TRUTH AND ACTUALITY
by
Jiddu Krishnamurti
What is will? I will do this. I won't do that. I must and must not.
What is this will, which plays such a tremendous part in our life?
Please go into it with me, not accepting what the speaker is saying,
find our for yourself in heaven's name what will is, because that
plays such an extraordinary part in our life. I must give up
smoking. I must not do this, and so on. What is that will? It is a
movement, isn't it? Obviously. A movement in a direction, in a
particular direction, either the negative direction, or the positive
direction, but it is a direction. Please listen carefully. When there is
a direction there is time involved. I am here and I must be there. I
am angry, I must get rid of anger. So will is a movement in time -
right? Please. And what is the essence of that will? What brings
about, or what generates that will? You understand my question?
As long as you have a directive, an end, you must have a will. So
what is the nature and the structure of will? When you say, "I will
do that" - what is that? And when you say, "I will not do that", or
mustn't do that, the movement, what is it that takes place? Is it
opposing desires, the desire that says, "I will", and the desire that
says, "I will not"? So desire, desire strengthened, concentrated, is
will. Right? Opposing, or completely unified.
So what is desire? Please listen. You understand? We are used
to being conditioned to exercise will. You smoke, begin to smoke
gradually, it comes into a habit and you find it is necessary to give
up that habit and you say, "I must fight it. I must get rid of it" - for
various biological, emotional, or psychological reasons. So will is
the essence of desire. And what is desire? We are examining this
because we are trying to find out why human beings don't change
after millenia. You understand? Why live in this miserable way?
We said we have got plenty of energy. Now we are asking: is it
the lack of will? And we are examining the nature of will, the
structure of it, how it is formed, how it comes into being. So we
said desire is the essence of will. So what is desire? Please examine
through my words, the speaker's words, the issue in yourself.
Desire is sensation, plus thought, plus the image which thought
creates. You understand? Sensation, seeing something, then the
thought taking over the observation, then thought creating the
image. Sensation, plus thought, plus the image - right? That is
desire. From that all our activity of will takes place.
So the question is: as long as there is a will there is a directive
and therefore movement towards that direction, positive or
negative. And that is the pattern which you are used to. Having
sensations, thought, and thought plus sensation creating the image,
the image that I must be that, the image that I must not be that -
you follow? All that is will. And we have exercised that will
endlessly. The Socialists, the Communists, the religious people, the
non-religious people, this movement is all the time going on. That
is our conditioning. Which is: in the psychological field this
movement of desire plus thought and image is constant. And as
long as that mechanistic process goes on there cannot be change,
there cannot be psychological, deep revolution. So how can this
movement come to an end? You understand my question? I wonder
if you understand all this? Is this becoming a bit difficult? You
understand?
I am a human being, I have lived in the pattern of agony,
suppression, quarrels, violence, bitterness, and an occasional
feeling of tenderness, an occasional sense of something which I
dreamt of, or I feel immense, all that, I have lived like that, as a
human being. And I say to myself, "Why am I living this way? I
know I will die. There is always death, but I live during that fifty,
twenty, thirty, eighty years in a squalid pigsty way - why?" Is it a
lack of - I won't come to that yet. Is it lack of energy? I see I have
got plenty of energy when I want to do something. Is it lack of
will? And I begin to examine the will, the whole nature of will.
And that is my habit, conditioning. Now I am questioning if I can
break that habit, if that habit can be broken? That is, not to operate
on will at all. You understand? Will only comes into being - please
listen - comes into being when sensation, which is natural, which is
acceptable, which is normal, sane, when that sensation is taken
over by thought and that thought creates the image. So is it
possible to be completely, wholly with sensation and no
interference of thought?
You understand what I am saying? You see a beautiful house, a
beautiful woman, a nice man, see the hills and the glory of the
earth, when you observe there is tremendous sensation if you are at
all watching. And then thought comes along and says, "Yes, how
marvellous", from that begins the image-making, the picturemaking,
the imagination. Now is it possible to have this complete
sensation, which is normal, healthy, sane, and not let thought seep
in? You understand? When thought seeps in you have the
projection of tomorrow. I don't know if you see that? You see
something extraordinarily beautiful, and all your senses are awake,
then thought comes along and says, "I must have it tomorrow",
which is the image-making, the pleasure - you follow? - the delight
of something beautiful, thought has taken over, created an image
and therefore there is tomorrow - you understand? So the tomorrow
is the process of time, which is thought. So in the psyche there is
only sensation, no tomorrow. I wonder if you see this? This is a
little bit complex, is it? I see some people are not - let me explain it
more.
We live in the hope of tomorrow - right? Tomorrow to us is
tremendously important, as yesterday, the images of yesterday, all
that is as important, the past, as tomorrow. So we live in the past
and tomorrow becomes tremendously significant. So
psychologically we are saying: what is tomorrow? There is
tomorrow which is Friday, we have to do certain things, but
psychologically we are asking what is tomorrow? Tomorrow is a
directive. Please do see the beauty of this. Tomorrow is a directive,
the end, the goal; and so tomorrow psychologically assumes a great
significance. And psychologically, inwardly, the tomorrow is the
movement of thought in time, the movement of thought as a
material process in time. Tomorrow is a measurement - right?
Where there is a measurement there must be illusion. Oh, come on!
I am afraid you don't see all this.
Look: measurement means comparing, doesn't it? I am not so
beautiful as you are. I am not so intelligent as you are. Right? I
want to be as intelligent as you are, which is measurement,
comparison is measurement. So thought is a process of
comparison, so thought is measurement. Which is: the directive
from 'what is' to 'what should be' - right? Now is there such a thing
as tomorrow in the psychological world? If I live with tomorrow
then it is a mechanistic process - right? Because thought has
created tomorrow psychologically. That may be an illusion
altogether. So I must, as a human being I must find out, because
that is the pattern, that is conditioning, that is the accepted norm of
existence, which may be totally absurd. Because I am concerned as
a human being with the radical transformation, and we are
examining the will, the will in action. And will in action means
tomorrow, the directive. And is there such a thing as tomorrow,
psychologically, apart from biologically, physically? I need time,
tomorrow, if I need to learn a language, if I have to learn to drive a
car and so on and so on. So is there a tomorrow? There is no
tomorrow when there is only sensation, and no image and no
thought. I wonder if you capture it? Do you get it? You see people,
specially so-called religious people, the monks throughout the
world, have said, "Sensation is totally wrong, control it, because
sensation leads to desire, and desire means the woman or the man.
