of beliefs which are words. I believe in Marx,

in Christ, or in Krishna or whatever they believe in India. They are

just words ideologically clothed. And if I am not a slave to words,

then I begin to lose the image. I wonder if you see how significant

deeply rooted words have become.

Q: If one is listening to what you say and realizes that one has

an image about oneself, and that there is a large discrepancy

between the image one has of oneself and the ideal of freedom...

K: It is not an ideal...

Q:.. freedom itself... then knowing that there is a discrepancy,

can one think of freedom, knowing that it is just an idea?

K: Is freedom an abstraction, a word, or a reality?

Q: It is being free of relationship, is it not?

K: No please, we are jumping from one thing to another. Let us

go step by step. We began by asking whether there is any part of

the brain, any part of the total entity, that is not conditioned? We

said conditioning means image-forming. The image that gets hurt

and the image that protects itself from being hurt. And we said

there is only freedom - the actuality of that state, not the word, not

the abstraction - when there is no image, which is freedom. When I

am not a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Communist, Socialist, I have

no label and therefore no label inside. Now is it possible not to

have an image at all? And how does that come about?

Q: Isn't it all to do with the activity...

K: Look, we come to a point and go off after something else.

One wants to find out whether it is possible to live in this world

without a single image.

Q: When there is no observer there is nothing observed, and yet

one comes across something in this silence...

K: Madam, is this an actual fact that there is no observer in your

life - not only occasionally. Is it possible to be free of the image

that society, the environment, culture, education has built in one?

Because one is afl that; you are the result of your environment, of

your culture, of your knowledge, of your education, of your job, of

your pleasure, you are all that.

Q: What happens to one's sense of orientation without a centre.

K: All that comes a little later, please.

Q: If you are aware of your conditioning does that free you?

K: Now, are you actually aware - not theoretically or in the

abstract - actually aware that you are conditioned this way, and

therefore you have got an image?

Q: If you don't have the image then you don't know what your

place is.

K: "If you have no image then you do not know what your place

is." Listen to that carefully. If you have no image, you have no

place in the world. Which means if you have no image you are

insecure. Go step by step. Now are you, having a place in the

world, secure?

Q: No.

K: Be actual.

Q: When you see that the image that you have built, which you

are attached to, when you see that it is just a load of words...

K: You are finding security in a word: and it is not security at

all. We have lived in words and made those words something

fantastically real. So if you are seeking security, it is not in an

image; it is not in your environment, in your culture. One must

have security, that is essential, food, clothes, and shelter; one must

have it otherwise one can't function. Now that is denied totally

when I belong to a small group. When I say I am a German, or a

Russian, or an Englishman, I deny complete security. I deny

security because the words, the labels have become important, not

security. This is what is actually happening, the Arabs and the

Israelis both want security, and both are accepting words and all

the rest of it.

Now we come to the point. Is it possible to live in this world,

not to go off into some fantastic realm of illusion, or to some

monastery, and to live in this world without a single image and be

totally secure.

Q: How can we be secure in a sick society?

K: I am going to go into this, madam, I'll show it to you.

Q: It is competitive, it is vicious.

K: Please go with me. I'll show you that there is complete

security, absolute security, not in images.

Q: To be totally aware every moment, then your conditioning

does not exist.

K: Not if you are aware. Are you aware that you have an image

and that image has been formed by the culture, the society? Are

you aware of that image? You discover that image in relationship,

don't you? Now we are asking ourselves whether it is possible to be

free of images. That means, when you say something to me that is

vulgar, hurting, at the moment to be totally aware of what you are

saying and how I am responding. Totally aware, not partially, but

to be totally aware of both the pleasurable image and the

displeasurable image. To be aware totally at the moment of the

reaction to your insult or praise. Then at that moment you don't

form an image. There is no recording in the brain of the hurt, the

insult or the flattery, therefore there is no image. That requires

* See Discussion about security, pages 39-43. tremendous

attention at the moment, which demands a great inward perception,

which is only possible when you have looked at it, watched it,

when you have worked. Don't just say, "Well, tell me all about it; I

want to be comfortable".

Q: Who watches all this?

K: Now, who watches all this? If there is a watcher, then the

image is continuous. If there is no watcher there is no image. In

that state of attention the hurt and the flattery are both observed,

not reacted to. You can only observe when there is no observer,

who is the past. It is the past observer that gets hurt. Where there is

only observation when there is flattery or insult, then it is finished.

And that is real freedom.

Now follow it. In this world, if I have no image, you say I shall

not be secure. One has found security in things, in a house, in

property, in a bank account, that is what we call security. And one

has also found security in belief. If I am a Catholic living in Italy, I

believe that; it is much safer to believe what ten thousand people

believe. There I have a place. And when my belief is questioned I

resist.

