TRUTH AND ACTUALITY
by
Jiddu Krishnamurti
Is intelligence merely to keep a mind extraordinarily awake,
which is necessary, and is it merely to read between two thoughts,
between two lines, between two words, between two symbolic
conclusions? Or does intelligence come about through the orderly
action in the field of reality and that orderly action in the field of
reality gives intelligence to perceive? Am I conveying something
at all or is it altogether Greek or Chinese? There must be freedom
for perception. To see clearly, you must be free. You cannot see
clearly, if you are not able to read between the lines, to have a clear
undistorted mind and therefore there is the act, the total act of
perception and that act of perception is intelligence.
I am investigating as we are going along. Because I see very
clearly that in the world of reality in which we live, we live a very
disorderly life, and to escape from that disorderly life, we resort to
all kinds of absurdities. But if we do not bring about order in the
field of reality, the field of reality being the activity of thought,
seeing its limitation, seeing it cannot possibly go beyond its
limitation however much it may expand, it is still limited and that
thought, which has created a disorder in this world of reality, that
thought itself cannot possibly bring order in that reality. To see all
that is intelligence.
The word 'intelligence' is not merely just a word, it doesn't come
by merely offering opinions or definitions about intelligence. You
can play that game endlessly - but without that quality of
intelligence, which is the act of perception, and the act of
perception is to do what it sees immediately - that is intelligence.
That is: a man who has ideals is unintelligent - forgive me -
because his action is fragmented by what he calls a future
achievement, according to the goal, the ideal and therefore he is
not acting. If a man has a belief and acts according to that belief, it
is not action. But a man who perceives acts instantly, such a man is
an intelligent human being, because he sees the danger and acts.
He sees the falseness and acts. Not: tell me how to act, or, I'll take
time to act. When you see a dangerous animal, you act instantly.
So the action of perception is the movement of intelligence. Have
you got this? Please, don't accept my word or my argument, or my
logic - just see it for yourself. Like a man who has been brought up
in a culture which says: you must be nationalistic or a patriot, fight
and kill etc, etc. If you see that, what it has done in the world, all
the calamities, the misery, the suffering, the brutality of division -
if you see this clearly, you act. Therefore you are no longer held
within the boundaries of a particular country. I wonder if you see
this. So such an action is supreme intelligent action - right?
Then also we must consider what is beauty in relation to
pleasure. We asked what is freedom with regard to pleasure,
because we all say: I must be free to pursue my pleasure. If I am
thwarted, I'll become violent and all the rest of it. And in the
understanding of pleasure, what is the relationship of intelligence
to the pursuit of pleasure? The pursuit is one thing and pleasure is
another. The pursuit of pleasure is the movement of thought in
time. All right? May I go on?
So there must be an understanding, there must be the ordering
of beauty in relation to pleasure. So what is beauty? You know
again this is a very, very subtle question, because we all have
opinions, unfortunately. We say beauty is this, beauty is that or this
is not beautiful, and that is beautiful - and so on - this is ugly, that
is beautiful. We are so entrenched in our own conclusions, in our
own experience, in our own accumulated prejudice which we call
knowledge - and if you could put aside all that, what you think is
beauty, what other people have said about beauty, what you have
experienced and hold that memory and say: as long as beauty
conforms to that experience which I have had as beautiful, that is
not beautiful. So if you could put aside all that, which is quite
arduous - because that is freedom. If I cling to my experience of
beauty and somebody comes along and says: look, that is not
beautiful, I won't give up my beauty, because I have experienced it.
I know, what it means. So if we could liberate ourselves from those
various forms of conclusions, then what is beauty? Is beauty in the
world of reality or is it not within the movement of thought as
time? Please follow this carefully, we are investigating together, I
am not laying down the law. I am not as stupid as that, I have no
opinions about it, I have no conclusions about it, 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, sculptures, 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 it. Those marvellous old sculptures from the
Egyptians, the Greeks and to the modern. That is, is the expression
the creative feeling? Does creation need expression? Please, I am
not saying it does or does not, I am asking, enquiring. Is beauty
both the expression outwardly and the sense of inward feeling of
extraordinary relation which comes when there is complete
cessation of the 'me' with all the movements? I wonder if you
follow this?
So before we begin to enquire what is beauty, we have to go
into this question of what is creation? What is the mind that is
creative? Can the mind that is fragmented - however capable,
whatever its gifts, talents - is such a mind creative? If I live a
fragmented life, pursuing my cravings, my selfishness, my division
as the artist and everything is non-art world, my life, my activity,
my thoughts, my self-centred ambitions, pursuits, my pain, my
struggle - is such a mind - I am asking, please - is such a mind
creative, though it has produced marvellous music, marvellous
literature, built cathedrals and temples and mosques - and poems -
English literature is filled with it, as other kinds of literature. Is a
mind that is not whole, can that be creative? Or creation is only
possible when there is total wholeness and therefore no
fragmentation? A mind that is fragmented is not a beautiful mind
and therefore not creative. I wonder if you get this?
