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

Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 3

4:11 PM | Posted in Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 3

TRUTH AND ACTUALITY

Jiddu Krishnamurti

TRUTH AND ACTUALITY PART II CHAPTER 8

3RD PUBLIC TALK BROCKWOOD PARK 13TH

SEPTEMBER 1975 'SUFFERING; THE MEANING

OF DEATH'

May we go on with what we were discussing the other day? We

were saying that the crisis in the world is not outward but the crisis

is in consciousness. And that consciousness is its content: all the

things that man has accumulated through centuries, his fears, his

dogmas, his superstitions, his beliefs, his conclusions, and all the

suffering, pain and anxiety. We said unless there is a radical

mutation in that consciousness, outward activities will bring about

more mischief, more sorrow, more confusion. And to bring about

that mutation in consciousness a totally different kind of energy is

required; not the mechanical energy of thought, of time and

measure. When we were investigating into that we said there are

three active principles in human beings: fear, pleasure and

suffering. We talked about fear at some length. And we also went

into the question of pleasure, which is entirely different from joy,

enjoyment, and the delight of seeing something beautiful and so

on. And we also touched upon suffering.

I think we ought this morning to go into that question of

suffering. It is a nice morning and I am sorry to go into such a dark

subject. As we said, when there is suffering there can bc no

compassion and we asked whether it is at all possible for human

minds, for human beings right throughout the world, to put an end

to suffering. For without that ending to suffering we live in

darkness, we accept all kinds of beliefs, dogmas, escapes, which

bring about much more confusion, more violence and so on. So we

are going this morning to investigate together into this question of

suffering, whether the human mind can ever be free from it totally;

and also we are going to talk about the whole question of death.

Why do we accept suffering, why do we put up with it

psychologically? Physical suffering can be controlled or put up

with; and it is important that such physical suffering does not

distort clarity of thought. We went into that. Because for most of

us, when there is physical pain, a continued suffering, it distorts

our thinking, it prevents objective thinking, which becomes

personal, broken up, distorted. If one is not actively aware of this

whole process of physical suffering, whether remembered in the

past, or the fear of having it again in the future, then neurotic

habits, neurotic activities take place. We spoke of that briefly the

other day.

We are asking if it is at all possible for human beings to end

suffering at all levels of their existence, psychological suffering.

And when we go into it in ourselves deeply, we see one of the

major factors of this suffering is attachment - attachment to ideas,

to conclusions, to ideologies, which act as security; and when that

security is threatened there is a certain kind of suffering. Please, as

we said the other day, we are sharing this together, we are looking

into this question of suffering together. You are not merely

listening to a talk, if I may point out, and gathering a few ideas and

agreeing or disagreeing, but rather we are in communication,

sharing the problem, examining the question, the issue, actively;

and so it becomes our responsibility, yours as well as the speaker's,

to go into this question.

There is also attachment to persons; in our relationships there is

a great deal of suffering. That is, the one may be free from this

conditioning of fear and so on, and the other may not be and hence

there is a tension. The word attachment means "holding on", not

only physically but psychologically, depending on something. In a

relationship, one may be free and the other may not be free and

hence the conflict; one may be a Catholic and the other may not be

a Catholic, or a Communist and so on. Hence the conflict that

breeds continuous strain and suffering.

Then there is the suffering of the unknown, of death; the

suffering of losing something that you were attached to in the past,

as memory. I do not know if you have not noticed all these things

in yourself? And is it possible to live in complete relationship with

another without this tension, which is brought about through selfinterest,

through self-centred activity, desire pulling in different

directions, and live in a relationship in which there may be

contradictions, for one may be free, the other may not be? To live

in that situation demands not only what is called tolerance - that

absurd intellectual thing that man has created - but it demands a

much greater thing, which is affection, love, and therefore

compassion. We are going to go into that.

We are asking whether man can end suffering. There are

various explanations: how to go beyond it, how to rationalize it,

how to suppress it, how to escape from it. Now we are asking

something entirely different: not to suppress it, not to evade it, nor

rationalize it, but when there is that suffering to remain totally with

it, without any movement of thought, which is the movement of

time and measure.

One suffers: one loses one's son, or wife, or she runs away with

somebody else; and the things that you are attached to, the house,

the name, the form, all the accumulated conclusions, they seem to

fade away, and you suffer. Can one look at that suffering without

the observer? We went into that question of what the observer is.

We said the observer is the past, the accumulated memory,

experience and knowledge. And with that knowledge, experience,

memory, one observes the suffering, so one dissociates oneself

from suffering: one is different from suffering and therefore one

can do something about it. Whereas the observer is the observed.

This requires a little care and attention, the statement that, "the

observer is the observed". We don't accept it. We say the observer

is entirely different; and the observed is something out there

separate from the observer. Now if one looks very closely at that

question, at that statement that the observer is the observed, it

seems so obvious. When you say you are angry, you are not

different from anger, you are that thing which you call anger.

When you are jealous, you are that jealousy. The word separates;

that is, through the word we recognise the feeling and the

recognition is in the past; so we look at that feeling through the

word, through the screen of the past, and so separate it. Therefore

there is a division between the observer and the observed.

So we are saying that when there is this suffering, either

momentary, or a continuous endless series of causes that bring

about suffering, to look at it without the observer. You are that

suffering; not, you are separate from suffering. Totally remain with

that suffering. Then you will notice, if you go that far, if you are

willing to observe so closely, that something totally different takes

place: a mutation. That is, out of that suffering comes great

passion. If you have done it, tested it out, you will find it. It is not

the passion of a belief, passion for some cause, passion for some

idiotic conclusion. It is totally different from the passion of desire.

It is something which is of a totally different kind of energy; not

the movement of thought, which is mechanical.

We have a great deal of suffering in what is called love. Love,

as we know it now, is pleasure, sexual, the love of a country, the

love of an idea, and so on - all derived from pleasure. And when

that pleasure is denied there is either hatred, antagonism, or

violence. Can there be love, not just something personal between

you and me or somebody else, but the enormous feeling of

compassion - passion for everything, for everybody. Passion for

nature, compassion for the earth on which we live, so that we don`t

destroy the earth, the animals, the whole thing... Without love,

which is compassion, suffering must continue. And we human

beings have put up with it, we accept it as normal. Every religion

has tried to find a way out of this, but organized religions have

brought tremendous suffering.

Religious oganizations throughout the world have done a great

deal of harm, there have been religious wars endless persecution,

tortures, burning people, especially in the West - it wasn't the

fashion in those days in the East. And we are speaking of - not the

acceptance of suffering, or the putting up with suffering - but

remaining motionless with that suffering; then there comes out of it

great compassion. And from that compassion arises the whole

question of creation.

What is creation, what is the creative mind? Is it a mind that

suffers and through that suffering has learnt a certain technique and

expresses that technique on paper, in marble, with paint - that is, is

creativeness the outcome of tension? Is it the outcome of a

disordered life? Does creativeness come through the fragmentary

activity of daily life? I don't know if you are following all this? Or

must we give a totally different kind of meaning to creativeness,

which may not need expression at all?

So one has to go into this question within oneself very deeply,

because one's consciousness is the consciousness of the world. I do

not know if you realize that? Fundamentally your consciousness is

the consciousness of the speaker, of the rest of the world, basically.

Because in that consciousness there is suffering, there is pain, there

is anxiety, there is fear of tomorrow, fear of insecurity, which

every man goes through wherever he lives. So your consciousness

is the consciousness of the world, and if there is a mutation in that

consciousness it affects the total consciousness of human beings. It

is a fact. So it becomes tremendously important that human beings

bring about a radical transformation, or mutation in themselves, in

their consciousness.

Now we can go into this thing called death, which is one of the

major factors of suffering. As with everything else in life we want

a quick, definite answer, an answer which will be comforting,

which will be totally satisfactory, intellectually, emotionally,

physically, in every way. We want immortality, whatever that may

mean, and we want to survive, both physically and

psychologically. We avoid death at any price, put it as far away as

possible. So we have never been able to examine it closely. We

have never been able to face it, understand it, not only verbally,

intellectually, but completely. We wait until the last moment,

which may be an accident, disease, old age, when you can't think,

when you can't look, you are just "gaga". Then you become a

Catholic, a Protestant, believe in this or that. So we are trying this

morning to understand, not verbally, but actually what it means to

die - which doesn't mean we are asking that we should commit

suicide. But we are asking, what is the total significance of this

thing called death, which is the ending of what we know as life.

In enquiring into this we must find out whether time has a stop.

The stopping of time may be death. It may be the ending and

therefore that which ends has a new beginning, not that which has

a continuity. So first can there be an ending to time, can time stop?

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

tomorrow, the twenty-four hours, but the whole movement of time

as thought and measure. That movement, not chronological time,

but that movement as thought, which is the whole process of

comparing, of measurement, can all that process stop? Can

thought, which is the response of memory, and can experience as

knowledge - knowledge is always in the past, knowledge is the past

- can that whole momentum come to an end? Not in the

technological field, we don't even have to discuss that, that is

obvious. Can this movement come to an end? Time as hope, time

as something that has happened to which the mind clings,

attachment to the past, or a projection from the past to the future as

a conclusion, and time as a movement of achievement from alpha

to omega - this whole movement in which we are caught. If one

said there is no tomorrow, psychologically, you would be shocked,

because tomorrow is tremendously important: tomorrow you are

going to be happy, tomorrow you will achieve something,

tomorrow will be the fulfilment of yesterday`s hopes, or today's

hopes, and so on. Tomorrow becomes extraordinarily significant -

the tomorrow which is projected from the past as thought.

So we are asking, can all that momentum come to an end? Time

has created, through centuries, the centre which is the "me". Time

is not only the past as attachment, hope, fulfilment, the evolving

process of thought until it becomes more and more refined. But

also that centre around which all our activities take place, the "me",

the mine, we and they, both politically, religiously, economically

and so on. So the "me" is the conclusion of time, adding to itself

and taking away from itself, but there is always this centre which is

the very essence of time. We are asking, can that movement come

to an end. This is the whole problem of meditation, not sitting

down and repeating some mantra, some words, and doing some

tricks - that is all silly nonsense. I am not being intolerant but it is

just absurd. And it becomes extraordinarily interesting to find this

out, enquire into this.