Now can there be a total awareness of all this? The mind

becomes tremendously active, you understand? Not just saying, "I

must be aware", "I must learn how to be attentive". You are

tremendously active, the brain is alive. Then we can move from

that to find out if there is in the brain a part that has not been

conditioned at all, a part of the brain which is non-mechanistic. I

am putting a false question, I don't know if you see that. Do see it

quickly, do see it. Please just listen for two minutes, I am on fire!

If there is no image, which is mechanical, and there is freedom

from the image, then there is no part of the brain that has been

conditioned. Full stop! Then my whole brain is unconditioned.

Q: It is on fire! K: Yes, therefore it is non-mechanistic and that

has a totally different kind of energy; not the mechanistic energy. I

wonder if you see this. Please don't make an abstraction of it

because then it becomes words. But to see this, that your brain has

been conditioned through centuries, saying survival is only

possible if you have an image, which is created by the circle in

which you live and that circle gives you complete security. We

have accepted that as tradition and we live in that way. I am an

Englishman, I am better than anybody else, or a Frenchman, or

whatever it is. Now my brain is conditioned, I don't know whether

it is the whole or part, I only know that it is conditioned. There can

be no enquiry into the unconditioned state until the conditioning is

non-existent. So my whole enquiry is to find out whether the mind

can be unconditioned, not to jump into the other, because that is

too silly. So I am conditioned by belief, by education, by the

culture in which I have lived, by everything, and to be totally

aware of that, not discard it, not suppress it, not control it, but to be

totally aware of it. Then you will find if you have gone that far

there is security only in being nothing.

Q: What about images in racial prejudices? Do you belong to a

community? I quite agree with you. You don't want any

psychological image but you must have a physical image for your

physical survival... even if you want to drop it everyone forces it

on you.

K: Sir, if one wants to survive physically, what is preventing it?

All the psychological barriers which man has created. So remove

all those psychological barriers and you have complete security.

Q: No, because the other one involves you in it, not yourself.

K: Nobody can put you into prison.

Q: They kill you. K: Then they kill you, all right (laughter).

Then you will find out how to meet death (laughter). Not imagine

what you are going to feel when you die - which is another image.

Oh, I don't know if you see all this.

So nobody can put you psychologically into prison. You are

already there (laughter). We are pointing out that it is possible a to

be totally free of images, which is the result of our conditioning.

And one of the questions about the biography is about that very

point. How was that young boy, whatever he was, how was he not

conditioned right through? I won't go into that because it is a very

complex problem. If one is aware of one's own conditioning then

the whole thing becomes very simple. Then genius is something

entirely different. And that leaves the question: What is creation?

TRUTH AND ACTUALITY PART II CHAPTER 7

2ND PUBLIC DIALOGUE BROCKWOOD PARK

11TH SEPTEMBER 1975

Questioner (1): You were going to speak on what is creation; could

you say something about creative intelligence 1.

Q(2): Is there any reality in the belief in reincarnation? And

what is the nature and quality of the meditative mind?

Q(3): What is the difference between denial and suppression of

habits?

Q(4): You were saying that for the mind to function sanely one

must have great security, food and shelter. This seems logical. But

it seems that in order to try and find a way to having this security

one encounters the horrors and the difficulties which make things

so hard and impossible sometimes. What is the right action in this

connection?

Krishnamurti: I don't quite follow this.

Q: How are we to live to have this basic security without taking

part in all the horrors that are involved in it.

K: You are asking, what is correct action in a world that is

chaotic, where there is no security and yet one must have security.

What is one to do? Is that the question?

Q(5): I have a question which, when I ask it of myself, I always

come up against a wall. I say, "I am the observer, and I would like

to see the whole of the observer. I cannot see the whole of the

observer because I can only see in fragments. So how is the

observer to see the whole of the observer unless there is no

observer? How can the observer see the observer with no observer?

K: How can one see the whole of the observer and can the

observer watch himself as the observer. Is that the question?

Q(6) This is about the state of mind in observation. Now when a

situation occurs, what holds one to the observation that the

observer is not different from what is observed? There seems a

lack of attention at the moment, at that point; but that attention

requires a tremendous vitality that we don't have.

K: Have I understood the question rightly? We do not have

enough energy to observe wholly. Is that it?

Q: Yes.

K: Now which of these questions shall we talk over together?

Q(7): May I ask a question? Can an act of willpower - I think

you call it an act of friction - can this generate the vitality or the

passion?

K: Can will generate sufficient energy to see clearly? Would

that be right?