No please, this is not my conclusion. I am not the Delphic
Oracle, I am enquiring with you, we are enquiring together, taking
the journey together into this enormous problem of what is called
beauty. And does such a mind that is whole, whole in the sense -
not fragmented, not contradictory in its action, not contradictory in
its activity, not self-centred, caught in the movement of thought in
time - all that - is such a mind, which always demands expression:
my painting, my work, my picture, my poem, my everything else -
which is identifying the expression with himself as the entity who
expresses - is such a mind creative? Or a mind that has never
known or lives in fragmentation? Fragmentation implies
contradiction and therefore conflict, struggle. And you will say:
that may be marvellous, but we have to live in this fragmented
world, we haven't got that extraordinary feeling of totality - and so
on. There is division then between the artist, the businessman, the
scientist, the writer and you are just as destructive in this division
as anybody else. I wonder if you see this thing, not accept my
feeling about it.
So is beauty the expression of a marvellous building, the outline
of an extraordinary structure? Is beauty the poem - however
romantic, however usual, whatever its content, written by a poet
who himself is ambitious, greedy, wants to have success, sensitive
in one direction and totally insensitive in other directions, is such a
man really creative and can such a man, though he may express the
feeling of what he thinks is beauty in words and which we accept
as beauty, is that really beauty?
So to find out what beauty is - the inward sense of it, not the
expression of it: when you see the mountain which is beautiful, we
don't have to be told that it is beautiful - and when you paint that
mountain and exhibit it, the thing that is painted is not the
mountain. So we have to go very deeply into the question of what
is beauty, because apparently all religions have denied beauty.
Have you ever watched monks in Europe in a monastery - they
may have a lovely old, ancient monastery - but have you watched
them? They are immersed with their own prayers, they are
everlastingly looking at the book, they are caught in a routine and
so on. Once in the mountains in the north of India I was following
a group of monks, Hindu monks - they didn't know I was behind
them but if they knew, they would have walked and turned round
and done all kinds of silly superstitious respect. I was walking
behind them: not one of them looked at the sky nor the beauty of a
tree, nor the sound of the water, because they were chanting and
never dared to look at anything that might incite a desire - a desire
for a woman, a desire for great pleasure - nothing.
Only I have been told, in recent years the landscape was painted
in Italy with the saints. So religions, because they said: beauty is
associated with pleasure, therefore if you are pursuing god you
cannot pursue pleasure, therefore don't be caught in beauty. You
understand? This is happening. Beauty and love and pleasure.
We said a human being who is selfish - selfish being ambitious,
greedy, worldly, worldly in the sense wanting a name, position,
recognition, popularity, money, a status - all that is included in that
word selfishness for the moment. A mind that is selfish, is it
creative or is it only a mind that is totally unselfish that knows this
feeling of total creation - not as an artist as nothing, total? That is:
there is beauty only when there is total abandonment of the ego,
the 'me', because the 'me' is the product of thought. Having created
the 'me', the 'me' thinks it is different from thought. Haven't you?
And that 'me' may have certain capacity, talents, gifts and that
expresses itself and which we greatly admire, buy pictures, worth
millions, because it has financial value later on. But we consider all
that creative. It is like a person who is teaching or concerned with
creative writing. Creativeness comes only when there is no me.
Then there is beauty. That requires great sensitivity of the body,
the mind, the whole entity.
So pleasure has been identified with beauty: the beautiful
woman - the beautiful, which is lovely. So love and beauty and
pleasure apparently have gone together. And one questions that
whole concept, because it is a concept: that love is beauty and the
pursuit of beauty is pleasure. So one has to go into this question of
what is pleasure. You understand? Freedom which is an enormous
thing, enormous issue; then there is intelligence. We said,
intelligence is an act of total perception - not a cunning mind that
reads between the lines or having a very alert mind. You can have
a very alert mind by taking drugs, by various forms of stimulation -
but that's not an alert mind, that is gradually becoming a dull mind.
And also this freedom, intelligence and this quality of beauty with
which is identified love and pleasure.
So is love pleasure? You understand? We have associated love
with pleasure, with the desire - and what is pleasure and why does
man everlastingly pursue that pleasure? If you have watched
yourself, if you have gone into, looked at yourself even for ten
minutes, ten seconds - this is one of the great principles, like
suffering, pleasure, fear. And why does man pursue to the very end
of his life or beyond it as coming nearer to God - the ultimate
pleasure. Why? And what is pleasure? Is there such a thing as
pleasure? Please go into it.