God cannot accept a man who has desire" - you know, you have
heard all this stuff put in different words. "Therefore suppress
desire, therefore control all your sensations, because if you don't
you are in the devil's hands."
So we are saying something quite opposite. Which is: sensation
is natural, sensation must exist, does exist, it is a fact, If you don't
have your sensations fully alert you are paralysed. You may be
paralysed because we have learned the art of suppression. So there
are all your sensations. When the sensations meet the movement of
thought then there is tomorrow, because thought is a fragment.
Thought is a fragment because it is based on yesterday's memory.
Thought is never whole. So sensation totally is whole, therefore
there is no tomorrow. Do you understand all this? No, don't agree
with me. Please do it. See what happens when you do look at those
hills, at anything. Look at it with all your senses fully awakened.
Senses, not only your brain, your mind, because mind is part of the
sensations, with all your sensations. Then you will see thought
comes along and the image making begins, and tomorrow will
happen. But when there is only complete sensation, without the
movement of thought, there is only now, no tomorrow. Oh, I
wonder if you see this?
So is it because we have no energy that we don't change? And
we see that we have got energy, whenever we want to do
something we break everything to do it. And is it the lack of will?
We see the mischief of will. So there is an action which is born, not
out of will, but out of the perception of this movement of will. You
understand? So there is an action which is not born from an image,
which is fragmentary, but an action born out of total awareness,
which is total sense of sensation. Please, this is very important all
this. Don't misunderstand - if you misunderstand it is not my fault.
Then if it is not the lack of energy, then will has no place, then
why is it that human beings haven't changed? Is it that they are
always thinking of reward and punishment, which is the motive for
our operation? We are brought up from childhood on that basis,
reward if you are good, punished if you are not. Reward if you
struggle, climb the ladder you are rewarded, you become the
President, or god knows what else, or the Bishop. So our
conditioning is based on reward and punishment, which is the
motive. A motive based on reward and punishment. Motive means
a movement. The word itself means a movement. You see what is
implied? The moment you have a motive the movement is time. So
you say, "I will take time to change." If it is not reward or
punishment, then it is "I am going to heaven" or whatever, reward.
So where there is a motive there is a direction, and that direction is
set by thought, and so tomorrow. So as long as there is a motive all
action is incomplete, isn't it? If I love you because you give me
food, this, that, and the comfort and all the rest of it, it is my
motive, it isn't love.
So is there an action without motive? You understand my
question? The moment I have a motive as a human being, whatever
I do is partial, fragmentary, which will bring about regret, pain,
suffering and all the rest of it. So I am asking as a human being: is
there an action without a motive? Don't translate it into saying
love, because that word is so abused, so heavily laden, don't bring
in that word, we will discuss it another time. So is there an action
in which there is no tomorrow, no will, only total energy? When
you have total energy you have total action. You understand? I
wonder if you get this?
Look: we are fragmented human beings. We go to the office, or
the factory, or garden and that is a field by itself. And our family is
a field by itself. My ambitions, my desires is another
fragmentation. So we live in fragments - right? That is a fact. And
so any action born of that fragmentation must be inevitably
incomplete, and therefore always destructive, frightening,
regretting, in sorrow and all the rest of it. So I say as a human
being: is there an action in which all this doesn't exist? You
understand? You must ask that question. You are not asking it. I
am asking it. If you ask it, not superficially because this is a
tremendous thing this, to discover, you will find as a human being,
a human being who represents the whole world of humanity, you
will find there is an action which is not of tomorrow, the ideal, the
directive, but an action that springs from that total energy which is
total sensation.
So then for what reason further is it that human beings have not
changed? You understand? We said it is lack of energy - is it lack
of energy? Is it will? Is it incomplete action, with which you are
familiar? And is there another thing that is impeding why human
beings don't fundamentally change? Is there another? Of course
there are many others. We will take the fundamental things, not
superficial fragmentary things; energy, will, complete action and is
it that in all of us there is a longing for something other than 'what
is'? You understand my question? A longing of something beyond
all this mess, a happiness, a deliverance, something that thought
has never touched - you understand? Something eternal, nameless -
it doesn't matter what name you give it. Is that one of the reasons
that we don't change? You understand my question? I live a
miserable, sordid life. And I see it round me, everybody more or
less the same pattern, and my parents, grandparents, past, past, past
parents, have lived the same way. And I feel I cannot escape from
this. I feel that I am chained, bound. And I want something beyond
all this. And that may be one of the reasons I don't change. It is
very important.
Questioner: (In Italian.)
K: One moment. You understand? The priests throughout the
world, the Christian, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Tibetan priests,
always said there is a promise of something greater. Do this and
you will go to heaven, and if you don't you will go to hell. Which
is interpreted in the Hindu in a different way, and so on and so on,
which is irrelevant. So our minds are conditioned heavily by
something other than 'what is'. The other is the promised land, the
never-never land, the heaven, the enlightenment, the nirvana, the
moksha of the Hindus. Because I don't know what to do with this,
the 'what is', and my whole longing is that.
Put it in different ways: it may be the Communists may want
perfect a State, perfect environment, it is the same problem - you
understand? It is the same issue only put in different words - the
tomorrow. So that may be - I am asking - one of the fundamental
reasons why human beings don't change, because they have this -
the perfect highest principle, called in India Brahman, Nirvana by
the Buddhists, heaven by the Christians and so on and so on. That
may be one of the fundamental reasons why human beings don't
change. The perfect ideal, the perfect man or woman. Which
means the 'what is' is not important but that is important. The
perfect ideal is important, the perfect state is important, the
nameless is important. So don't bother with 'what is', don't look at
'what is', but translate 'what is' in terms of 'what should be'. You
understand all this? I hope I am getting at you. So we have created
a duality: the 'what should be' and 'what is'. And we are saying that
may be one of the greatest reasons why human beings don't
change.
When there is this division between 'what is' and 'what should
be', the highest, then there is conflict - right? The Arab and the
Jew, division. Wherever there is a division there must be conflict,
that is a law. So we have been conditioned in this division, to
accept this division, to live in this division, the 'what is' and 'what
should be'. The 'what should be' has been brought about because I
don't know how to deal with 'what is'. Or the 'what should be' is a
lever - you understand? - to get rid of 'what is'. So it is a conflict.