Q: Yes.

Q(8): What happens to the brain and the process of thought

during hypnosis? For medical reasons we use hypnosis. What is the

process of thought in that particular case?

K: We have got so many questions. What shall we begin with?

The observer?

Q: Yes. K: To see the whole of the observer one needs energy

and how is that energy to be derived? How is that energy to be

acquired? And will that energy reveal the totality of the nature and

structure of the observer? Should we discuss that? And what is the

quality of the mind that has this meditative process? How is one to

observe the whole of something, psychologically? How is one to

be aware of oneself totally? Can we begin with that?

Q: Surely one can only be aware of the totality if one loses

oneself.

K: Yes, sir. Is it possible to see the totality of one's reactions,

the motives, the fears, the anxieties, the sorrows, the pain, the

totality of all that? Or must one see it in fragments, in layers? Shall

we discuss that? How is one to be aware of the content of one's

consciousness?

What is consciousness? What do you think is consciousness -

under hypnosis, as well as when one is not hypnotized? Most of us

are hypnotised - by words, by propaganda, by tradition, by all the

things that we believe in. We are hypnotized not only by external

influence, but also we have our own peculiar process of

hypnotizing ourselves into believing something, or not believing

and so on. Can one see the totality of one's consciousness? Let us

enquire into this.

Q: The observer cannot see it.

K: Don't let us say one can, one cannot, it is so, it is not so. Let's

enquire.

Q: One has the feeling one has got to begin!

K: We are going to begin, sir (laughter). How shall I begin,

from where shall I begin? To be aware of myself, myself being all

the beliefs, the dogmas, conclusions, the fears, the anxieties, the

pain, the sorrow, the fear of death, the whole of that - where shall

we begin to find out the content of this? Q: You just asked what

consciousness was.

K: We are going into that.

Q: If one is going to observe, is it true that one has to stand

outside the things that one is observing?

K: Madam, I am asking, if I may, how shall I begin to enquire

into the whole structure of myself. If I am interested, if I am

serious, where shall I begin?

Q: Is the question, "Who am I?"

K: That becomes intellectual, verbal. I begin to know myself in

my relationship to others - do let's face that fact. I cannot know

myself in abstraction. Whereas if I could observe what my

reactions are in relationship to another, then I begin to enquire.

That is much closer, more accurate and revealing. Can we do that?

That is, in my relationship to nature, to the neighbour and so on, I

discover the nature of myself. So how do I observe my reactions in

my relationship with another?

Q: Each time I see something about myself in a reaction it

becomes knowledge, it becomes something retainable.

K: I wonder if we are aware what takes place in our relationship

with another. You all seem to be so vague about this matter.

Q: When I am very interested in some relationship I notice that

I can't really observe. When I am angry in my relationship I see

immediately that I really can't observe what is going on.

K: What do we mean by relationship?

Q: When we seem to want something...

K: Look at the word first, the meaning of the word.

Q: I like to compare myself with the other person. K: We are

asking the meaning of the word itself, relationship.

Q(1): Communication.

Q(2): It means you are relating to that person.

K: When I say I am related to my wife, or to my husband,

father, son, neighbour, what does that mean?

Q(1): I care for the person.

Q(2): The whole human race is one's brother.

Q(3): I'd rather you told us.

K: Ah! (laughter). Relationship means - I am enquiring please, I

am not stating it - doesn't relationship mean to respond accurately.

To be related, the meaning in the dictionary is, to respond -

relationship comes from that word. Now how do I respond in my

relationship to you, or to my wife, husband and all the rest of it?

Am I responding according to the image I have about you? Or are

we both free of the images and therefore responding accurately?

Q: Isn't it largely subconscious?

K: First let us see what the word in itself means.

Q: What do you mean by accurate?

K: Accurate means care - the word accurate means to have great

care. If you care for something you act accurately. If you care for

your motor you must be very well acquainted with it, you must

know all the mechanical processes of it. Accurate means infinite

care; we are using that word in that sense. When there is a

relationship with another, either intimate, or distant, the response

depends on the image you have about the other, or the image the

other has about you. And when we act or respond according to that

image, it is inaccurate, it is not with complete care. Q: What is a

love and hate relationship?

K: We will come to that. I have an image about you and you

have an image about me. That image has been put together through

pleasure, fear, nagging, domination, possession, various hurts,

impatience and so on. Now when we act or respond according to

that image, then that action, being incomplete, 1-s inaccurate, or

without care, which we generally call love. Are you aware that you

have an image about another? And having that image you respond

according to the past, because the image has been put together and

has become the past.

Q: And also it is according to one's selfish desires.