Then what is death? Can that be answered in terms of words, or

must one look at it not only verbally but non-verbally? There is

death, the organism dies, by misuse, by abuse, by overindulgence,

drink, drugs, accident, all the things that the flesh is heir to - it dies,

comes to an end, the heart stops, the brain with all its marvellous

machinery comes to an end. We accept it - we are not afraid of the

physical organism coming to an end but we are afraid of something

totally different. And being afraid of that basically, we want to

resolve that fear through various beliefs, conclusions, hopes.

The whole of the Asiatic world believes in reincarnation, they

have proof for it - they say so at least. That is - watch this, it is

extraordinary - the thing that has been put together by time as the

"me", the ego, that incarnates till that entity becomes perfect and is

absorbed into the highest principle, which is Brahman, or whatever

you like to call it. Time has created the centre, the "me", the ego,

the personality, the character, the tendencies, and so on, and

through time you are going to dissolve that very entity, through

reincarnation. You see the absurdity? Thought has created

something as the "me", the centre, and through the evolutionary

process, which is time, you will ultimately dissolve that and be

absorbed into the highest principle. And yet they believe in this

tremendously. The other day I was talking to somebody who is a

great believer in this. He said, "If you don't believe it you are not a

religious man", and he walked out. And Christianity has its own

form of continuity of the "me", the resurrection - Gabriel blowing

the trumpet and so on (laughter). When you believe in

reincarnation, what is important is that you are going to live

another life and you suffer in this life because of your past actions.

So what is important is, if one is actually basically committed

wholly to that belief, it means that you must behave rightly,

accurately, with tremendous care now. And we don't do that. That

demands superhuman energy.

There are several problems involved in this. What is

immortality and what is eternity - which is a timeless state - and

what happens to human beings who are still caught in this

movement of time? We human beings live extraordinarily

complex, irresponsible, ugly, stupid lives, we are at each other's

throats, we are battling about beliefs, about authority, politically

and religiously, and our daily lives are a series of endless conflicts.

And we want that to continue. And because our lives are so empty,

so full of meaningless words, we say there is a state where there is

no death, immortality - which is a state where there is no

movement of time. That is, time through centuries has created the

idea of the self, of the "me" evolving. It has been put together

through time, which is a part of evolution. And inevitably there is

death and with the ending of the brain cells thought comes to an

end. Therefore one hopes that there is something beyond the "me",

the super-consciousness, a spark of God, a spark of truth, that can

never be destroyed and that continues. And that continuity is what

we call immortality. That is what most of us want. If you don't get

it through some kind of fame, you want to have it sitting near God,

who is timeless. The whole thing is so absurd.

Is there something which is not of time, which has no beginning

and no end, and is therefore timeless, eternal? Our life being what

it is, we have this problem of death; and if I, a human being, have

not totally understood the whole quality of myself, what happens to

me when I die? You understand the question? Is that the end of

me? I have not understood, if I have understood myself totally,

then that is a different problem, which we will come to. If I have

not understood myself totally - I am not using the word

"understand" intellectually - but actually to be aware of myself

without any choice, all the content of my consciousness - if I have

not deeply delved into my own structure and the nature of

consciousness and I die, what happens?

Now who is going to answer this question? (laughter). No, I am

putting it purposefully. Who is going to answer this question?

Because we think we cannot answer it we look to someone else to

tell us, the priest, the books, the people who have said, "I know",

the endless mushrooming gurus. If one rejects all authority - and

one must, totally, all authority - then what have you left? Then you

have the energy to find out - because you have rejected that which

dissipates energy, gurus, hopes and fears, somebody to tell you

what happens - if you reject all that, which means all authority,

then you have tremendous energy. With that energy you can begin

to enquire what actually takes place when you have not totally

resolved the structure and the nature of the self, the self being time,

and therefore movement, and therefore division: the "me" and the

"not me" and hence conflict.

Now what happens to me when I have not ended that conflict?

You and I and the rest of the world, if the speaker has not ended it,

what happens to us? We are all going to die - I hope not soon but

sometime or other. What is going to happen? When we live, as we

are living, are we so fundamentally different from somebody else?

You may be cleverer, have greater knowledge or technique, you

may be more learned, have certain gifts, talents, inventiveness; but

you and another are exactly alike basically. Your colour may be

different, you may be taller, shorter, but in essence you are the

same. So while you are living you are like the rest of the world, in

the same stream, in the same movement. And when you die you go

on in the same movement. I wonder if you understand what I am

saying? It is only the man who is totally aware of his conditioning,

his consciousness, the content of it, and who moves and dissipates

it, who is not in that stream. Am I making this clear? That is, I am

greedy, envious, ambitious, ruthless, violent - so are you. And that

is our daily life, petty, accepting authority, quarrelling, bitter, not

loved and aching to be loved, the agonies of loneliness,

irresponsible relationship - that is our daily life. And we are like

the rest of the world, it is a vast endless river. And when we die

we'll be like the rest, moving in the same stream as before when we

were living. But the man who understands himself radically, has

resolved all the problems in himself psychologically, he is not of

that stream. He has stepped out of it.

The man who moves away from the stream, his consciousness is

entirely different. He is not thinking in terms of time, continuity, or

immortality. But the other man or woman is still in that. So the

problem arises: what is the relationship of the man who is out to

the man who is in? What is the relationship between truth and

reality? Reality being, as we said, all the things that thought has put

together. The root meaning of that word reality is, things or thing.

And living in the world of things, which is reality, we want to

establish a relationship with a world which has no thing - which is

impossible.

What we are saying is that consciousness, with all its content, is

the movement of time. In that movement all human beings are

caught. And even when they die that movement goes on. It is so;

this is a fact. And the human being who sees the totality of this -

that is the fear, the pleasure and the enormous suffering which man

has brought upon himself and created for others, the whole of that,

and the nature and the structure of the self, the "me", the total

comprehension of that, actually - then he is out of that stream. And

that is the crisis in consciousness. We are trying to solve all our

human problems, economic, social, political, within the area of that

consciousness in time. I wonder if you see this? And therefore we

can never solve it. We seem to accept the politician as though he

was going to save the world, or the priest, or the analyst, or

somebody else. And, as we said, the mutation in consciousness is

the ending of time, which is the ending of the "me" which has been

produced through time. Can this take place? Or is it just a theory

like any other?

Can a human being, can you actually do it? When you do it, it

affects the totality of consciousness. Which means in the

understanding of oneself, which is the understanding of the world -

because I am the world - there comes not only compassion but a

totally different kind of energy. This energy, with its compassion,

has a totally different kind of action. That action is whole, not

fragmentary.

We began by talking about suffering, that the ending of

suffering is the beginning of compassion; and this question of love,

which man has reduced to mere pleasure; and this great complex

problem of death. They are all interrelated, they are not separate. It

isn't that I am going to solve the problem of death, forgetting the

rest. The whole thing is interrelated, inter-communicated. It is all

one. And to see the totality of all that, wholly, is only possible

when there is no observer and therefore freedom from all that.

Questioner: I'd like to ask a question. You said towards the

beginning that it is important for each individual to transform his

consciousness. Isn't the fact that you say that it is important an

ideal, which is the very thing to be avoided ?

Krishnamurti: When you see a house on fire, isn't it important

that you put it out? In that there is no ideal. The house is burning,

you are there, and you have to do something about it. But if you are

asleep and discussing the colour of the hair of the man who has set

the house on fire...

Q: The house on fire is in the world of reality, isn't it? It is a

fact. We are talking about the psychological world.

K: Isn't that also a factual world? Isn't it a fact that you suffer?

Isn't it a fact that one is ambitious, greedy, violent - you may not

be, but the rest - that is a fact. We say the house is a fact, but my

anger, my violence, my stupid activities are something different;

they are as real as the house. And if I don't understand myself,

dissolve all the misery in myself, the house is going to become the

destructive element.

Q: Sir, as I understand it, your message and the message of

Jesus Christ seem to reach towards the same thing, although stated

differently. I had always understood your message and Jesus

Christ's message to be quite different in content. About two years

ago I was a Christian, so it is very difficult to get rid of statements

that Jesus made, such as, "No man cometh to the Father but by

me". Although I find more sense in your message at the moment,

how do you equate this?

K: It is very simple. I have no message. I am just pointing out.

That is not a message.

Q: But why are you doing it?

K: Why am I doing it? Why do we want a message? Why do we

want somebody to give us something? When everything is in you.

Q: It is wonderful.

K: No, it is not wonderful (laughter). Please do look at it. You

are the result of all the influences, of the culture, the many words,

propaganda, you are that. And if you know how to look, how to

read, how to listen, how to see, the art of seeing, everything is

there, right in front of you. But we don't have the energy, the

inclination, or the interest. We want somebody to tell us what there

is on the page. And we make that person who tells us into an

extraordinary human being. We worship him, or destroy him,

which is the same thing. So it is there. You don't need a message.

Do look at it please. Is the book important, or what you find in the

book? What you find in the book, and after you have read it you

throw it away. Now in these talks, you listen, find out, go into it,

and throw away the speaker. The speaker is not at all important. It

is like a telephone.

The other question is, "Why do you speak?" Does that need

answering? Would you say to the flower on the wayside, "Why do

you flower?" It is there for you to look, to listen, to see the beauty

of it and come back again to look at the beauty of it. That is all.

Q: (partly inaudible) We have the same message, the same

words, we have it in ourselves, the guru. Q: (repeating) We have a

guru in ourselves.

K: Have you? Guru means in Sanskrit, the root meaning of that

word means "heavy".

Q: He said heaven.

K: Heaven, it is the same thing, sir. Have you a heaven in

yourself? My lord, I wish you had! (laughter). In yourself you are

so confused, so miserable, so anxious - what a set of words to use -

heaven! You can substitute God into heaven, heaven as God and

you think you are quite different. People have believed that you

had God inside you, light inside you, or something else inside you.

But when you see actually that you have nothing, just words, then

if there is absolutely nothing there is complete security. And out of

that, everything happens, flowers.