So why has the mind created the 'what should be'? You understand
my question and not be concerned totally with 'what is'? Why has
the mind done this? Why has thought done this?
Thought, if it is at all aware, knows it has created 'what is', and
thought says, "This is a fragment, this is transitory. That is
permanent" - you understand? This 'what is' is transitory and
thought has created the highest principle which it thinks is
permanent - thought thinks that. This is impermanent, that is
permanent. Both the creation of thought. Right? God, saviour - all
created by thought, the 'what should be'.
So thought has created this division, and then thought says, "I
cannot solve this, but I am going to approach that" - when you see
the truth of this, that doesn't exist. Only this remains. I wonder if
you see this? Right? Do you see this? Thought has created the
perfect ideal, the perfect State, the perfect Nirvana, the perfect
Moksha, the perfect Heaven, thought has created it, because it does
not know what to do with this, with 'what is', with my sorrow, with
my agony, with my impenetrable ignorance. So thought has created
this division. Do you see the truth of it? - not the verbal agreement,
not the acceptance, the logical acceptance of this, but the truth of
it? Then if you see the truth of it that doesn't exist, the ideal, the
perfect, that doesn't exist. Because you know nothing about it, it is
merely a projection of thought. So you have the energy then to deal
with 'what is', instead of losing that energy in there, you have the
energy to deal with what is happening. You see the difference? Oh,
for god's sake! Do you see it? So you have this energy to deal with
'what is'. Then you have to learn how to look at 'what is' - you
understand?
To observe 'what is'. Therefore you have no longer the duality
of 'what should not be', only 'what is'. You are beginning to see the
implications of it? When there is no 'what should be', the highest
principle, you have only this. This is a fact. That is not fact. So we
can deal with facts. When there is no duality there is only one
thing, say for instance, violence. There is only violence, not nonviolence.
Right? The non-violence is 'what should be'. So when
you see the truth of it there is only violence - right? Now you have
the energy to deal with that violence.
What is violence? Go into it with me for a moment. Violence:
anger, competition, comparison, imitation - imitation being I am
this, I must be that. So violence psychologically is comparison,
imitation, various forms of conformity, essentially comparison - I
am this, I must be that - that is violence. Not just throwing bombs,
physical violence, that is something quite different. That is brought
about by our rotten society, immoral society, we won't go into that.
So there is only violence, this thing. What is important there?
What is the nature of it - you understand? We have described, more
or less, what is violence. You may not agree with the description,
but you know what we mean by violence; jealousy, anger, hatred,
annoyance, arrogance, vanity, all part of that structure of violence.
That violence comes with the picture, with the image I have, that is
part of my image. Now can the mind be free of the image? You
understand? As long as there is an image, a picture, I must be
violent. The picture is formed through sensation, plus thought and
the image - you are following this? So a human being realizes that
as long as there is this image created through sensation plus
thought, as long as that image, which is me, exists I must be
violent. Violence means me and you, we and they. You know. So
violence is there as long as this image exists. And that image is
sensation plus thought. So there is no image if there is only
complete sensation. So we can deal then with 'what is' - you
understand? I wonder if you understand this?
Look: I am angry, or I hate somebody - I don't but we will take
that as an example. I hate somebody because he has done
something ugly, hurt me and all the rest of it. My instinctual
response, being a fairly intelligent, fairly normal human being, is to
say, "I mustn't hate him, it is bad." I now have two images: I hate,
and I mustn't hate. Two images. So there is a battle between these
two images. One says, control, suppress, change, don't yield, yield
- you follow? - that goes on all the time as long as two images
exist. And I know the images are formed through - I have realized
this very deeply - through sensation plus thought. That is a fact. I
have realized that. So I put away non-hate - you understand? I have
only this feeling of annoyance, anger, hatred. What is that feeling,
created through the image, by some action of another - right? You
have done something to the image, which is me. And that image is
hurt, and from reaction of that hurt is anger. And if I have no
image, thought, sensation, if I have no image you don't touch me -
you understand? There is no wounding, there is no hate, which is
'what is'. Now I know, I am aware of what to do with the 'what is'.
You understand? Have you got something of this?
So I have found human beings don't change because they are
wasting their energy; don't change because they are exercising their
right of will, which they think is extraordinarily noble, which is
called freedom of choice; and also they don't know what to do with
'what is' and therefore project 'what should be', and also maybe
because that, the nirvana, the moksha, the heaven, is far more
important than the 'what is' - you follow? These are the blocks that
human beings don't change, why they don't radically transform
themselves. If you have understood this deeply, you understand,
with your blood, with your heart, with all your senses, then you
will see that there is an extraordinary transformation without the
least effort.
Q: There is also a lack of will - pathological. I wish to know if
effort of will has a place in life.
K: Has will a place in life.
Would you give me two minutes rest?
Has will a place in life. What do you mean by life? What do we
mean by life? Going to the office everyday, 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? Right? All that is
life, both the conscious as well as the hidden. The conscious which
we know, more or less. And then 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 avoidance of 'what is'. The fear of death, fear of living, fear of
relationship, all that. What place has will in all that? That is the
question.
I say it has no place. Don't accept what I am saying please. 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 the image. And that is what has brought about
such havoc in the world. Is there a way of living in this without the
action of will? That is the gentleman's question.
I know this, as a human being I am fully aware of what is
exactly going on within my consciousness' the confusion, the
disorder, the chaos, the battle, the seeking for power, position,
safety, security, prominence, all that business; 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 - please listen carefully - can I live in
this without will? Biologically, physiologically I have to exercise a
certain form of energy to learn a language, to do this and that.
There must be a certain drive here. I see all this. And I realize, not
as a verbal realization, as a description, but the actual fact of it, as
factual as a pain in the leg. I realize it and I say this is the product
of thought as desire and will. Can I, as a human being, look at all
this, transform this without will?
So what becomes important is what kind of observation is
necessary. You understand? Observation, to see actually 'what is'.