K: I said that, fear, desire, selfishness.

Q: You can't think of another person without an image; how can

you write a letter without an image?

K: How quickly you want to resolve everything, don't you? First

of all, can we be aware that we have an image, not only about

ourselves but about another?

Q: The two images are in relation, images of the other are in

relation with the image of yourself.

K: You see what you are saying - there is a thing different from

the image.

Q: The image of the other is made from the image of yourself.

K: That is what we said.

Q: Would anything practical help?

K: This is the most practical thing if you listen to this. The

practical thing is to observe clearly what we are and act from there.

Is one aware that one has an image about another? And is one

aware that one has an image about oneself? Are you aware of that?

This is a simple thing. I injure you, I hurt you, and you naturally

have an image about me. I give you pleasure and you have an

image about me. And according to that hurt or pleasure you react,

and that reaction, being fragmentary, must be inaccurate, not

whole. This is simple. Can we go on from there.

Now what do you do with the image you have built about

another? I am aware that I have an image about myself and I have

an image about you, so I have got two images. Am I conscious of

this? Now if I have an image, why has this image been put

together? And who is it that has put the image together? You

understand the question?

Q(1): Is it fear that creates the image?

Q(2): Is experience a necessary imaginative process?

Q(3): Previous images.

Q(4): Lack of attention.

K: How does it come? Not through lack of something, but how

does it come? You say through experience, through various

incidents, through words...

Q: Retaining it all as memory.

K: Which is all the movement of thought, isn't it? So thought as

movement, which is time, put this image together, created this

image. It does it because it wants to protect itself. Am I inventing,

or fabricating this, or is this actual?

Q: Actual.

K: That means "what is". Actuality means "what is". (Sorry, I

am not teaching you English!)

Q: It means that it then can see itself.

K: No, no. You have an image about me, haven't you?

Q: Well, it is changing. K: Wait, go slow (laughter). You have

an image about me, haven't you, if you are honest, look into

yourself, you see you have an image. How has that image been

brought about? You have read something, you have listened to

something, there is a reputation, a lot of talk about it, some articles

in the papers and so on. So all this has influenced thought and out

of that you have created an image. And you have an image, not

only about yourself but about the other. So when you respond

according to an image about the speaker you are responding

inaccurately; in that there is no care. We said care implies

attention, affection, accuracy. That means to act according to "what

is". Now let's move from there.

Q: Is not an image a thought form?

K: We said that, a thought.

Q: Thought has created images and it seems to imply that

thought has created thought so...

K: Wait, we will get very far if we go slowly. So thought has

built this image through time. It may be one day or fifty years. And

I see in my relationship to another this image plays a tremendous

part. If I become conscious, if I don't act mechanically, I become

aware and see how extraordinarily vital this image is. Then my

next question is: is it possible to be free of the image? I have an

image as a Communist, believing in all kinds of ideas, or as a

Catholic - you follow. This whole cultural economic, social

background has built this image also. And I react according to that,

there is a reaction according to that image. I think this is clear.

Now is one aware of it? Then one asks: is it necessary? If it is

necessary one should keep it, one should have the image. If it is not

necessary how is one to be free of it? Now, is it necessary?

Q: Images form the whole chaos in the world where we live, so

it is not necessary. K: He says this whole image-making is bringing

about chaos in the world.

Q: Aren't we making a lot of judgements?

K: Are we making a lot of judgements?

Q: In making an image there is a lot of judgement.

K: Yes, but we are asking a little more. We are asking whether

it is necessary to have these images?

Q: No, we can be free of it.

K: Is it necessary? First let us see that.

Q: No.

K: Then if it is not necessary why do we keep it? (laughter).

Q: I have a feeling, being what we are, we can hardly help it.

K: We are going to find out whether it is possible to be free of

this image, and whether it is worth while to be free of this image,

and what does it mean to be free of the image.

Q: What is the relation with the chaos? Is it judging that is

wrong?

K: No, no, sir. Look, I have an image about myself as a

Communist and I believe in Marx, his economic principles, I am

strongly committed to that. And I reject everything else. But you

think differently and you are committed to that. So there is a

division between you and me, and that division invariably brings

conflict I believe that I am Indian and I am committed to Indian

nationalism, and you are a committed Muslim and there is division

and conflict. So thought has created this division, thought has

created these images, these labels, these beliefs and so there is

contradiction and division, which brings conflict and therefore

chaos. That is a fact. So you think life is a process of infinite

conflicts, neverending conflicts, then you must keep these images.

I don't say it is, we are asking. I believe there have been more than

five thousand wars within the last two thousand years and we have

accepted that. To have our sons killed because we have these

images. And if we see that is not necessary, that it is really a

tremendous danger to survival, then I must find out how to be free

of the images.