TRUTH AND ACTUALITY PART II CHAPTER 9

4TH PUBLIC TALK BROCKWOOD PARK 14TH

SEPTEMBER 1975 'THE SACRED, RELIGION,

MEDITATION'

I would like this morning to talk about the question of what is

sacred, what is the meaning of religion and of meditation. First we

must examine what is reality and what is truth. Man has been

concerned throughout the ages to discover, or live in truth; And he

has projected various symbols, conclusions, images made by the

mind or by the hand and imagined what is truth. Or he has tried to

find out through the activity and the movement of thought. And I

think we should be wise if we would differentiate between reality

and truth and when we are clear what reality is then perhaps we

shall be able to have an insight into what is truth.

The many religions throughout the world have said that there is

an enduring, everlasting truth, but the mere assertion of truth has

very little significance. One has to discover it for oneself, not

theoretically, intellectually, or sentimentally, but actually find out

if one can live in a world that is completely truthful. We mean by

religion the gathering together of all energy to investigate into

something: to investigate if there is anything sacred. That is the

meaning we are giving it, not the religion of belief, dogma,

tradition or ritual with their hierarchical outlook. But we are using

the word "religion" in the sense: to gather together all energy,

which will then be capable of investigating if there is a truth which

is not controlled, shaped, or polluted by thought.

The root meaning of the word reality is thing or things. And to

go into the question of what is reality, one must understand what

thought is. Because our society, our religions, our so-called

revelations are essentially the product of thought. It is not my

opinion or my judgement, but it is a fact. All religions when you

look at them, observe without any prejudice, are the product of

thought. That is, you may perceive something, have an insight into

truth, and you communicate it verbally to me and I draw from your

statement an abstraction and make that into an idea; then I live

according to that idea. That is what we have been doing for

generations: drawing an abstraction from a statement and living

according to that abstraction as a conclusion. And that is generally

called religion. So we must find out how limited thought is and

what are its capacities, how far it can go, and be totally aware that

thought doesn't spill over into a realm in which thought has no

place.

I don't know if you can see this? Please, we are not only

verbally communicating, which means thinking together, not

agreeing or disagreeing, but thinking together, and therefore

sharing together; not the speaker gives and you take, but tðer we

are sharing, therefore there is no authority. And also there is a nonverbal

communication, which is much more difficult, because

unless we see very clearly the full meaning of words, how the mind

is caught in words, how words shape our thinking, and can go

beyond that, then there is no non-verbal communication, which

becomes much more significant. We are trying to do both: to

communicate verbally and non-verbally. That means we must both

be interested at the same time, at the same level, with the same

intensity, otherwise we shan't communicate. It is like love; love is

that intense feeling at the same time, at the same level. Otherwise

you and I don't love each other. So we are going to observe

together what is reality, what are the limitations of thought, and

whether thought can ever perceive truth. Or is it beyond the realm

of thought?

I think we all agree, at least most of us do, even the scientists,

that thought is a material process, is a chemical process. Thought is

the response of accumulated knowledge as experience and

memory. So thought is essentially a thing. There is no sacred

thought, no noble thought, it is a thing. And its function is in the

world of things, which is technology, learning, learning the art of

learning, the art of seeing and listening. And reality is in that area.

Unless we understand this rather complex problem we shall not be

able to go beyond it. We may pretend, or imagine, but imagination

and pretension have no place in a human being who is really

serious and is desirous to find out what is truth.

As long as there is the movement of thought, which is time and

measure, in that area truth has no place. Reality is that which we

think and the action of thought as an idea, as a principle, as an

ideal, projected from the previous knowledge into the future

modified and so on. All that is in the world of reality. We live in

that world of reality - if you have observed yourself you will see

how memory plays an immense part. Memory is mechanical,

thought is mechanical, it is a form of computer, a machine, as the

brain is. And thought has its place. I cannot speak if I have no

language; if I spoke I-n Greek you wouldn't understand. And

learning a language, learning to drive a car, to work in a factory

and so on, there thought is necessary. psychologically, thought has

created the reality of the "me". "Me", "my", my house, my

property, my wife, my husband, my children, my country, my God

- all that is the product of thought. And in that field we have

established a relationship with each other which is constantly in

conflict. That is the limitation of thought.

Unless we put order into that world of reality we cannot go

further. We live a disorderly life in our daily activities; that is a

fact. And is it possible to bring about order in the world of reality,

in the world of thought, socially, morally, ethically and so on? And

who is to bring about order in the world of reality? I live a

disorderly life - if I do - and being disorderly, can I bring about

order in all the activities of daily life? Our daily life is based on

thought, our relationship is based on thought, because I have an

image of you and you have an image of me, and the relationship is

between those two images. The images are the product of thought,

which is the response of memory, experience and so on. Now can

there be order in the world of reality? This is really a very

important question. Unless order is established in the world of

reality there is no foundation for further enquiry. In the world of

reality, is it possible to behave orderly, not according to a pattern

set by thought, which is still disorder? Is it possible to bring about

order in the world of reality? That is, no wars, no conflict, no

division. Order implies great virtue, virtue is the essence of order -

not following a blueprint, which becomes mechanical. So who is to

bring order in this world of reality? Man has said, "God will bring

it. Believe in God and you will have order. Love God and you will

have order." But this order becomes mechanical because our desire

is to be secure, to survive, to find the easiest way of living - let us

put it that way.

So we are asking, who is to bring order in this world of reality,

where there is such confusion, misery, pain, violence and so on.

Can thought bring about order in that reality - a world of reality

which thought has created? Do you follow my question? The

Communists say control the environment, then there will be order

in man. According to Marx the State will wither away - you know

all that. They have tried to bring order but man is in disorder, even

in Russia! So one has to find out, if thought is not to bring about

order, then what will? I don`t know if this is a problem to you, if it

really interests you? So one has to ask, if thought, which has made

such a mess of life, cannot bring clarity into this world of reality,

then is there an observation in the field of reality, or of the field of

reality, without the movement of thought. Are we meeting each

other about this? A human being has exercised thought, he says

there is disorder, I will control it, I will shape it, I will make order

according to certain ideas - it is all the product of thought. And

thought has created disorder. So thought has no place in order, and

how is this order to come about?

Now we will go into it a little bit. Can one observe this disorder

in which one lives, which is conflict, contradiction, opposing

desires, pain, suffering, fear, pleasure and all that, this whole

structure of disorder, without thought? You understand my

question? Can you observe this enormous disorder in which we

live, externally as well as inwardly, without any movement of

thought? Because if there is any movement of thought, then it is

going to create further disorder, isn't it? So can you observe this

disorder in yourself without any move, ment of thought as time and

measure - that is, without any movement of memory?

We are going to see whether thought as time can come to an

end. Whether thought as measure, which is comparison, as time,

from here to there - all that is involved in the movement of time -

whether that time can have a stop? This is the very essence of

meditation. You understand? So we are going to enquire together if

time has a stop, that is, if thought as movement can come to an

end. Then only is there order and therefore virtue. Not cultivated

virtue, which requires time and is therefore not virtue, but the very

stopping, the very ending of thought is virtue. This means we have

to enquire into the whole question of what is freedom. Can man

live in freedom? Because that is what it comes to. If time comes to

an end it means that man is deeply free. So one has to go into this

question of what is freedom. Is freedom relative, or absolute? If

freedom is the outcome of thought then it is relative. When

freedom is not bound by thought then it is absolute. We are going

to go into that.

Outwardly, politically, there is less and less freedom. We think

politicians can solve all our problems and the politicians, especially

the tyrannical politicians, assume the authority of God, they know

and you don't know. That is what is going on in India, freedom of

speech, civil rights, have been denied, like in all tyrannies.

Democratically we have freedom of choice, we choose between the

Liberal, Conservatives, Labour or something else. And we think

that having the capacity to choose gives us freedom. Choice is the

very denial of freedom. You choose when you are not clear, when

there is no direct perception, and so you choose out of confusion,

and so there is no freedom in choice - psychologically, that is. I can

choose between this cloth and that cloth, and so on; but

psychologically we think we are free when we have the capacity to

choose. And we are saying that choice is born out of confusion, out

of the structure of thought, and therefore it is not free. We accept

the authority of the gurus, the priests, because we think they know

and we don't know. Now if you examine the whole idea of the

guru, which is becoming rather a nuisance in this country and in

America, the world over - I am sorry I am rather allergic to gurus

(laughter), I know many of them, they come to see me (laughter).

They say, "What you are saying is the highest truth" - they know

how to flatter! But we are dealing, they say, with people who are

ignorant and we are the intermediaries: we want to help them. So

they assume the authority and therefore deny freedom. I do not

know if you have noticed that not one single guru has raised his

voice against tyranny.

A man who would understand what freedom is must totally

deny authority, which is extraordinarily difficult, it demands great

attention. We may reject the authority of a guru, of a priest, of an

idea, but we establish an authority in ourselves - that is "I think it is

right, I know what I am saying, it is my experience. All that gives

one the authority to assert, which is the same thing as the guru and

the priest.

Can the mind be free of authority, of tradition, which means

accepting another as your guide, as somebody to tell you what to

do, except in the technological field? And man must be free if he is

not to become a serf, a slave, and deny the beauty and depth of the

human spirit. Now can the mind put aside all authority in the

psychological sense? - if you put aside the authority of the

policeman you will be in trouble. That requires a great deal of

inward awareness. One obeys and accepts authority because in

oneself there is uncertainty, confusion, loneliness, and the desire to

find something permanent, something lasting. And is there

anything lasting, anything that is permanent, created by thought?

Or does thought give to itself permanency? The mind desires to

have something it can cling to, some certainty, some psychological

security. This is what happens in all our relationships with each

other. I depend on you psychologically - because in myself I am

uncertain, confused, lonely - and I am attached to you, I possess

you, I dominate you. So living in this world is freedom possible,

without authority, without the image, without the sense of

dependency? And is it freedom from something or freedom per se?

Now can we have freedom in the world of reality? You

understand my question? - can there be freedom in my relationship

with you? Can there be freedom in relationship between man and

woman, or is that impossible? - which doesn't mean freedom to do

what one likes, or permissiveness, or promiscuity. But can there be

a relationship between human beings of complete freedom? I do

not know if you have ever asked this question of yourself? You

might say it is possible or not possible. The possibility or the

impossibility of it is not an answer, but to find out whether

freedom can exist, absolute freedom in our relationships. That

freedom can only exist in relationship when there is order: order

not according to you, or another, but order in the sense of the

observation of disorder. And that observation is not the movement

of thought, because the observer is the observed; only then there is

freedom in our relationship.