Is the mind capable of seeing actually 'what is'? Or does it always
translate the 'what should be', the 'what should not be', I must
suppress, I must not suppress, and all the rest of it? Right? So 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 my prejudice, from
my information, from what I have learned, to look without the idea
- you understand? Just a minute I haven't finished. To look without
the idea. As we said the other day, the word 'idea' comes from
Greek, which means to observe - not the meaning we have made of
it. 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.
So there must be freedom to observe, and in that freedom will is
not necessary, there is just freedom to look. Which is - may I put it
differently - if one makes a statement can you listen to it without
making it into an abstraction? Do you understand my question? I
make a statement, the speaker makes a statement as, the ending of
sorrow is the beginning of wisdom. The speaker says that. 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 to
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 that chaos. Got it?
SAANEN 7TH PUBLIC TALK 25TH JULY 1976.
This is the last talk: there will be dialogues starting on Wednesday
for five days.
We have been talking over together for the past six gatherings,
so many human psychological problems, and I would like this
morning, if I may, to talk about something that I think is quite
important. The word meditation has been so misunderstood, at
least I think so, both in the east and in the west. The word itself
means to think over, to ponder over, to enquire into, and not all the
things that we have made of it. It is a very complex problem, as all
human problems are, and meditation has very little meaning if you
have not laid the right foundation for meditation. The very laying
of the foundation, which is righteous behaviour, to be free from
fear and so on, in the very laying of that foundation is meditation.
Meditation isn't something away, isolated from daily activity, it is
all-inclusive. I think this must be understood right from the
beginning. It is not something that you do for 20 minutes in a
morning or afternoon and at night and then forget all about it and
then carry on your daily mischievous life. When meditation takes
place it is something extraordinary and we must investigate it
together, we are going into it together, sharing it together.
I am not telling you how to meditate - that is too silly, that is too
infantile. Because one of the first things is that one must be free, to
be completely a light to oneself - you understand? A light to
oneself. And this light cannot be given by another, nor can you
light it at the candle of another. If you light it at the candle of
another it is just a candle, it can be blown out. But whereas if we
could find out what it means to be a light to oneself then that very
investigation of it is part of meditation.
So we are going together to investigate first what it means to be
a light to oneself, and see how extraordinarily important it is to
have this light. We are so accustomed, and our conditioning is, to
accept authority. The authority of the priest, the authority of a
book, the authority of a guru, the authority of someone who says he
knows, and so on. In all spiritual matters, if one may use that word
'spiritual', in all those matters there must be and there should be no
authority whatsoever, because otherwise you can't be free, you
can't be free to investigate, to find out for yourself what meditation
means. So if you are really deeply interested in this question,
because this question of meditation, not how to meditate, that is
again too childish, but the movement of meditation, the act of
meditation, the flow of meditation, to discover what it means,
authority, that is to find out from another, what and how to
meditate, is one of the questions of authority. Where there is
authority there can be no freedom, either in the tyrannical world of
dictatorship, the totalitarian state - there is no freedom; in the same
way if there is no freedom from authority, that is, the word
'authority' means one who originates something, the author, the
word comes from the word author, the one who begins something,
originates something, and the rest of the people follow it, make it
into an authority and then it is dead. So one must be very careful if
you really want to go into this question of meditation, to be
completely, wholly, inwardly free from all authority, from all
comparison. I don't know if you can do it. Including that of the
speaker - especially that of the speaker, that is me, because if you
follow what he says it is finished. Therefore one must be extremely
aware of the importance of authority in one direction, that is the
doctor, the scientist, the man who - and all the rest of it; and
understand the total unimportance of authority inwardly. Whether
it is the authority of another, which is fairly easy to throw off, or
whether it is the authority of your own experience, knowledge,
conclusion, which becomes your authority, which then becomes
your prejudice. So one must be equally free from the authority of
another and also one must be free from conclusions, which become
one's own authority, from one's own experience. We shall go into
that word 'experience' presently. From one's own understanding, "I
understand therefore I am right". All those are forms of authority.
You understand how difficult this is going to be if you really want
to go into this extraordinary complex question; otherwise you can
never be a light to yourself. When you are a light to yourself you
are a light to the world, because the world is you, and you are the
world. I wonder if you see that?
So that is the first thing to understand: that there is no one to
guide you, no one to tell you that you are progressing, no one to
tell you that or to encourage you. You have to stand completely
alone in meditation. You understand what it means? And this light
to yourself can only come when you understand, or investigate into
yourself what you are. That is self-awareness, to know what you
are - not according to psychologists, not according to some
philosophers, not according to the speaker, but to know, to be
aware of your own nature, of your own structure, of your own
thinking, feeling, find out the whole structure of it. Therefore selfknowing
becomes extraordinarily important. Not the description
given by another, but actually 'what is', what you are, not what you
think you are, or what you think you should be, but what actually is
going on. Do you know how difficult that is? Have you ever tried
it? To be aware actually of what is taking place, inside, inside the
skin as it were, because we observe through the knowledge of the
past - right? So what you have acquired as an experience, or what
you have gathered from another, with that knowledge you
examine, therefore you are examining yourself from the
background of the past, therefore you are not actually observing
'what is'. So there must be freedom to observe. And then in that
observation the whole structure and the nature of oneself begins to
unroll. You are following all this? Please give for this morning at
least an hour's attention. Because very few people will tell you all
this because they have self-interest, they want to form
organizations, groups - you follow, the whole structure of that
business. So please, if you don't mind, give your complete attention
to what is being said.
So to understand oneself there must be observation, and that
observation can only take place now. And the now is not the
movement of the past which observes the now. You see the
difference? I can observe the now from the past, from my past
conclusions, prejudices, hopes, fears and all the rest of it. Which is
an observation from the past of the present, and I think I am
observing the now. But the observation of the now can only take
place when there is no observer who is the past. You understand
this? So observation of the now becomes extraordinarily important.
Which, as we said the other day, the movement of the past,
meeting the present must end there, that is the now, But if you
allow it to go on then the now becomes the future, or the past, but
never the actual now. I hope you understand all this.
So observation can only take place in the now; in the very doing
of it when you are angry, when you are greedy, to observe it as it
is. Which means not to condemn it, not to judge it, but to watch it
and let it flower and disappear. You understand the beauty of it?