Q: I think something else is involved in this, because you say

we always react from the past, but what difference does it make -

the past is a cyclic phenomenon that repeats so you can't prevent

yourself, you know it is a fact that you will repeat it in the same

way all the time.

K: We are talking about the necessity...

Q: (interrupting) You are pitting yourself against necessity...

K:.. of having an image, or not having an image. If we are clear

that these images are a real danger, really a destructive process,

then we want to get rid of them. But if you say: I keep my little

image and you keep your little image, then we are at each other's

throat. So if we can see very clearly that these images, labels,

words, are destroying human beings...

Q: Krishnamurti, doesn't spiritual commitment give us the

penetration or energy? I mean if I am a committed Buddhist and I

channel my energy in that direction, it doesn't necessarily mean

that I am in conflict with those who aren't Buddhists.

K: Just examine that please. If I am a committed human being,

committed to Buddhism, and another is committed to the Christian

dogma, and another to Communism...

Q: That is not my concern.

K: Isn't this what is happening in life? Don't say it is not my

business if you are a Communist. It is my business to see if we can

live in security, in peace in the world, we are human beings,

supposed to be intelligent. Why should I be committed to

anything?

Q: Because it gives energy, the power of penetration.

K: No, no.

Q: The danger is that we are moving away from the central fact.

K: Yes, we are always moving away from the central fact.

Q: We are doing that right now: the image is not necessary.

K: People think it is necessary to be an Englishman, a German,

a Hindu, a Catholic, they think it is important. They don't see the

danger of it.

Q:1: Some people think it is not necessary.

Q:2: Why don't we see the danger?

K: Because we are so heavily conditioned, it is so profitable.

My job depends on it. I might not be able to marry my son to

somebody who is a Catholic. All that stuff. So the point is: if one

sees the danger of these images, how can the mind free itself from

them?

Q: Can "I" be there when no image is formed?

K: Images, whether they are old or new, are the same images.

Q: Yes, but when an image is formed can I be aware?

K: We are first of all going to go into that. How is an image

formed? Is it formed through inattention? You get angry with me

and if at that moment I am totally attentive to what you say there is

no anger. I wonder if you realize this?

Q: So the image and the image-former must be the same in that

case. K: Keep it very simple. I say something that doesn't give you

pleasure. You have an image instantly, haven't you? Now at that

moment, if you are completely aware, is there an image?

Q: If you don't have that new image, all the other images are

gone.

K: Yes, that is the whole point. Can one be attentive at the

moment of listening? You are listening now, can you be totally

attentive? And when someone called you by an unpleasant name,

or gives you pleasure, at that moment, at that precise moment, can

you be totally aware? Have you ever tried this? You can test it out,

because that is the only way to find out, not accept the speaker's

words. You can test it out. Then if there is no image-forming, and

therefore no image, then what is the relationship between the two.

You have no image about me, but I have an image about you; then

what is your relationship to me? You have no image because you

see the danger of it, but I don't see the danger of it, I have my

images and you are related to me, as wife, husband, father,

whatever it is. I have the image and you have not. Then what is

your relationship to me? And what is my relationship to you?

Q: There is a barrier somewhere.

K: Of course there is a barrier, but we are asking what is that

relationship. You are my wife; and I am very ambitious, greedy,

envious, I want to succeed in this world, make a lot of money,

position, prestige, and you say, "How absurd all that is, don't be

like that, don't be silly, don't be traditional, don't be mechanical,

that is just the old pattern being repeated". What happens between

you and me?

Q: Division.

K: And we talk together about love. I go off to the office here I

am brutal, ambitious, ruthless, and I come home and am very

pleasant to you - because I want to sleep with you. What is the

relationship?

Q(1): No good.

Q(2): No relationship.

K: No relationship at all. At last ! And yet this is what we call

love.

So what is the relationship between you and me when I have an

image and you have no image? Either you leave me, or we live in

conflict. You don't create conflict but I create conflict because I

have an image. So is it possible in our relationship with each other

to help each other to be free of images? You understand my

question? I am related to you by some misfortune, sexual demands

and so on and so on. I am related to you and you are free of the

images and I am not, and therefore you care infinitely. I wonder if

you see that? To you it is tremendously important to be free of

images - and I am your father, wife, husband or whatever it is.

Then will you abandon me?

Q: No.

K: Don't say "no" so easily. You care, you have affection, you

feel totally differently. So what will you do with me?

Q: There is nothing you can do.

K: Why can't you do something with me? Do go into it, don't

theorize about it. You are all in that position. Life is this.