Then we can go to something else. Having observed the whole

nature of disorder, order comes into being in our life. That is a fact,

if you have gone into it. From there we can move and find out

whether thought can end, can realize its own movement, see its

own limitation and therefore stop. We are asking, what place has

time in freedom. Is freedom a state of mind in which there is no

time? - time being movement of thought as time and measure.

Thought is movement, movement in time. That is, can the brain,

which is part of the mind - which has evolved through centuries

with all the accumulated memories, knowledge, experience - is

there a part of the brain which is not touched by time? Do you

understand my question? Our brain is conditioned by various

influences, by the pursuit of desires; and is there a part of the brain

that is not conditioned at all? Or is the whole brain conditioned and

can human beings therefore never escape from conditioning? They

can modify the conditioning, polish, refine it, but there will always

be conditioning if the totality of the brain is limited, and therefore

no freedom.

So we are going to find out if there is any part of the brain that

is not conditioned. All this is meditation, to find out. Can one be

aware of the conditioning in which one lives? Can you be aware of

your conditioning as a Christian, a Capitalist, a Socialist, a Liberal,

that you believe in this and you don't believe in that? - all that is

part of the conditioning. Can a human being be aware of that

conditioning? Can you be aware of your consciousness? - not as an

observer, but that you are that consciousness. And if you are aware,

who is it that is aware? Is it thought that is aware that it is

conditioned? Then it is still in the field of reality, which is

conditioned. Or is there an observation, an awareness in which

there is pure observation? Is there an act, or an art of pure

listening?

Do listen to this a little bit. The word "art" means to put

everything in its right place, where it belongs. Now can you

observe without any interpretation, without any judgement, without

any prejudice - just observe, see purely? And can you listen, as you

are doing now, without any movement of thought. It is only

possible if you put thought in the right place. And the art of

learning means not accumulating - then it becomes knowledge and

thought - but the movement of learning, without the accumulation.

So there is the art of seeing, the art of listening, the art of learning -

which means to put everything where it belongs. And in that there

is great order.

Now we are going to find out if time has a stop. This is

meditation. As we said at the beginning, it is all in the field of

meditation. Meditation isn't something separate from life, from

daily life. Meditation is not the repetition of words, the repetition

of a mantra, which is now the fashion and called transcendental

meditation, or the meditation which can be practised. Meditation

must be something totally unconscious. I wonder if you see this? If

you practise meditation, that is follow a system, a method, then it is

the movement of thought, put together in order to achieve a result,

and that result is projected as a reaction from the past and therefore

still within the area of thought.

So can there be a mutation in the brain? It comes to that. We say

it is possible. That is, a mutation is only passible when there is a

great shock of attention. Attention implies no control. Have you

ever asked whether you can live in this world without a single

control? - of your desires, of your appetites, of the fulfilment of

your desires and so on, without a single breath of control? Control

implies a controller: and the controller thinks he is different from

that which he controls. But when you observe closely the controller

is the controlled. So what place has control? In the sense of

restraint, suppression, to control in order to achieve, to control to

change yourself to become something else - all that is the demand

of thought. Thought by its very nature being fragmentary, divides

the controller and the controlled. And we are educated from

childhood to control, to suppress, to inhibit - which does not mean

to do what you like; that is impossible, that is too absurd, too

immature. But to understand this whole question of control

demands that you examine the desire which brings about this

fragmentation; the desire to be and not to be. To find out whether

you can live without comparison, therefore without an ideal,

without a future - all that is implied in comparison. And where

there is comparison there must be control. Can you live without

comparison and therefore without control - do you understand?

Have you ever tried to live without control, without comparison?

Because comparison and control are highly respectable. The word

"respect" means to look about. And when we look about we see

that all human beings, wherever they live, have this extraordinary

desire to compare themselves with somebody, or with an idea, or

with some human being who is supposed to be noble, and in that

process they control, suppress. Now if you see this whole

movement, then one will live without a single breath of control.

That requires tremendous inward discipline. Discipline means

actually to learn, not to be disciplined to a pattern like a soldier.

The word "discipline" means to learn. Learn whether it is possible

to live without a single choice, comparison, or control. To learn

about it; not to accept it, not to deny it, but to find out how to live.

Then out of that comes a brain which is not conditioned.

Meditation then is freedom from authority, putting everything in its

right place in the field of reality, and consciousness realizing its

own limitation and therefore bringing about order in that limitation.

When there is order there is virtue, virtue in behaviour.

From there we can go into the question, whether time has a

stop. Which means, can the mind, the brain itself, be absolutely

still? - not controlled. If you control thought in order to be still,

then it is still the movement of thought. Can the brain and the mind

be absolutely still, which is the ending of time? Man has always

desired throughout the ages to bring silence to the mind, which he

called meditation, contemplation and so on. Can the mind be still?

- not chattering, not imagining, not conscious if that stillness,

because if you are conscious of that stillness there is a centre which

is conscious, and that centre is part of time, put together by

thought; therefore you are still within the area of reality and there

is no ending in the world of reality of time.

Man has made, whether by the hand or by the mind, what he

thinks is sacred, all the images in churches, in temples. All those

images are still the product of thought. And in that there is nothing

sacred. But out of this complete silence is there anything sacred?

We began by saying that religion is not belief, rituals, authority,

but religion is the gathering of all energy to investigate if there is

something sacred which is not the product of thought. We have that

energy when there is complete order in the world of reality in

which we live - order in relationship, freedom from authority,

freedom from comparison, control, measurement. Then the mind

and the brain become completely still naturally, not through

compulsion. If one sees that anything which thought has created is

not sacred, nothing - all the churches, all the temples, all the

mosques in the world have no truth - then is there anything sacred?

In India, when only Brahmins could enter Temples and Ghandi

was saying that all people can enter temples - I followed him

around one year - and I was asked, "What do you say to that"? I

replied, God is not in temples, it doesn't matter who enters. That

was of course not acceptable. So in the same way we are saying

that anything created by thought is not sacred, and is there anything

sacred? Unless human beings find that sacredness, their life really

has no meaning, it is an empty shell. They may be very orderly,

they may be relatively free, but unless there is this thing that is

totally sacred, untouched by thought, life has no deep meaning. Is

there something sacred, or is everything matter, everything

thought, everything transient, everything impermanent? Is there

something that thought can never touch and therefore is

incorruptible, timeless, eternal and sacred? To come upon this the

mind must be completely, totally still, which means time comes to

an end; and in that there must be complete freedom from all

prejudice, opinion, judgement - you follow? Then only one comes

upon this extraordinary thing that is timeless and the very essence

of compassion.

So meditation has significance. One must have this meditative

quality of the mind, not occasionally, but all day long. And this

something that is sacred affects our lives not only during the

waking hours but during sleep. And in this process of meditation

there are all kinds of powers that come into being: one becomes

clairvoyant, the body becomes extraordinarily sensitive. Now

clairvoyance, healing, thought transference and so on, become

totally unimportant; all the occult powers become so utterly

irrelevant, and when you pursue those you are pursuing something

that will ultimately lead to illusion. That is one factor. Then there is

the factor of sleep. What is the importance of sleep? Is it to spend

the sleeping hours dreaming? Or is it possible not to dream at all?

What are dreams, why do we dream, and is it possible for a mind

not to dream, so that during sleep, the mind being utterly restful, a

totally different kind of energy is built in?

If during waking hours we are completely attentive to our

thoughts, to our actions, to our behaviour, totally aware, then are

dreams necessary? Or are dreams a continuation of our daily life,

in the form of pictures, images, incidents - a continuity of our daily

conscious or unconscious movements? So when the mind becomes

totally aware during the day, then you will see that dreams become

unimportant, and being unimportant they have no significance and

therefore there is no dreaming. There is only complete sleep; that

means the mind has complete rest: it can renew itself. Test it out. If

you accept what the speaker is saying, then it is futile; but not if

you enquire and find out if during the day you are very very awake,

watchful, aware without choice - we went into what it is to be

aware - then out of that awareness when you do sleep, the mind

becomes extraordinarily fresh and young. Youth is the essence of

decision, action. And if that action is merely centred round itself,

round the centre of myself, then that action breeds mischief,

confusion and so on. But when you realize the whole movement of

life as one, undivided, and are aware of that, then the mind

rejuvenates itself and has immense energy. All that is part of

meditation.

TRUTH AND ACTUALITY PART III CHAPTER

10 QUESTION FROM THE 7TH PUBLIC TALK

SAANEN 25TH JULY, 1976 'RIGHT

LIVELIHOOD'

Questioner: Is a motive necessary in business? What is the right

motive in earning a livelihood?

Krishnamurti: What do you think is the right livelihood? - not

what is the most convenient, not what is the most profitable,

enjoyable, or gainful; but what is the right livelihood? Now, how

will you find out what is right? The word "right" means correct,

accurate. It cannot be accurate if you do something for profit or

pleasure. This is a complex thing. Everything that thought has put

together is reality. This tent has been put together by thought, it is a

reality. The tree has not been put together by thought, but it is a

reality. Illusions are reality - the illusions that one has, imagination,

all that is reality. And the action from those illusions is neurotic,

which is also reality. So when you ask this question, "What is the

right livelihood", you must understand what reality is. Reality is

not truth.

Now what is correct action in this reality? And how will you

discover what is right in this reality? - discover for yourself, not be

told. So we have to find out what is the accurate, correct, right

action, or right livelihood in the world of reality, and reality

includes illusion. Don't escape, don't move away, belief is an

illusion, and the activities of belief are neurotic, nationalism and all

the rest of it is another form of reality, but an illusion. So taking all

that as reality, what is the right action there?

Who is going to tell you? Nobody, obviously. But when you see

reality without illusion, the very perception of that reality is your

intelligence, isn't it? in which there is no mixture of reality and

illusion. So when there is observation of reality, the reality of the

tree, the reality of the tent, reality which thought has put together,

including visions, illusions, when you see all that reality, the very

perception of that is your intelligence - isn't it? So your intelligence

says what you are going to do. I wonder if you understand this?