Oh, come on! Traditionally we are educated to suppress, or to
move within a certain direction. What we are saying is: to observe
your anger, your greed, your sexual demands, whatever it is, and to
observe without the past so that the anger flowers and disappears,
withers away. And when you do that you will never be angry
again. I don't know if you have ever done these things: do it some
time and you will discover it for yourself. To allow, through
observation, in which there is no choice, just to observe your greed,
your envy, your jealousy, whatever it be, and in the very
observation of it, it is flowering and undergoing a radical change.
The scientists are saying too that when you examine through a
microscope, the very act of the observation of the cell, or whatever
it is, undergoes a change. You understand this? The very
observation without the background brings about a change. You
understand?
So to be aware of oneself without any choice, and to see what is
actually happening in the now, is to allow the whole movement of
the self, the 'me', to flower, and as you observe it undergoes a
radical transformation, if there is no background, if there is no
observer who is the background. You have got this somewhat?
Have you understood it sirs? Go at it!
So in doing that, obviously authority has no place. The man
who says, "I know, I will do this or do that" - that is out,
completely, for ever. So there is no intermediary between your
observation and truth. We are going to find out presently, what
truth is, if it can at all be described. So in doing that one becomes a
light to oneself, so then you don't ask anybody at any time how to
do something. In the very doing, which is the observing, there is
the act, there is the change.
So that is the first thing to learn - because we are learning - the
first thing to learn is, that one has to be a light to oneself. And it is
extraordinarily difficult to resist the tradition that you must be
guided. You understand? That is why gurus from India are
multiplying like ugly mushrooms, all over the world. Sorry but
they are really bringing old tradition and putting it in different
words and offering it. It is the old. In India this has been going on
for thousands of years. I have seen many of the so-called pop
gurus, they have come to see me, and they leave with great respect
but they go on their own way.
So freedom to observe, and therefore no authority of any kind,
is essential.
Then the search for experience, which we all want, must come
to an end. I will show you why. We have every day various kinds
of experiences. We have had sexual experience, experiences of
various kinds through books, through - you know the whole
demand for experience. The word 'experience' means to go
through, to go through and finish, not to record it. The recording of
it becomes a memory, and that memory distorts observation. Say,
for instance, if one is a Christian, you have been conditioned for
two thousand years, in all your ideologies, beliefs, dogmas, rituals,
saviours, and you want to experience that which you call whatever
it is. So you will experience it because that is your conditioning. As
in India they have various gods, hundreds of them, and they are
conditioned to that and they have visions of them, because
according to their conditioning they see. So the demand for
experience, when you are bored with all the physical experiences,
we want some other kind of experience, the spiritual experience,
the greatest demand to find out if there is god, to have visions and
all the rest of it. You will have visions, experiences, according to
your background, obviously, because your mind is conditioned that
way. And to be aware of that, and to see what is implied in
experiences.
What is implied in experiences? There must be an experiencer
to experience. Right? The experiencer is all that he craves for, all
that he has been told, his conditioning. And he wants to experience
something which he calls god, or Nirvana, or whatever it is. So he
will experience it. But the word 'experience' means recognition,
recognition implies that you already know, therefore it is not
something new. So a mind that demands experience is really living
in the past, and therefore can never possibly understand something
totally new, original. So there must be freedom from that urge for
experience. Do you understand? You know this is going to be
tremendously arduous, to go into this kind of meditation, because
we all want rather easy, comfortable, happy, you know, an easy
going life. And so when something difficult, which demands your
attention, your energy, you say, "Well that is not for me, I'll go
another way."
So no authority; no demand for any kind of experience. That
means there is no experiencer - you understand? Are we sharing
this together somewhat? Then to observe your fears, your
pleasures, the sorrows and all the complexities of daily living in
relationship, to observe all that. To observe very carefully. And we
said to observe implies that there is no observer, therefore there is
no question of suppressing, denying, accepting, but merely
observing your fear, because when there is a fear it always distorts
perception. When you are merely pursuing pleasure - again that is a
distorting factor. Or when there is sorrow - again that is a burden.
So the mind which is learning what is meditation must be free of
this, and understand the daily, everyday relationship, which is
much more arduous. Because, as we said, our relationship with
each other is based on our own image of the other and so on. So as
long as there is an image-maker, that image-maker prevents actual
relationship with each other - right? So this is essential before we
can go very deeply into the question of meditation. And that is why
very few people meditate properly, rightly. They just play as an
amusement, something that you add to that which you already
have.
Now when that is carefully well established deeply - which is
part of meditation - then we can proceed to find out whether
thought can be controlled. You understand? Wherever you go
either in India, or in a Zen monastery, or various forms of
meditation, Tibetan, you know they are bringing all the stuff over
from Asia because we are all so gullible, so ready to accept
something you think is new, it is just as old as the hills. You give
up Christianity and take on that burden - you follow? It is the same
old game.
So the question is: whether thought can be controlled. All
systems of meditation, systems being practice, method, day after
day, day after day, they all assert that thought must be controlled,
because thought is the disturbing factor for a still mind. You
understand all this? Are we meeting each other somewhere? Is
there a common ground between us? So thought, they say, must be
absolutely held so that it cannot possibly chatter, go off. Therefore,
they say, in order to control it various systems are necessary: the
Zen system, the Tibetan system, the Buddhist system, and the
various forms of Hindu meditation, which is in essence: control
your thought. Right? I do not know if you have gone into this
question at all. If you have, and if you have read something about
it, or listened to gurus - if you have any gurus and I hope none of
you have gurus, at least you won't at the end of the talk - they all
insist, because I have listened to all of them, they have come and
told me a great deal about it, they asked the speaker to join them -
oh, I won't go into all that rubbish. They all insist that thought must
be controlled and therefore thought must be held. One of the
systems is Mantra yoga - you have heard of that. You know,
Transcendental Meditation. Give it a good name like
transcendental and then you change that into something
marvellous. The word 'mantra', the root meaning of it is a sentence,
a formula, a word that will bring about concentration - you
understand? It can be Coca-cola (Laughter) - don't laugh please,
don't laugh, you are caught in it, that is what I am objecting to, you
are caught in it. It can be that drink, it can be another word, or a
Sanskrit sentence, given to you by your guru for a hundred and
fifty dollars and so on and so on and so on. The idea being to help
to bring about concentration so that your thought is completely
held - you understand?
Now when you look into it, who is the controller? You
understand? You want to control your thought, you see the
importance of controlling your thought, and you say "I will try to
control it", and all the time it slips away. You spend forty years in
controlling - you understand? Every moment it is slipping away.