Q(1): It depends if this person has the capacity to see what the

truth of the matter is.

Q(2): See through it all and don't take any notice of it (laughter).

K: When I am nagging you all the time? You people just play with

words. You don't take actuality and look at it.

Q: Surely if you have no image in yourself and you look at

another person, you won't see their image either.

K: If I have no image I see very clearly that you have an image.

This is happening in the world, this is happening in every family,

in every situation in relationship - you have something free and I

have not and the battle is between us.

Q: I think that situation is in everything.

K: That is what I am saying. What do you do? just drop it and

disappear and become a monk? Form a community? Go off in

meditation and all the rest of it? Here is a tremendous problem.

Q(1): I tell you how I feel, first of all.

Q(2): But surely this is fictitious, because we are trying to

imagine.

K: I have said that if you have an image and I have an image,

then we live very peacefully because we are both blind and we

don't care.

Q: That situation you have created for us because you want us

to be free of images!

K: Of course, of course, I want you to be free of images because

otherwise we are going to destroy the world.

Q: I see that.

K: The situation is not being created for you: it is there. Look at

it.

Q: I have an image about you, and I have had it for a long time.

And there are different kinds of images. I have been trying to get

rid of those images because I have read that they have created

problems for me. Now every time I try to work it out with you; and

yet it hasn't helped.

K: I'll show you how to get rid of it, how to be free of images.

Q: I don't believe you, sir.

K: Then don't believe me (laughter).

Q: All the time you are just sitting there talking. Abstractions

and abstractions. Me having an image about you means you are

sitting up on the platform being an enlightened person I am here as

a listener, let's say a disciple or a pupil. Now I feel very strongly

that is not actuality or reality because we are two human beings.

But still you are the king of gurus, you are the one who knows

and... (laughter).

K: Please don't laugh, sirs, be quiet, he is telling you some

thing, please listen. May I show you something?

If that image of the guru has not created a problem you would

live with that guru happily, wouldn't you? But it has created a

problem, whether it is the guru, the wife, or the husband - it is the

same thing. You have got the image about the speaker as the

supreme guru (Krishnamurti and others laugh) - the word means,

one who dispels ignorance, one who dispels the ignorance of

another. But generally the gurus impose their ignorance on you.

You have an image about me as the guru, or you have an image

about another as a Christian and so on. If that pleases you, if that

gives you satisfactIon you will hold on to it - won't you? That is

simple enough. If it causes trouble then you say, "It is terrible to

have this" and you move away, form another relationship which is

pleasant; but it is the same image-making. So one asks: is it

possible to be free of images. The speaker sits on the platform

because it is convenient, so you can all see; I can equally sit on the

ground but you will have the same image. So the height doesn't

make any difference. The question is, whether the mind - the mind

being part of thought, and thought has created these images - can

thought dispel these images? Thought has created it and thought

can dispel it because it is unsatisfactory and create another image

which will be satisfactory. This is what we do. I don't like that guru

for various reasons and I go to another because he praises me,

gives me garlands and says, "My dear chap, you are the best

disciple I have". So thought has created this image. Can thought

undo the image?

Q: Not if you are looking at it intellectually. But looking at it

intellectually, you are not using your senses.

K: I am asking that first. Look at it. Can the intellect, reasoning,

dispel the image?

Q: No.

K: Then what will?

Q: The thing that stands in the way is merely self, the "I". If you

overcome this...

K: I know; but I don't want to go into the much more complex

problem of the "I".

Q: You say the image is what he means by the "I", but what do

you mean by the "I"?

K: Of course, of course. How does thought get rid of the image

without creating another image?

Q: If the guru causes trouble and it feels uncomfortable with the

image, if one can see the trouble then perhaps that guru can help?

K: You are not going into it at all, you are just scratching on the

surface.

Q: Thought cannot get rid of the image.

K: If that is so, then what will? Q: Understanding.

K: Don't use words like understanding. What do you mean by

understanding?

Q: Getting rid of the thoughts.

K: Now who is going to get rid of thought?

Q: Is it a question of time? Could it be that our energies are all

in the past, and we need to think now?

K: All the images are in the past. Why can't I drop all that and

live in the now?

Q: That is what I meant.

K: Yes. How can I? With the burden of the past, how to get rid

of the past burden? It comes to the same thing.

Q: if one lives in the present, do the past images still come

through?

K: Can you live in the present? Do you know what it means to

live in the present? That means not a single memory, except

technological memories, not a single breath of the past. Therefore

you have to understand the totality of the past, which is all this

memory, experience, knowledge, imagination, images. You go

from one thing to another, you don't pursue one thing steadily.