Intelligence is to perceive what is and what is not - to perceive

"what is" and see the reality of "what is", which means you don't

have any psychological involvement, any psychological demands,

which are all forms of illusion. To see all that is intelligence; and

that intelligence will operate wherever you are. Therefore that will

tell you what to do.

Then what is truth? What is the link between reality and truth?

The link is this intelligence. Intelligence that sees the totality of

reality and therefore doesn't carry it over to truth. And the truth

then operates on reality through intelligence.

TRUTH AND ACTUALITY PART III CHAPTER

11 QUESTION FROM THE 3RD PUBLIC TALK

SAANEN 15TH JULY, 1975 'WILL'

Questioner: I wish to know if effort of will has a place in life.

Krishnamurti: Has the will a place in life? What do we mean by

life? - going to the office every day, having a profession, a career,

the everlasting climbing the ladder, both religiously and

mundanely, the fears, the agonies, the things that we have

treasured, remembered, all that is life, isn't it? All that is life, both

the conscious as well as the hidden. The conscious of which we

know, more or less; and all the deep down hidden things in the

cave of one's mind, in the deepest recesses of one's mind. All that

is life: the illusion and the reality, the highest principle and the

"what is", the fear of death, fear of living, fear of relationship - all

that. What place has will in that? That is the question.

I say it has no place. Don't accept what I am saying; I am not

your authority, I am not your guru. All the content of one's

consciousness, which is consciousness, is created by thought which

is desire and image. And that is what has brought about such havoc

in the world. Is there a way of living in this world without the

action of will? That is the present question.

I know this, as a human being I am fully aware of what is going

on within my consciousness, the confusion, the disorder, the chaos,

the battle, the seeking for power, position, safety, security,

prominence, all that; and I see thought has created all that. Thought

plus desire and the multiplication of images. And I say, "What

place has will in this?" It is will that has created this. Now can I

live in this without will? Biologically, physiologically, I have to

exercise a certain form of energy to lean a language, to do this and

that. There must be a certain drive. I see all this. And I realise - not

as a verbal realization, as a description, but the, actual fact of it, as

one realizes pain in the body - I realize that this is the product of

thought as desire and will. Can I, as a human being, look at aU this,

and transform this without will?

Now what becomes important is what kind of observation is

necessary. Observation to see actually what is. Is the mind capable

of seeing actually "what is"? Or does it always translate into "what

should be", "what should not be", "I must suppress", "I must not

suppress", and all the rest of it? There must be freedom to observe,

otherwise I can't see. If I am prejudiced against you, or like you, I

can't see you. So freedom is absolutely necessary to observe -

freedom from prejudice, from information, from what has been

learned, to be able to look without the idea. You understand: to

look without the idea. As we said the other day, the word "idea"

comes from Greek; the root meaning of that word is to observe, to

see. When we refuse to see, we make an abstraction and make it

into an idea.

There must be freedom to observe, and in that freedom will is

not necessary; there is just freedom to look. Which means, to put it

differently, if one makes a statement, can you listen to it without

making it into an abstraction? Do you understand my question?

The speaker makes a statement such as, "The ending of sorrow is

the beginning of wisdom". Can you listen to that statement without

making an abstraction of it? - the abstraction being: "Is that

possible?", "What do we get from it?,', "How do we do it?". Those

are all abstractions - and not actually listening. So can you listen to

that statement with all your senses, which means with all your

attention? Then you see the truth of it. And the perception of that

truth is action in this chaos.

TRUTH AND ACTUALITY PART III CHAPTER

12 QUESTION FROM THE 5TH PUBLIC TALK

SAANEN 22ND JULY, 1975 'EMOTIONS AND

THOUGHT'

Questioner: Are emotions rooted in thought?

Krishnamurti: What are emotions? Emotions are sensations,

aren't they? You see a lovely car, or a beautiful house, a beautiful

woman or man, and the sensory perception awakens the senses.

Then what takes place? Contact, then desire, Now thought comes

in. Can you end there and not let thought come in and take over? I

see a beautiful house, the right proportions, with a lovely lawn, a

nice garden: all the senses are responding because there is great

beauty - it is well kept, orderly, tidy. Why can't you stop there and

not let thought come in and say, "I must have" and all the rest of it?

Then you will see emotions, or sensations, are natural, healthy,

normal. But when thought takes over, then all the mischief begins.

So to find out for oneself whether it is possible to look at

something with all the senses and end there and not proceed further

- do it! That requires an extraordinary sense of awareness in which

there is no control; no control, therefore no conflict. Just to observe

totally that which is, and all the senses respond and end there.

There is great beauty in that. For after all what is beauty?

TRUTH AND ACTUALITY PART III CHAPTER

13 QUESTION FROM THE 5TH PUBLIC TALK

SAANEN 22ND JULY, 1975 'BEAUTY'

Is beauty in the world of reality? Or is it not within the movement

of thought as time? Please follow this carefully because we are

investigating together. I am not laying down the law. I am just

asking myself: does beauty lie within the movement of thought as

time? That is, within the field of reality. There are beautiful

paintings, statues, sculpture, marvellous cathedrals, wonderful

temples. If you have been to India, some of those ancient temples

are really quite extraordinary: they have no time, there has been no

entity as a human being who put them together. And those

marvellous old sculptures from the Egyptians, from the Greeks,

down to the Moderns. That is, is it expression and creation? Does

creation need expression? I am not saying it does, or does not, I am

asking, enquiring. Is beauty, which is both expression outwardly

and the sense of inward feeling of extraordinary elation, that which

comes when there is complete cessation of the "me", with all its

movements?

To enquire what is beauty, we have to go into the question of

what is creation. What is the mind that is creative? Can the mind

that is fragmented, however capable, whatever its gifts, talent, is

such a mind creative? If I live a fragmented life, pursuing my

cravings, my selfishness, my self-centred ambitions, pursuits, my

pain, my struggle - is such a mind (I am asking) creative? - though

it has produced marvellous music, marvellous literature,

architecture and poetry - English and other literature is filled with

it. A mind that is not whole, can that be creative? Or is creation

only possible when there is total wholeness and therefore no

fragmentation? A mind that is fragmented is not a beautiful mind,

and therefore it is not creative.

TRUTH AND ACTUALITY PART III CHAPTER

14 QUESTION FROM THE 6TH PUBLIC TALK

SAANEN 24TH JULY, 1975 'THE STREAM

OF"SELFISHNESS"'

One can see that thought has built the "me", the "me" that has

become independent, the "me" that has acquired knowledge, the

"me" that is the observer, the "me" that is the past and which passes

through the present and modifies itself as the future. It is still the

"me" put together by thought, and that "me" has become

independent of thought. That "me" has a name, a form. It has a

label called X or Y or John. It identifies with the body, with the

face; there is the identification of the "me" with the name and with

the form, which is the structure, and with the ideal which it wants

to pursue. Also with the desire to change the "me" into another

form of "me", with another name. This "me" is the product of time

and of thought. The "me" is the word: remove the word and what is

the "me"?

And that "me" suffers: the "me", as you, suffers. The "me" in

suffering is you. The "me" in its great anxiety is the great anxiety

of you. Therefore you and I are common; that is the basic essence.

Though you may be taller, shorter, have a different temperament,

different character, be cleverer, all that is the peripheral field of

culture; but deep down, basically we are the same. So that "me" is

moving in the stream of greed, in the stream of selfishness, in the

stream of fear, anxiety and so on, which is the same as you in the

stream. Please don't accept what I am saying - see the truth of it.

That is, you are selfish and another is selfish; you are frightened,

another is frightened; you are aching, suffering, with tears, greed,

envy, that is the common lot of all human beings. That is the

stream in which we are living, the stream in which we are caught,

all of us. We are caught in that stream while we are living; please

see that we are caught in this stream as an act of life. This stream is

"selfishness" - let us put it that way - and in this stream we are

living - the stream of "selfishness" - that expression includes all the

descriptions of the "me" which I have just now given. And when

we die the organism dies, but the selfish stream goes on. Just look

at it, consider it.

Suppose I have lived a very selfish life, in self-centred activity,

with my desires, the importance of my desires, ambitions, greed,

envy, the accumulation of property, the accumulation of

knowledge, the accumulation of all kinds of things which I have

gathered - all of which I have termed as "selfishness". And that is

the thing I live in, that is the "me", and that is you also. In our

relationships it is the same. So while living we are together flowing

in the stream of selfishness. This is a fact, not my opinion, not my

conclusion; if you observe you will see it, whether you go to

America, to India, or all over Europe, modified by the

environmental pressures and so on, but basically that is the

movement. And when the body dies that movement goes on... That

stream is time. That is the movement of thought, which has created

suffering, which has created the "me" from which the "me" has

now asserted itself as being independent, dividing itself from you;

but the "me" is the same as you when it suffers. The "me" is the

imagined structure of thought. In itself it has no reality. It is what

thought has made it because thought needs security, certainty, so it

has invested in the "me" all its certainty. And in that there is

suffering. In that movement of selfishness, while we are living we

are being carried in that stream and when we die that stream exists.

Is it possible for that stream to end? Can selfishness, with all its

decorations, with all its subtleties, come totally to an end? And the

ending is the ending of time. Therefore there is a totally different

manifestation after the ending, which is: no selfishness at all.

When there is suffering, is there a "you" and "me"? Or is there

only suffering? I identify myself as the "me" in that suffering,

which is the process of thought. But the actual fact is you suffer

and I suffer, not "I" suffer something independent of you, who are

suffering. So there is only suffering... there is only the factor of

suffering. Do you know what it does when you realize that? Out of

that non-personalised suffering, not identified as the "me" separate

from you, when there is that suffering, out of that comes a

tremendous sense of compassion. The very word "suffering" comes

from the word "passion".

So I have got this problem. As a human being, living, knowing

that I exist in the stream as selfishness, can that stream, can that

movement of time, come totally to an end? Both at the conscious

as well as at the deep level? Do you understand my question, after

describing all this? Now, how will you find out whether you, who

are caught in that stream of selfishness, can completely step out of

it? - which is the ending of time. Death is the ending of time as the

movement of thought if there is the stepping out of that. Can you,

living in this world, with all the beastliness of it, the world that

man has made, that thought has made, the dictatorships, the

totalitarian authority, the destruction of human minds, destruction

of the earth, the animals, everything man touches he destroys,

including his wife or husband. Now can you live in this world

completely without time? - that means no longer caught in that

stream of selfishness.