So you have to enquire: who is the controller? And why is it so
important to make such tremendous efforts to control? Effort - you
follow? Which means conflict between the thought that moves
away and another thought which says, "I must control it", which is
a battle all the time, struggle, conflict. All that goes on. So we must
enquire into who is the controller? You understand? Is not the
controller another thought? Right? So one thought, which assumes
the dominance, says, "I must control the other thought". One
fragment trying to control another fragment. Please see this very
carefully, because if you don't see it what we are going into you
will miss.
That is, thought has divided itself as movement, chattering,
thinking about various things. When you want to look at
something, concentrate, it goes off thinking about your shoes or
something or other. And another thought which says, "I mustn't do
that, I must control it." So both are thought. One assumes the
dominance and tries to suppress the other. See this. See the validity
of what is being said, not because I say it, it is so. That is, thought
says, 'It would be marvellous if I could control the thought which is
wandering, so that I can experience Nirvana.' - or whatever it wants
to experience. So there is a division - please observe it - between
the controller and that which needs to be controlled, and so there is
a conflict between the controller and the controlled. And there are
various systems that will help you to control. One of the systems
is: become very slowly aware of everything you are doing, your
breathing, your posture - oh, it's all too... I can't bear with that kind
of stuff.
So what is important is to find out whether there is only
thinking, not the thinker and the thought, and so the thinker
controlling thought. So there is only thinking - you understand?
Whether you think about boot laces or about god, or about your
wife, or about some future happiness, or whatever it is, it is still
thinking. So we are concerned not with how to control thought, but
with what is the whole process of thinking? Now if one is aware of
all that, then there is only thinking. You understand? Not the
thought which is wandering, and the controller which says, "I must
control it". So there is only thinking. Why should it stop? You
understand? If there is only thinking, why should it stop? So
thinking is a movement, isn't it? Thinking is a movement, a
movement in time, from here to there and so on. Thinking is a
movement as time. Now, can that time come to an end? That is the
question; not how to stop thinking. Have you understood my
question first? We have laid emphasis in meditation, people have,
the gurus and all the rest of that group have laid emphasis on
control. Where there is control there must be effort, there must be
conflict, there must be suppression. And where there is suppression
there are all kinds of neurotic behaviour and so on and so on.
So is it possible - please listen - is it possible to live without any
control? You understand? Which doesn't mean to do what you like,
be completely permissive - you understand? We are asking a much
more serious question, which is: in your daily life, psychologically
can you live without any control whatsoever? You can. We have
done it. Please this is a very, very serious thing because we don't
know a life, in which there is no shadow of control. We all know
only control. So to understand a life without control, one must go
into it very, very deeply. That is, control exists where there is
comparison. I compare myself with you and I want to be like you,
because you are more intelligent, more bright, more spiritual, god
knows what else. So I want to be like you, so I make an effort to be
like you. If there is no comparison whatsoever psychologically,
what takes place? I am what I am. I don't know what I am but I am
that. There is no movement towards something which I think is
more. So what takes place? When there is no comparison what has
taken place? Am I dull because I have compared myself with you,
who are clever, bright, and therefore I have become dull? Or the
very word 'dull' makes me dull? You understand? I wonder if you
understand all this?
You know when you go to a museum you look at various
pictures, and you compare them, Michelangelo - you know various
artists and say "This is better than that" - we are traditionally
trained that way. In the school we say we must be better than 'A',
and you struggle, struggle to be 'A'. And college examinations and
the whole movement of that is comparison, make effort. Now we
are saying that when you understand the movement of
measurement, and when you see the unreality of it,
psychologically, then you have 'what is'. You understand? You
have exactly 'what is'. You can only meet 'what is' when you have
energy. That energy has been dissipated in comparison - right? So
now you have that energy to observe 'what is'. To observe the now
with that energy. Therefore 'what is' now undergoes a radical
transformation.
So thought has divided itself as the controller and the
controlled. But there is only thinking. There is no controller, or the
controlled, but only the act of thinking. Thinking is a movement in
time as measure. And can that naturally, easily, without any
control, come to an end? You understand my question? When I
make an effort to bring it to an end, thinking is still in operation. I
am deceiving myself by saying that the thinker is different from the
thought. So my question is entirely different. Which is: there is
only thinking. The thinker is the thought. There is no thinker if
there is no thought. And therefore can this thinking, which is a
movement in time, come to an end? Which is, can time have a
stop? Now I'll show it to you if you'll go into it.
We said time - please pay attention, if you are tired take a rest
and I will stop too, if you are not tired we will go on - time is the
past. Right? There is no future time. There is future time only when
the past meets the present, modifies it and moves on. So time is a
movement from the past, modified but still moving on. We are
saying that movement must stop. You understand? Which is the
whole movement of knowledge - right? Which is the whole
movement of that which has been known. Unless you are free from
that movement there is no freedom to observe the new - you
understand? So we are saying that movement must stop. Now you
can't stop it by will, which is to control. You can't stop it by desire,
which is part of your sensation, thought, image. And so how is this
movement to come to an end, naturally, easily, happily, so that it
comes to an end, without your knowing?
Have you ever given up something that gives you great pleasure
at the moment, dropped it instantly? Have you ever done it? You
can do it with pain and sorrow, I am not talking of that, because
you want to forget it, put it away. But something that gives you
immense pleasure. Have you ever done it? To drop it instantly
without any effort. Have you? I'll show you. The past is always our
background. We live in the past. He has hurt me, he has told me, I
want this - you follow? - our whole life is spent in the past. The
incident of now is transformed into memory, and memory becomes
the past. So we live in the past. The movement of the past - can
that stop? That is what we are asking. You understand? Now it can
stop only - this is not a trick, this isn't something you repeat and
say, "Yes, I have stopped it", that is too damn silly - it means that
the past, which is a movement, and the now which is nonmovement
- you understand? You have understood this? I have just
discovered something.
The past is the movement, modified through the present, to the
future. That is the movement of time. The past is a movement,
always moving, moving, moving, moving, going forward, meeting
the present and moving. The now is non-movement, because you
don't know what the now is; you only know movement. Right?