Q(1): Please keep going with one having no image and the other

having an image.

Q(2): Yes, but we don't answer it.

K: I'll answer it, all right. You have no image and I have an

image. What happens? Aren't we eternally at war with each other?

Q: What am I going to do with you?

K: We are living on the same earth, in the same house, meeting

often, living in the same community, what will you do with

me?

Q: I would try to explain to him what I've learned.

K: Yes, you have explained it to me, but I like my image

(laughter).

Q: Sir, we cannot know because we have these images of

urselves.

K: That is all I am saying! You are living in images and you

don't know how to be free of them. These are all speculative

questions.

So let's begin again. Are you aware that you have images? If

you have images that are pleasant and you cling to them, and

discard those which are unpleasant, you still have images. The

question really is, can you be free of them?

Q: Go and listen to some music.

K: The moment that music stops you are back to those images.

This is all so childish. Take drugs, that also creates various images.

Q: Isn't there division between wanting to hold on to the images

and wanting to let them go.

K: What is the line, the division? The division is desire, isn't it?

Listen, sir. I don't like that image, I am going to let it go. But I like

this image, I am going to hold on to it. So it is desire, isn't it?

Q: I feel there is a pleasure-motive even in...

K: Of course. You don't stick to one thing, sir.

Q: If I have no image, then the other has no image at all.

K: How inaccurate that is. Because I am blind therefore you are

also blind! This is so illogical; do think clearly. What should I do

so that there is no image-forming at all? Let us think together.

Q: I think most people - I am sorry - I think most people here

are looking for consolation in your words, rather than anything

else...

K: I am aware that I have images, I know. There is no question

of it, I know I have images. I have an image about myself and I

have an image about you - that is very clear. If I am satisfied with

you and we have the same images, then we are both satisfied. That

is, if you think as I think - you like to be ambitious, I like to be

ambitious - then we are both in the same boat, we don't quarrel, we

accept it, and we live together, work together, are both ruthlessly

ambitious. But if you are free of the image of ambition and I am

not, the trouble begins. What then will you do, who are free of that

image, with me? You can't just say, "Well it is not my business" -

because we are living together, we are in the same world, in the

same community, in the same group and so on. What will you do

with me? Please just listen to this. Will you discard me, will you

turn your back on me, will you run away from me, will you join a

monastery, learn how to meditate? Do afl kinds of things in order

to avoid me? Or will you say, "Yes, he is here in my house". What

will you do with regard to me, who has an image?

Q: First I would ask you politely to listen.

K: But I won't listen. Haven't you lived with people who are

adamant in their beliefs. You are like that.

Q: It is best not to waste one's time.

K: We are going to find out, sir. You see this is really a

hypothetical question because you have got images and you live in

those images, and the other person lives in images. That is our

difficulty. Suppose I have no images, and I haven't, I have worked

at this for fifty years, so I have no image about myself, or about

you. What is our relationship? I say please listen to me, but you

won't. I say please pay attention, which means care, to attend

means infinite care. Will you listen to me that way? That means

you really want to learn - not from me, but learn about yourself.

That means you must infinitely care and watch yourself, not

selfishly, but care to learn about yourself - not according to me, or

to Freud, or Jung, or to the latest psychologist, but learn about

yourself. That means, watch yourself; and you can only do that in

your relationship with each other. You say, "You are sitting on that

platform and you have gradually assumed, at least in my eyes, a

position of authority, you have become my guru". And I say to

you, "My friend just listen. I am not your guru. I won't be a guru to

anybody." It is monstrous to be a guru. Are you listening when I

say this? Or do you say, "I can't listen to you because my mind is

wandering'. So when you listen, listen with care, with affection,

with attention, then you begin to learn about yourself, actually as

you are. Then, from there we can move, we can go forward; but if

you don't do that, but keep on repeating, "Oh I have got my image,

I don't know how to get rid of it" and so on, then we don't move

any further.

Now you have an image with regard to sex, that you must have

a girl or a boy. We are so conditioned in this. I say to you please

listen, are you aware that you are conditioned - don't choose parts

of the conditioning: be totally aware of your whole conditioning.

We are conditioned much more at the deeper levels than at the

superficial levels - is that clear? One is conditioned very deeply,

and superficially less so. listening with your heart, not with your

little mind, with your heart, with the whole of your being, is it

possible to be totally aware of all this, the whole of consciousness?

To be totally aware implies no observer. The observer is the past

and therefore when he observes he brings about fragmentation.

When I observe from the past, what I observe brings about a fragmentary

outlook. I only see parts, I don't see the whole. This is

simple. So I have an insight that says, "Don't look from the past".