You see there are many more things involved in this; because

there is such a thing as great mystery. Not the thing invented by

thought, that is not mysterious. The occult is not mysterious, which

everybody is chasing now, that is the fashion. The experiences

which drugs give are not mysterious. There is this thing called

death, and the mystery that lies where there is a possibility of

stepping out of it.

That is, as long as one lives in the world of reality, which we

do, can there be the ending of suffering in that world of reality?

Think about it. Look at it. Don't say yes, or no. If there is no ending

of suffering in the world of reality - which brings order - if there is

no ending of selfishness in the world of reality - it is selfishness

that creates disorder in the world of reality - if there is no ending to

that then you haven't understood, or grasped, the full significance

of ending time. Therefore you have to bring about order in the

world of reality, in the world of relationships, of action, of rational

and irrational thinking, of fear and pleasure. So can one, living in

the world of reality as we are, end selfishness? You know it is a

very complex thing to end selfishness, it isn't just, "I won't think

about myself".... This selfishness in the field of reality is creating

chaos. And you are the world and the world is you. If you change

deeply you affect the whole consciousness of man.

TRUTH AND ACTUALITY PART III CHAPTER

15 QUESTION FROM THE 7TH PUBLIC TALK

SAANEN 27TH JULY, 1975 'THE UNIFYING

FACTOR'

What is the unifying factor in meditation? Because that is one of

the most necessary and urgent things. Politicians are not going to

bring this unity however much they may talk about it. It has taken

them thousands of years just to meet each other. What is that

factor? We are talking about a totally different kind of energy,

which is not the movement of thought with its own energy; and

will that energy, which is not the energy of thought, bring about

this unity? For God's sake, this is your problem, isn't it? Unity

between you and your wife or husband, unity between you and

another. You see, we have tried to bring about this unity; thought

sees the necessity of unity and therefore has created a centre. As

the sun is the centre of this world, holding all things in that light, so

this centre created by thought hopes to bring mankind together.

Great conquerors, great warriors, have tried to do this through

bloodshed. Religions have tried to do it, and have brought about

more division with their cruelty, with their wars, with their torture.

Science has enquired into this. And because science is the

accumulation of knowledge, and the movement of knowledge is

thought, being fragmentary it cannot unify.

Is there an energy which will bring about this unity, this

unification of mankind? We are saying, in meditation this energy

comes about, because in meditation there is no centre. The centre is

created by thought, but something else, totally different, takes

place, which is compassion. That is the unifying factor of mankind.

To be - not to become compassionate, that is again another

deception - but to be compassionate. That can only take place when

there is no centre, the centre being that which has been created by

thought - thought which hopes that by creating a centre it can bring

about unity, like a fragmentary government, like a dictatorship, like

autocracy, afl those are centres hoping to create unity. All those

have failed, and they will inevitably fail. There is only one factor,

and that is this sense of great compassion. And that compassion is

when we understand the full width and depth of suffering. That is

why we talked a great deal about suffering, the suffering not only

of a human being, but the collective suffering of mankind. Don't

understand it verbally or intellectually but somewhere else, in your

heart, feel the thing. And as you are the world and the world is you,

if there is this birth of compassion you will inevitably bring about

unity, you can't help it.

BROCKWOOD PARK 1ST PUBLIC TALK 6TH

SEPTEMBER 1975

As we are going to have only four talks and two discussions we

ought to make it as brief and to the point as possible.

We must all be very concerned with what is going on in the

world: the fact of disintegration, the violence, the brutality, the

wars and dishonesty in high political fields. So in the face of all

this disintegration, what is correct action? What is one to do to

survive in freedom and be totally religious? We are using the word

'religion' not in the orthodox sense at all, which is no religion, but

the meaning of that word being, "gathering together all energy to

find out what is the place of thought and where its limitations are,

and to go beyond it". That is the true significance and the meaning

of that word religion. If you look into a good dictionary you will

find that. And so what is one to do in this disintegrating, corrupt,

immoral world, what is a human being - not the individual because

there is no such thing as the individual - we are human beings, we

are collective, not individual, we are the result of various

influences, collective influences, forces, conditioning and so on. So

as human beings, whether we live in this country, or in America or

in Russia or in India, which is going through terrible times, what is

one to do? What is the correct, right action? To find this out, if one

is at all serious and I hope we are serious here, otherwise you

wouldn't have come, what is one to do? Is there an action that is

total, whole, not fragmented, that is both correct, accurate, that is

compassionate, religious in the sense we are using that word,

which has nothing whatsoever to do with belief, dogma, rituals,

conditioning of a certain type of religious enquiry, what is a human

being confronted with this problem to do?

To find an answer, not imaginary, fictitious or pretended, to find

the true, the right answer one must enquire into the question of

what is the whole movement of thought. Because all our

conditioning, all our activity, all our religions, all our political,

economic, social, moral life is based on thought. I hope we are

meeting each other in this problem. Thought has been our chief

instrument in all the fields of life, in all the areas, religious, nonreligious,

political, economic, social, moral and personal

relationships. I think that is fairly obvious. Please, if I may point

out, we are talking this thing over together. We are enquiring into

this together, you are sharing it, your responsibility is to share it,

not just merely listen to a few ideas, agree or disagree, but to share

it, which means you must give attention, you must care for it, this

problem must be serious, this problem must be something that

touches your mind, your heart, everything in life - otherwise there

is no sharing, there is no communion, there is no communication

except verbally or intellectually and that has very little value. So

we are together enquiring into this question.

And what is the responsibility of thought, knowing its

limitations, knowing that whatever it does is within the limited

area, and in that limited area is it possible to have correct, accurate

response and action? At what level does one find for oneself, as a

human being, the right action? If it is imaginary, personal,

according to an idea or a concept, or an ideal, it ceases to be correct

action. I hope we are understanding each other. The ideal, the

conclusion is still the movement of thought as time, as measure.

And thought has created all our problems - in our personal

relationship, economically, socially, morally, religiously, thought

has not found an answer. And we are trying to find out, if we can

this morning, and the next two or three talks, what is a human

being concerned seriously in the face of this enormous problem,

which is very complex, and being committed, responsible, what is

the action that is whole, non-traditional, non-mechanistic, which is

not a conclusion, a prejudice, a belief? That is, I want to find out, if

I am at all serious, how am I to act - in which action there is no

pretension, an action that has no regrets, an action that does not

breed further problems, an action that will be whole, complete and

answer to every issue, whether at the personal level or in the most

complex social level? This is your problem. Unless we solve this

problem very deeply, talking about meditation, what is god, what is

truth and all the rest of it has very little meaning; one must lay the

foundation, otherwise you cannot go very far. One must begin as

close as possible to go very far, and the nearness is you, as a

human being living in this monstrous society, corrupt and all the

rest of it. And one must find for oneself an action that is whole,

non-fragmented, because the world is becoming more and more

dangerous to live in, it is becoming a desert and each one of us has

to be an oasis. And to bring about that, not isolated existence, but a

total human existence, our enquiry is into the problem of action.

Can thought solve our problems - thought being the response of

memory, experience and knowledge? The response of memory.

Memory is a material process. Thought is material and chemical,

and all the scientists agree about this. And the things that thought

has created, if you observe in the world and in ourselves, is the

world of reality, the world of things. Reality means - I won't go

into the root meaning of all that - the word means 'the thing that

exists' - not imagined, not fictitious, something that is actual, real.

Reality means this thing. And to find out what truth is one must be

very clear where the limitations of reality are, and not let it flow

into the world that is not real. I don't know if you are following all

this? May we go on? We are all together in this?

So when one observes in the world and in oneself, thought has

created an extraordinarily complex problem of existence. Thought

has created the centre as the 'me' and the 'you'. And from that

centre we act. Please look at it yourself, observe it, you will see it

for yourself, you are not accepting something the speaker is talking

about, don't accept anything. You know when one begins to doubt

everything, then from that doubt, from that uncertainty grows

certainty, clarity; but if you start with imagination, belief,

conclusions and live within that area you will end up always

doubting. So here we are trying to investigate, enquire, look into

things that are very close to us, which is our daily life, with all its

misery, conflict, pain, suffering, love and anxiety, greed, envy, all

that.

And as we said, thought has created the 'me', and so thought in

itself being fragmentary makes the 'me' into a fragment - right?

When you say I, the 'me', I want, I don't want, I am this, I am not

that, it is the result of thought. And thought itself being

fragmentary - thought is never the whole, so what it has created

becomes fragmentary. My world, my religion, my belief, my

country, my god and yours, so it becomes fragmentary. So thought

intrinsically is a process of time, measure and therefore

fragmentary. I wonder if you see this. If you see this once very

clearly, then we will be able to find out what is action, a correct,

accurate action in which there is no imagination, no pretension,

nothing but the actual. Right.

So we are trying to find out what is action that is whole, that is

not fragmentary, that is not caught in the movement of time, which

is not traditional and therefore mechanical. One wants to live a life

without conflict and yet live in a society that doesn't destroy

freedom and yet survives. As the societies and governments

throughout the world are becoming more and more centralized,

more and more bureaucratic, our freedom is getting less and less.

Freedom is not what one likes to do, what one wants to do, that is

not freedom. Freedom means something entirely different: freedom

from this constant battle, constant anxiety, uncertainty, suffering,

pain, all the things that thought has created in us.

So is there an action which is not based on the mechanical

process of memory, on a repetition of an experience and therefore a

continuing in the movement of time as past, present and future, is

there an action that is not conditioned by environment? You know

the Marxists say that control the environment then you will change

man, and that has been tried, and man has not changed. Man is as

primitive, vulgar, cruel, brutal, violent and all the rest of it, though

they are controlling the environment. And there are those who say,

don't bother about the environment but have a belief in some

divinity and that will guide you. You must know all this. And that

divinity is the projection of thought. So we are back again in the

same field. So realizing all this what is a human being to do?