When that movement meets the now there is no movement at all -
you understand? Please this is not a verbal communication, it has
to be felt, known deeply, understood. You see the immovable is the
now. The now is the past meeting the present, we said that, do you
remember? - the past meeting the present and ending there. That is
the now. So the movement of the past meets the now, which is
immovable, and stops. You understand? So thought, which is a
movement of the past, meets the present completely, and ends
there. This has to be meditated over, thought over, you go into it.
So the next thing is: the mind, which is not only matter, which
is the brain, which is also sensation, which is also all the things that
thought has put into that mind, which is consciousness, in that
consciousness there are all the various unconscious demands. And
we are asking: can that totality of consciousness be observed as a
whole, not fragment by fragment? Do you understand my
question? Because if we examine fragment by fragment it will be
endless. It is only when there is an observation of the totality there
is an ending to it, or leading to something else. You understand? So
can this totality of consciousness be observed, totally? It can if you
will do it. Which is, when you look at a map, you are looking at it
with the desire to go to a certain place. So there is a direction. So
when you are seeking a direction it is very simple - right? You are
in this town, you want to go to Bern, or Zurich, or Geneva,
whatever it is, and the direction is there. So to observe the whole
map is to have no direction. That is simple. See how simple it is,
for god's sake don't make it complex. So in the same way, to look
at this whole consciousness is to have no direction. Which means
to have no motive, because the moment, when you look into a map
and want to go from here to there you have a motive for going
there, your pleasure, this or that. So your motive gives the
direction. But when you can observe totally anything, yourself or
your consciousness, it is to have no motive and therefore no
direction, then you see the whole, as you see when you look at a
map wholly. Right? Then you don't misplace Germany with Italy,
or Italy where England is. So you look at the whole map when
there is no direction, which means no motive.
So to observe your consciousness wholly there must be no
motive, no direction. And is that possible when you have been
trained to do everything to act with a motive? There is no action
without a motive - that is what we are trained to do, educated for,
all our religions, everything says you must have a motive. But the
moment you have a motive, which is either pleasure or pain,
reward or punishment, that gives you a direction and therefore you
can never see the whole. If you understand that, see that actually
then you have no motive. Not, "How am I to get rid of my
motive?" You understand? You can only see something totally
when there is no direction.
All this is part of meditation, so that there is no centre from
which a direction can take place - you understand? The centre is
the motive. If there is no motive there is no centre, and therefore no
direction. Therefore what then? Then there are all the systems of
yoga - you know what yoga means? Yoga means to join. I think
and I have been told too, it is quite a wrong meaning. It had
originally, as I suspected, something totally different. Which is:
total harmony. Not by doing exercises, breathing, you will get
harmony, but the way of living itself is harmony - you understand?
And you can only do that when you have understood relationship -
you follow?
Are you following all this? So the mind - I must go into
something else here too. In doing all this, in living that way daily,
you have certain powers - you understand? In Sanskrit they are
called siddhis, which is, you become clairvoyant, because your
body becomes astonishingly sensitive, your mind becomes very
clear, you can read other people's thoughts, you have certain
capacities which you have never had before, telepathy, and you
know, all the rest of it. Now we have been through all that. But to
be caught in any of that means you can't go further - you
understand? If you are caught in all that rather childish stuff - and
it is quite childish - if you have a very sensitive body, you
understand, you can almost hear what people are thinking, all that,
and it gives you certain power, certain capacities, but if those
become important then you have lost the whole thing.
And also they are now talking about, unfortunately, these
people who know nothing, they are talking about Kundalini - I
won't go into all that.
So now the mind is prepared. You understand? It is prepared to
observe without any movement. You have got it? Because you
have understood authority, you have understood all the rest of it - I
won't go into all that. It stands completely alone, to be a light to
yourself, therefore no impingement. Therefore the mind is not
registering, the brain, which we went into the other day. So the
mind now is without a single movement - right? Therefore it is
silent; not imposed silence, not cultivated silence, which has no
meaning, but a silence that is not the result of stopping something,
stopping noise. You understand? It is a natural outcome of the
daily living. And the daily living has its beauty. And this beauty is
part of this non-movement. I must talk about beauty.
What is beauty? Is it the description, is it the thing that you see,
the proportions, the heights, the depths, the shadows, a picture by
Michelangelo, or a statue of his? What is beauty? Is it in your eye?
Or it is out there? Or it is not in your eye, or out there? You
understand what I am talking about? We say that is a beautiful
thing, beautiful architecture, marvellous cathedral, and a lovely
painting - it is out there. Or is it in the eye? Because it has been
trained, it has been observing, it is seeing that which is ugly, that is
not proportionate, not having any depth, no style? Is it out there?
Or is it in the eye? Or it has nothing to do with the eye, or with that
outside? I am asking. Beauty is when you are not - right? You
understand? When you look, it is you are looking, you are judging,
you are saying "That is a marvellous proportion", "That is so still,
it has got depth, it has got such grandeur", but it is all you looking,
giving it importance. But when you are not there, that is beauty.
You understand? Oh, you don't. And when that beauty is there, that
expression of it may never take place. You understand? But we
want to express it because that is self-fulfilment. I am an artist, I
am a great - you follow? Therefore beauty may be when you as a
human being with all your travail, your anxieties, pain, sorrow, are
not there, then there is beauty.
So the mind now is still, without a movement. Then you ask -
we are investigating, not investigating because all investigating, all
movement has stopped - then what is there when movement stops?
You understand? Is compassion a movement? One is
compassionate, one goes and does something for another, goes to
some Indian village and helps the people because you are
compassionate - so all that is various forms of sentimentality,
affection and so on, but we are asking something much more
important, which is: when there is no movement then what takes
place, what is there? We are asking is it compassion? Or is it
beyond all that? Which is, is there something that is totally original
and therefore sacred - you understand? Because we don't know
what is sacred. Our images are sacred, whether you go to a church,
a temple or a mosque, our images are sacred, but the images are
put together by thought. So thought is a material process,
movement; so when there is no movement is there something
totally original, totally untouched by humanity, untouched by all
the movement of thought? Therefore that may be that which is
original and therefore most holy. You understand? This is real
meditation. To start from the very beginning not knowing - please
if you start with knowing you end up in doubt. You understand? If
you start with not knowing you end up with absolute truth, which
is certainty. I wonder if you capture this. Because we began by
saying we must investigate into ourselves, and ourselves is the
known, therefore empty the known. So from that emptiness all the
rest of it flows naturally.