That means, don't have an observer who is all the time judging,

evaluating, saying, "This right, this is wrong", "I am a Christian, I

am a Communist" - all that is the past, Now can you listen to that,

which is a fact, which is actual, which is not theoretical? You are

facing actually what is. Are you facing in yourself what actually is

going on? And can you observe another without the past - without

all the accumulated memories, insults, hurts - so that you can look

at another with clear eyes? If you say, "I don't know how to do it",

then we can go into that.

As we said, any form of authority in this matter is the reaction

of submission to somebody who says he knows. That is your

image. The professor, the teacher knows mathematics, geography, I

don't, so I learn from him, and gradually he becomes my authority.

He knows, I don't know. But here, psychologically, I think I don't

know how to approach myself, how to learn about it, therefore I

look to another - the same process. But the other is equally

ignorant as me, because he doesn't know himself. He is traditionbound,

he accepts obedience, he becomes the authority, he says he

knows and you don't know: "You become my disciple and I will

tell you". The same process. But it is not the same process

psychologically. Psychologically the guru is "me". I wonder if you

see that? He is as ignorant as myself. He has got a lot of Sanskrit

words, a lot of ideas, a lot of superstitions; and I am so gullible I

accept him. Here we say there is no authority, no guru, you have to

learn about yourself. And to learn about yourself, watch yourself,

how you behave with another, how you walk. Then you find that

you have an image about yourself, a tremendous image. And you

see these images create great harm, they break up the world - the

Krishna-conscious group, the Transcendental group, or some other

group. And your own group; you have your own ideas, you must

have sex, you must have a girl, you must have a boy, and all the

rest of it, change the girl, change the boy, every week. You live

like that and you don't see the tremendous danger and wastage of

life.

Now we come to the point: how am I to be free of all imagemaking?

That is the real question. Is it possible? I will not say it is,

or it is not, I am going to find out. I am going to find out by

carefully watching why images are made. I realize images are

made when the mind is not giving its attention at the moment. At

the moment something is said that gives pleasure, or something

that brings about displeasure, to be aware at that moment, not

afterwards. But we become aware afterwards and say, "My god, I

must pay attention, terrible, I see it is important to be attentive and

I don't know how to be attentive; I lose it and when the thing takes

place it is so quick; and I say to myself I must be attentive". So I

beat myself into being attentive - I wonder if you see this - and

therefore I am never attentive. So I say to myself, "I am not

attentive at the moment something is said which gives pleasure or

pain", I see that I am inattentive. I have found that my whole mind,

make-up, is inattentive, to the birds, to nature, to everything, I am

inattentive - when I walk, when I eat, when I speak, I am

inattentive. So I say to myself, I am not going to be concerned with

attention, but inattention". Do you get this?

Q: Yes.

K: I am not going to be concerned with being attentive, but I am

going to see what is inattention. I am watching inattention, and I

see I am inattentive most of the time. So I am going to pay

attention to one thing at a time, that is, when I walk, when I eat, I

am going to walk, eat, with attention. I am not going to think about

something else, but I am going to pay attention to every little thing.

So what has been inattention becomes attention. I wonder if you

see that? So I am now watching inattention. That is, I am watching

that I am not attentive. I look at a bird and never look at it, my

thoughts are all over the place - I am now going to look at that

bird; it may take me a second but I am going to look at it. When I

walk I am going to watch it. So that out of inattention, without any

effort, there is total attention. When there is total attention, then

when you say something pleasant or unpleasant there is no imageforming

because I am totally there. My whole mind, heart, brain,

all the responses are completely awake and attentive. Aren't you

very attentive when you are pursuing pleasure? You don't have to

talk about attention, you want that pleasure. Sexually, when you

want it, you are tremendously attentive, aren't you? Attention

implies a mind that is completely awake, which means it doesn't

demand challenge. It is only when we have images that challenges

come. I wonder if you see this. Because of those images challenges

come and you respond to the challenge inadequately. Therefore

there is a constant battle between challenge and response, which

means the increase of images; and the more it increases the more

challenges come, and so there is always the strengthening of

images. I wonder if you see this? Haven't you noticed people when

they are challenged about their Catholicism or whatever it is, how

they become more strong in their opinions? So by being

completely attentive there is no image formation, which means

conditioning disappears.

(Continued ...)

(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Sri Jiddu Krishnamurti and

gratitude to the great philosophers and followers of him.)

Category: Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 2

��

Comments

0 responses to "Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 2"

Hindu Vedic Philosophy (The Paramardha Tattwam)

Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 2

Comments

Post a Comment

About Me

Followers

map

Blog Archive

visitors

visitors

About Me

Labels

Blog Archive