And can thought, which is material process, which is a chemical

process, therefore a thing, a thing which is real, which has created

all this structure, can that very thought solve our problems? You

understand my question? So one must very carefully, diligently,

find out what are the limitations of thought, and can thought realize

itself its limitation and therefore not spill over into the realm which

thought can never touch? I wonder if you see - right? You

understand my question? Thought has created the technological

world, the house, the bicycle, the aeroplane, and thought has also

created the division between you and me. Thought has also created

the image of you and the 'me', and these images separate each one

of us. Thought can only function in duality, in opposites, and

therefore all reaction is a divisive process, separating process. And

thought has created time, not only division between human beings,

nationalities, religious beliefs, rituals, dogmas, political

differences, opinions, conclusions, all that is the result of thought.

Thought has also created the division between you and me, as form

and name. And thought has also created the centre which is the 'me'

as opposed to you, and therefore there is a division between you

and me. Thought has also created this whole structure of social

behaviour, which is essentially based on tradition, which is

mechanical. Thought has also created the religious world - the

Christian, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Muslim, with all the

divisions, all the practices, all the innumerable gurus that are

springing up like mushrooms. It is awfully serious all this, you

don't know how deadly serious all this is. How they are all

destroying all this.

And thought has created what it considers is love. And is

compassion the result of love, the result of thought? That is our

problem - those are all our problems - the technological world, the

world of relationship between man and woman and so on, in which

the image is the most formidable barrier, and the social behaviour

which has become totally immoral, each one seeking his own

pleasure, his own security, his own existence and denying

everything else. And in the world of religion it has projected the

saviours, the gurus, the gods, all kinds of fantastic imaginary

things, fictitious, unreal. And yet we are trying to solve all these

problems through thought. I wonder if you get it - right?

And can thought see itself as the mischief maker, see itself as a

necessary instrument in the creation of a society which is not

immoral? Can thought be aware of itself? You understand my

question? Please do follow this. Can your thought become

conscious of itself? And if it does, is that consciousness part of

thought? One can be aware of the activities of thought, and one can

choose those activities as good and bad, and worthwhile and not

worthwhile, but the choice is still the result of thought. And

therefore it is perpetuating conflict and duality - right? Can thought

be attentive to its own movements? Or is there an entity outside the

field of thought who directs thought? You are following all this?

You understand? I can say, "I am aware of my thoughts, I know

what I am thinking". But that entity that says, I know what I am

thinking, that 'I' is the product of thought. And that entity then

begins to control, subjugate, or rationalize thinking. So there is an

entity, we say, that is different from thought - but it is essentially

thought. So what we are trying to explain is: thought is

tremendously limited, it plays all kinds of tricks, it imagines, it

creates a super-consciousness - but it is still thought.

So our problem then is: can thought realize for itself where it is

essential to operate, where it is accurate in its operation and totally

limited in every other direction? That means, one has to go into

this question of human consciousness. You know this sounds very

philosophical, very complicated, but it isn't. Philosophy means the

love of truth - not love of words, not love of ideas, not love of

speculations, but the love of truth. And that means you have to find

out for yourself where reality is, and that reality cannot become

truth. You cannot go through reality to come to truth. You must

understand the limitations of reality, which is the whole process of

thought - right? You know when you look into yourself, which is

knowing yourself, knowing your consciousness - why you think,

what your motives are, what your purposes are, what your beliefs

are, what your intentions are, what your pretensions, what your

imaginations are - all that is your consciousness. That

consciousness essentially is the consciousness of the world. Please

do see this. Your consciousness is not radically different from the

consciousness of a Muslim, Hindu, anybody else, because your

consciousness is filled with anxiety, hope, fear, pleasure, suffering,

greed, envy, competition, that is your consciousness. And the

beliefs and your gods, everything is in that consciousness. The

content of that makes consciousness. The content of that is thought

- right? The thought that has filled the consciousness with the

things it has created. Look into yourself and you will see how

extraordinary obvious it is.

And from this content, which is tradition, which is conditioned,

which is the result of thought, we are trying to find a way to act

within that area. Right? Within that area of consciousness which

thought has filled with the things of thought. And one asks: if

thought cannot solve all our problems, human problems, not

technological problems, not mathematical problems, them how can

it go, or how can it limit itself and not enter into the field of the

psyche, into the field of the spirit - we can use that word for the

moment. You see as long as we function within that area we must

always suffer, there must always be disorder, there must always be

fear and anxiety. So my question is: can I, can a human being bring

about order in the world of reality, and when you have established

order, when thought has established order in the world of reality,

then it will realize its own tremendous limitations. I wonder if you

see - right? We live in a world of disorder, not only outwardly but

inwardly. And we have not been able to solve this disorder. We try

everything - meditation, drugs, accepting authority, denying

authority, pursuing freedom and denying freedom - we have done

everything possible to bring about order - through compulsion,

through fear, through various forms of motivations - but still we

live in disorder. And a disordered mind is now trying to find out if

there is a correct action - you follow? A disordered mind is trying

to find out if there is a right, accurate, correct action. And it will

find an action which is incorrect, disorderly, not whole, therefore

in the world of reality in which we live we must bring order. I

wonder if you see this?

Order is not the acceptance of authority. Order is not what one

wants to do. Order is not something according to a blue print -

right? So order must be something highly mathematical, because

the greatest mathematical order is the total denial of disorder,

within oneself and within every human being. Can you look at your

disorder, be aware of it, not choosing particular forms of disorder

and accepting others and denying others, but see the whole

disorder? Disorder implies conflict, self-centred activity, the

acceptance of a conclusion and living according to that conclusion,

the ideal and the pursuit of the ideal which denies the actual, can

you totally deny all that? It is only when you deny totally all that,

that there is order - the order that is not created by thought in the

world of reality. You understand? We are separating the words,

reality and truth. We say reality is everything that thought has

created: and in that area, in that field, there is total disorder, except

in the world of technology. In that field human beings live in

complete disorder, and this disorder is brought about by the things

which we have explained - conflict, the pursuit of pleasure, fear,

suffering, death, all that. Can you become aware of all that and

totally deny it, walk away from it? And out of that comes order in

the world of reality.

So in that world of reality behaviour is something entirely

different. When you have denied all that - you understand what I

am talking about? - when you have denied the 'me', which is the

product of thought, which creates the division, the thought that has

created the 'me' and the super consciousness, all the rest of it - all

the imaginations, the pretensions, the anxieties, the acceptance and

the denial. That is, the content which is so traditional, to deny that

tradition is to have order. Then we can go into the question of what

truth is, not before because then it becomes pretentious,

hypocritical, nonsensical. In that one has to understand the whole

question of fear, how human beings live in fear, and that fear is

now becoming more and more acute, because the world is

becoming so dangerous a place, where tyrannies are increasing,

political tyrannies, bureaucratical tyrannies and therefore denying

freedom for the mind to understand, to enquire.

So can we as human beings, living in this disorderly world and

disintegrating world, become, not in theory or in imagination, but

actually an oasis in a world that is becoming a desert? This is really

a very serious question. And can we human beings educate

ourselves totally differently? And we can do that only if we

understand the nature and the movement of thought as time, which

means really understanding oneself as a human being - to look at

oneself not according to some psychologists, Freudians and

Jungians and all the rest of it, but to look at ourselves actually as

we are, and discover for ourselves how disorderly a life we lead - a

life of uncertainty, a life of pain, living on conclusions, beliefs,

memories - and becoming aware of it and that very awareness

washes away all this.

So perhaps there is no time this morning to go into - perhaps we

will tomorrow morning - into this question of fear which seems to

dominate all our minds, consciously or unconsciously. And that

fear guides our life, not gods, not divinities, not destiny, not

something imagined, but actually this fear of not only physical

survival but also fear of not knowing, fear of not understanding the

whole significance of life, fear in a very, very limited small area of

our self-induced activity. So we can perhaps go into that tomorrow

because that is a very complex problem.

So for this morning can we talk over together by questioning

and enquiring what we have talked about? You understand? Please,

you are asking questions not of me, not of the speaker; we are

asking questions of ourselves, saying it aloud so that we can all

share it because your problem is the problem of everybody else.

Your problem is the problem of the world, you are the world. I

don't think we realize that. You are actually the world, in the very

deepest essence, your manners, your dress, your name and your

form may be different but essentially, deep down you are the

world, you have created the world and the world is you. So if you

ask a question you are asking it for the whole of mankind. I don't

know if you see that. Which doesn't mean that you mustn't ask

questions: on the contrary. Questioning then becomes a very

serious matter, not a glib question and a glib answer, some

momentary question and forget it and pick it up another day. If you

ask, ask something of a really human problem.

Q: Did you say that by walking away from the disorder of

tradition, we create order?

K: Yes, that is what I meant. Now just a minute. That needs a

great deal of explanation. What you mean by tradition; what you

mean by walking away; what you mean by order.

Q: In addition to that question the seeing of this disorder already

implies that the see-er has gone, that you have walked away.

K: That is what I was going to go into. There are three things

involved in this: order, walking away, and the observation of

disorder. Walking away from disorder and the very act of moving

away from it is order.

Now first how do you observe disorder? How do you observe

disorder in yourself? Are you looking at it as an outsider looking

in, as something separate from you and therefore there is a

division, you and the thing which you are observing? Or are you

looking at it, if I may ask, not as an outsider, looking at it without

the outsider, without the observer who says, "I am disorderly"?

Look, let us put it round the other way. When you look at

something, say those trees and the house, there is a space between

you and that tree and that house. The space is the distance and you

must have a certain distance to look, to observe. If you are too

close you don't see the whole thing. So if you are an observer

looking at disorder there is a space between you and that disorder.

Then the problem arises: how to cover that space, how to control

that disorder, how to rationalize this disorder, how to suppress it, or

whatever you do. But if there is no space, you are that disorder. I

wonder if you see that?

Q: How can I walk away from it?

K: One moment, I understand and I am going to show it to you.

I am going to go into that. You understand my question?