So where there is something most holy, which is the whole
movement of meditation, then life has a totally different meaning.
It is never superficial, never. You may have ten suits or a house,
but if you have this nothing matters. Well sirs, that is it.
Questioner: May I ask a question?
K: Yes sir.
Q: Is a motive necessary in business, and if so how does one
choose the right motive?
K: What is the right motive in earning a livelihood. That's right,
sir?
Q: Yes. Is it necessary to have a motive?
K: I'll show you. What is the right motive in earning a
livelihood. Which means: what is the right livelihood, that's right
sir?
What do you think is the right motive in earning a livelihood?
Not what is the most convenient, not what is the most profitable, or
enjoyable, or gainful, but what is the right livelihood? Now how
will you find out - please just listen - what is right? Because you
asked what is the right livelihood. What is right? The word 'right'
means correct, accurate - you understand sir? Accurate. It cannot
be accurate if you do something for profit or pleasure - right?
Accurate, therefore correct, therefore right. Now what is right?
Now just a minute. This is again a very complex thing.
Everything thought has put together is reality - right? The tent has
been put together by thought, it is a reality. The tree has not been
put together by thought, it is a reality. The illusions are reality. The
illusions that one has, the imagination, all that is a reality. And the
action from that illusion is neurotic, which is the reality. So we
must see first, when you ask this question what is the right
livelihood, you must understand what is reality - right? Reality is
not truth - we will go into that a little later, if we have time. So
there is reality. Now what is correct action in this reality? Now
how will you discover what is right in this reality? Discover for
yourself, not to be told, if I tell you go and do this, then you might
regret it and then curse me at the end of it. So we have to find out
what is the accurate, correct, right action, or right livelihood in the
world of reality. Reality includes illusion, don't escape, don't move
away, illusion and the activities of illusion, like belief is an
illusion, and the activities of belief are neurotic, believing in
nations 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?
You understand? Who is going to tell you? Nobody, obviously.
So when you see - please listen sir - when you see reality without
illusion, which is also reality, the very perception of that reality is
your intelligence - right? - in which there is no mixture of reality
and illusion and all the rest of it. So when there is observation of
reality, which is reality of the tree, 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? Right? So your intelligence says what you are going to do. I
wonder if you get this? Do 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, 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.
Now: then what is truth? Reality we said - right? Then what is
truth? Certainly not reality. So there is truth. One has to go into it, I
haven't time now. There is truth. Then what is the link between
reality and truth? You understand? The link is this intelligence.
That 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. Got it?
SAANEN 5TH PUBLIC TALK 22ND JULY 1975.
We talked over together the last time, which was on Sunday, the
whole question of fear. I think we ought to go into the problem of
pleasure, enjoyment and that which is not pleasure, which is joy.
It's really quite a complex problem because it involves a great deal
and to understand this problem, this question, which man has been
pursuing centuries upon centuries - the pursuit of pleasure - we
ought to consider what is freedom with regard to pleasure, what
part does intelligence play with regard to pleasure, and beauty
which incites pleasure.
What is freedom? Many books and theoreticians and so-called
philosophers - the word philosophy means the love of truth, not the
love of words and theories - many philosophers and others have
written a great deal, I believe, about pleasure, and about freedom.
The Communist world denies freedom, all dictatorship,
totalitarianism denies the necessity and the demand of freedom,
they call it a bourgeois idiosyncrasy without any reality. I am using
the word reality in the sense which we have been talking about.
And religious people have said, there is no freedom in this world,
you have to find it in heaven, or withdraw from this world into
some kind of monastic world and seek freedom inwardly - freedom
from everything that one has observed in oneself and in the world
about one. If there is no freedom of expression, of thought, of
speech, then one lives a life of slavery. But that freedom of
expression has led to a great deal of danger, damage, a freedom to
express oneself without investigating totally, completely what is
expression and what is it being expressed, and who is it that is
expressing it - without considering that, merely to demand freedom
of expression does lead to a great deal of mischief and confusion.
And in enquiring into this question of freedom, is that freedom
total, whole or is freedom partial, that is, freedom from something
which is invariably partial? That is: if I want to be free from
something, it is only a reaction which cultivates the opposite. And
the opposite invariably contains its own opposite - so in that there
is no freedom. Are we moving together in this?
In the opposite - whether it is the Communist opposite as an
antithesis - the opposite can never give freedom, because the
opposite has its root in that which has been considered its own
opposite. So in that there is no freedom. So is freedom away from
reality, reality being that which thought has brought about, which
thought has put together, which thought reflects upon, which
thought has created the idea of freedom and then seeks it as
something separate from itself - or is freedom not from something
but from reality? That is to give reality its right place.
As we said the other day, the word 'art' means, to put everything
in its right place, where it belongs. So in enquiring into freedom, is
that freedom totally away from reality, though in reality there must
be a certain order of freedom? If in the world of reality there is no
freedom at all, then we are complete slaves. But when there is
order, that is to put everything where it belongs in the world of
reality, then there is a certain quality of freedom there. But that
freedom is not the total freedom. Right? This is not a theory, this is
not a speculative conclusion, but when one observes the whole
demand of man for freedom, he has always sought freedom in the
world of reality. Please, see that. He has always sought out this
sense of self-expression, choice, identification - always in the
world of reality and there he says: I must have freedom. And that
freedom has created a great deal of confusion, chaos, individual
pursuits and so that freedom, without order in the world of reality,
becomes meaningless. But freedom, that is, total complete
psychological freedom, is not within the field of reality. And in
enquiring into this question of freedom one asks, what is
intelligence? The word 'intelligence' in the dictionary says: to read
between the lines in the printed page and to keep the mind very
alert, but also read between linear expressions. I wonder if you
understand - between two thoughts - and thoughts are always
linear, linear, vertical or horizontal. And intelligence, also the
dictionary says, is to keep a very alert mind. Is that intelligence?
We are asking: what is intelligence? Because in understanding
what is intelligence, we should be able to put pleasure where it
belongs, otherwise the pursuit of pleasure becomes dominant in
life. I wonder if you are meeting this?
(Continued ...)
(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Sri Jiddu Krishnamurti and
gratitude to the great philosophers and followers of him.)
0 responses to "Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 5"