One looks at one's wife - if you have a wife or a husband, or a

boy or a girl, nowadays they don't marry. So when you observe

your wife, or your husband, your boy or girl, or your friend, how

do you observe him or her? Watch it please. Go into it, it is so

simple. Do it! How do you observe? Do you observe directly? Or

do you observe that person through an image, through a screen,

through a distance? Obviously, if you have lived with a person, it

doesn't matter if it's for a day or ten years, there is an image, a

distance. You are separate from that, from her or him. And when

you observe disorder you have an image of what order is. Or an

image which says, this disorder is ugly. So you are looking at that

disorder from a distance, which is time, which is traditional, which

is the past. So you are looking at disorder from a distance. Put it

this way: is that distance created by thought, or does this distance

exist actually? When you say, "I am angry" - is anger different

from you? No, so you are anger. So you are disorderly, not you

separate from disorder - right? I think that is clear. Right.

So you are that disorder. Any movement - please follow this -

any movement of thought away from that disorder is still disorder.

No? Because that disorder is created by thought. That disorder is

the result of your self-centred activity, the centre that says, "I am

different from somebody else" and so on and so on and so on. That

is, all that produces disorder. Now can you observe that disorder

without the observer?

Q: Then you will find it in yourself. Then you criticize the

others.

K: No, no. I am not talking about criticizing the others. That has

very little meaning criticizing others

Q: No, what you found in the other.

K: No, madame. The other is me. He may have a red shirt, or a

woman, or a man, or dark coloured or whatever it is, essentially the

other is me - he has his anxieties, his fears, his hopes, his despairs,

his suffering, his pain, his loneliness, his misery, his lack of love

and all the rest of it - that man is me. If that is clear then I am not

criticizing another, I am aware of myself in the other.

Q: That is what I meant.

K: Good.

So can I observe, is there an observation without the past, the

past being the observer? Can you look at me, or look at another

without all the memories, all the chicanery, all the things that go

on, just look? Can you look at your husband, wife and so on,

without a single image? Can you look at another without the whole

past springing up? You do it when it is absolutely a crisis. When

there is a tremendous challenge you do look that way. But we live

such sloppy lives, we are not serious, we don't work.

Q: How can you live permanently at crisis pitch?

K: I'll answer that question sir, after we have finished this.

So the walking away from it, is to be totally involved in that

which you observe. I cannot walk away from my disorder if I know

I am that disorder. But I can walk away from it if I say, that is

different from me. I am already miles away from it. And when I

observe this disorder without all the reactions, the memories, the

things that crop up in one's mind, then in that total observation, that

very total observation is order. I wonder if you see this? Which

means sirs and ladies, whether you have ever looked at anything

totally - whether you have looked at your political leaders, your

religious beliefs, your conclusions, the whole thing upon which we

live, which is thought, whether you have looked at it completely.

And to look at it completely means no division between you and

that at which you look. I can look at the mountain and the beauty

of it, the line of it, the shadows, the depth, and the dignity, and the

marvellous isolation and beauty of it, and it is not a process of

identification. I cannot become the mountain, thank god! Or the

tree. That is a trick of the imagination. But when I observe without

the word, the mountain, there is a perception of that beauty

entirely, and there comes a passion out of that. And can I observe

another, my wife, friend, child, whatever it is, can I observe

totally? That means can I observe without the observer who is the

past? That means observation implies total perception. There is

only perception, not the perceiver. Then there is order. Right.

Q: If there is only perception and no perceiver, what is it that

looks? If I see that I am disorder, what is it that sees it?

K: Now go into it sir. Disorder is a large word, let us look at it.

When you see that you are violent, and that violence is not

different from you, you are that violence, what takes place? Let us

look at it round the other way.

What takes place when you are not the violence? You say

violence is different from me, what happens then? In that there is

division, in that there is trying to control violence, in that there is a

projection of a state of non-violence, the ideal, and conformity to

that ideal, therefore further conflict, and so on. So when there is a

division between the observer and the observed, the sequence of

that is a continuous conflict in different forms and varieties, and

shapes; but when the observer is the observed, that is when the

observer says, "I am violent, the violence is not separate from me",

then there is a totally different kind of activity that goes on: there is

no conflict, there is no rationalization, there is no suppression,

control, there is no non-violence as an ideal: your are that. Then

what takes place? I don't know if you have ever gone into this

question.

Q: Then what is you?

K: There is no you madame.

Q: But you said 'you'.

K: No, madame, that is a way of speaking. Wait a minute. I

understand. Look, please. You see the difference between the

observer and the observed. When there is a difference between the

observer and the observed there must be conflict in various forms

because there is division. When there is a political division, when

there is a national division, there must be conflict, as is going on in

the world. We are all human beings, we call each other Arabs,

Jews or whatever it is, and we are butchering each other. Where

there is division there must be conflict: that is law. And when the

observer is the observed, when violence is not separate from the

observer, then a totally different action takes place. Which is, if

you have gone into it, the word 'violence' is already condemnatory

- right? It is a word we use in order to strengthen violence, though

we may not want it, we strengthen it by using that word. Don't we?

So the naming of that feeling is part of our tradition. If you don't

name it then there is a totally different response. And because you

don't name it, because there is no observer different from the

observed, then that feeling which arises which you call violence, is

non existent. You try it and you will see it. You can only act when

you test it. But mere agreement is not testing it. You have to act

and find out. Right.

The next question was about challenge. Must we always live

with challenge?

Q: I said crisis.

K: Crisis, it is the same thing. Aren't you living in crisis? There

is a political crisis in this country, economic crisis, crisis with your

wife or your husband, crisis means division, doesn't it? Which

means crisis apparently becomes necessary for those people who

live in darkness, who are asleep - no? If you had no crisis you

would all go to sleep. And that is what we want - for god's sake

leave me alone, to wallow in my own pond, or whatever it is. So

crisis comes all the time.

Now a much deeper question to all that is: is it possible to live

without a single crisis and keep totally awake? You understand?

Crisis, challenge, shocks, disturbance exist when the mind gets

sluggish, traditional, repetitive, unclear. Can the mind become

completely clear, and therefore to such a mind there is no

challenge? Is that possible?

That means - we have to go much deeper still - which means we

live on experiences, to change our minds, to further our minds, to

enlarge our minds, experiences we think will open the door to

clarity. And a man that has no experience, we think he is asleep or

dull or stupid. A man that has no experience but is fully awake is

an innocent mind, therefore he sees clearly. Now is that possible?

Don't say yes or no.

Q: When you say he has no experience, do you mean in the

sense that he is ignorant of basic life?

K: Sir, look: we are conditioned by the society in which we live,

by the food we eat, clothes, climate. We are conditioned by the

culture in which we live, by the literature, by the newspapers, by

everything our minds are shaped, consciously, or unconsciously.

When you call yourself a Christian, or a Buddhist, or whatever it

is, that is your conditioning. And we move from one conditioning

to another conditioning. I don't like Hinduism, I jump into

Christianity, or into something else. If I don't like one guru, I just

follow another guru. So we are conditioned. Is it possible to

uncondition the mind so that it is totally free? That means is it

possible to be aware of your total conditioning - not choose which

conditionings you like, but total conditioning, which is only

possible when there is no choice and when there is no observer. To

see the whole of that conditioning, which is at both the conscious

level as well as at the unconscious level, the totality of it. And you

can see the totality of something only when there is no distance

between you and that - the distance created as movement of

thought, time. Then you see the whole of it. And when there is a

perception of the whole then the unconditioning comes into being.

But we don't want to work at that kind of thing. We want the

easiest way of everything. That is why we like gurus. The priests,

the politicians, the authority, the specialist, they know, I don't

know, they will tell me what to do, which is our traditional

acceptance of authority.

Q: A question about true action. Actually as we are, every

action is a self-centred activity. So when you see that, you are

afraid to act because everything has no significance. That is a

reality, not a choice or an imagination. You are facing a terrible

void and you...

K: No, wait. I understand the question sir.

Q: Even material activity.

K: When there is an observation and you see you can't do

anything, then you say there is a void. Just hold on to that sentence,

to that phrase. When there is an observation, you realize you can't

do anything and therefore there is a void. Is that so? When I see

that I have been able to do something before there was no void.

You understand? I could do something about this, join the Liberal

Party, or whatever it is, or become a neurotic whatever it is. Sorry!

Before I could do something, and I thought by doing something

there was no void, because that void I had filled by doing

something, which is running away from that void, that loneliness,

that extraordinary sense of isolation. And now when I see the

falseness of that, this doing, doing about something which doesn't

give a significance or answer, then I say to myself, "I observe and I

am the observer and I am left naked, stark naked, void. I can't do

anything. There is no significance to existence." Yes sir. Before

you gave significance to existence, which is the significance

created by thought, by all kinds of imaginations, hopes and all the

rest of it, and suddenly you realize that thought doesn't solve the

problems and you see no meaning in life, no significance. So you

want to give significance to life - you understand? You want to

give it. Life itself has no significance but you follow? Living itself

has no meaning for most of us now. When we are young we say

"Well at least I'll be happy" sex and you know, all the rest of it. As

we grow older we say, "My god, it is such an empty life", and you

fill that emptiness with literature, with knowledge, with beliefs,

dogmas, rituals, opinions, judgements and you think that has

tremendous significance. And you have filled it with words,

nothing else but words. Now when you strip yourself of words you

say, "My god, I am empty, void".

Q: It is words.

K: Still words, that is what I am saying. Still words. So when

you see that thought has created what you considered significant,

now when you see the limitations of thought, and what it has

created has no significance, you are left empty, void, naked - why?

Aren't you still seeking something? Isn't thought still in operation?

When you say, "I have no significance, there is no significance to

life", it is thought that has made you say there is no significance

because you want significance. But when there is no movement of

thought life if full of significance. There is tremendous beauty.

You don't know anything of this.

Q: Thought is afraid not to think.

K: So thought is afraid not to think. So we will go into that

tomorrow. The whole problem of thought creating fear and trying

to give significance to life. If one actually examined one's life,

there is very little meaning, isn't there? You have pleasant

memories, or unpleasant memories, which is in the past, dead,

gone, but you hold on to them. There is all this fear of death. You

have worked and worked and worked - god knows why - and there

is that thing waiting for you. And you say, "Is that all?"

So we have to go into this question of the movement of thought

as time and measure. Right sirs.

(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 - 3

��

Comments

0 responses to "Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 3"

Hindu Vedic Philosophy (The Paramardha Tattwam)

Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 3

Comments

Post a Comment

About Me

Followers

map

Blog Archive

visitors

visitors

About Me

Labels

Blog Archive