There are three things concerned with pleasure: joy, enjoyment
and pleasure. This is so, look at it. You are going to find out what
is the relationship between the three of them. Joy - real enjoyment
of a lovely day, the enjoyment of seeing the mountains, hearing the
great thunder rolling among the hills - and the mind that is
pursuing the pleasure as that which has happened yesterday, with
that lightning. So what is pleasure? Is there a movement of
pleasure when you can say: this is pleasure; or you only know it
after? You recognize it as pleasure when it is over, which is the
movement of thought as time. I wonder if you see this thing! So is
there a moment, when you say: "My god, this is great pleasure!"
But only when thought, when that incident which has been called
pleasure in quotes has been registered in the brain and then the
awakening of thought and recognizing that as the like, pleasure and
pursuing it - sexually - in so many ways. So what is the
relationship of thought to pleasure? - pleasure being emotions,
great feeling, sentimentality, feeling tremendously sentimental,
gooey, romantic, ideological. What relationship has pleasure to
thought, or is pleasure the movement of thought only? There has
been a pleasure - what we call pleasure - a flattering, someone
flatters you: "Marvellous, how beautiful, what a lovely writing that
is, what a marvellous speech you have made!" That is pleasure.
And you listen to that and you like the flattery of another, which
means you are not really concerned with the truth of perception but
the flattery of someone who says: what a marvellous fellow you
are. Then thought picks that up, pursues it and you who have
flattered are my everlasting friend and I seek more and more
flattery. That is the pursuit of pleasure which also acts in the other
opposite way, which is - you hurt me and I pursue that hurt,
thought pursues that hurt, and you are my enemy or I don't like
you, avoid you. It's the same principle. So is thought the pursuer,
not pleasure? I wonder if you have seen that?
We are not pursuing pleasure but thought is pursuing pleasure.
And when you, when thought pursues something, it must be in the
field of time: therefore, yesterday the sexual pleasure, the
remembrance of it and the pursuit of it. Seeing the pleasure, all
pleasure, in quotes, the mountains, the sunset and the thunder
rolling among the hills and thought pursuing that sound, pursuing
that marvellous light of an evening on the snow. So it is the
movement of thought as a remembrance in time that is the pursuit
of pleasure. I wonder if you get all this?
I pursue a Guru - not I, I have an abomination of Gurus, because
they are the new priests; before you accepted the Catholic
domination - you were told exactly what to do and you did that -
now you are bored with that and you take on new Gurus and you
will get bored with that and then you will go on to the Gurus of
China or Japan, or Russia - it is the same pattern.
So: can thought not pursue? You understand? You flatter me -
and I listen to it - and that's the end of it. Thought then doesn't
carry it over. You have said something which may be right or
wrong, I listen to it - there is a reaction and that is the ending of it.
The light on those mountains yesterday evening, with all that great
sense of space, stillness and great strength, see it and end it, so that
thought doesn't come and say, what a lovely thing that was, I am
going to pursue it. I wonder if you understand?
That means to be totally awake to the whole problem of
pleasure. And what is the relationship between pleasure and
enjoyment? You enjoy a good meal - if you do - and you want the
repetition of that enjoyment tomorrow. Right? So there is the
enjoyment of the moment, and thought pursuing that enjoyment of
the moment as a movement in time. I wonder if you see that. What
is the relation of pleasure to joy? Is there any relationship at all? Or
the joy comes unexpectedly, not invited. That which is invited is
pleasure as thought in time. I wonder if we are getting this?
So, is love pleasure? Tell me, sirs? That is, we said: the pursuit,
the hunter, is the thought. So is love to be hunted by thought? And
which it does, as we live now - and is that love? Has love any
relationship to thought? Please, sirs, go into it. And if it has no
relationship to love, then what is my relationship to another whom
I so-called love? To find out all this, not from another, because
each one is concerned with his own life. His own life is the life of
the world and the life of the world is you - because you suffer, you
are anxious, you pursue pleasure, there is suffering, you have fear,
so has another. So you are the world and the world is you - and this
is your life. Don't waste it, for god's sake, don't waste it. And to
find out what it is to be totally free.
So freedom, intelligence, beauty and love and the pursuit of
pleasure are all interrelated, they are not separate things which we
have made it: "I must be beautiful - not only physically attractive,
sexually appealing". This is our education, our conditioning, and to
see all this as a whole not as fragments, not as broken up - as
freedom something separate, intelligence something separate and
so on - to see the whole of it as a whole - that is the act of
intelligence, that is beauty, that is love, that is freedom.
Here all this is important to understand and live - not merely
intellectually, understand verbally, because we are going to deal
with something which is the total truth and total creation, which is
death. And to understand this problem which has torn man, which
man has pursued, tried to understand the problem, overcome it -
unless we lay the foundation, which we have been doing, because
in comprehending what death is, we shall see what the meaning of
life is. At present our life has no meaning - actually as we live it.
Has it? If you are honest to yourselves, deeply, has it any meaning?
Meaning in the sense: total significance. It might have a meaning
in order to earn money and livelihood and all that - but that must be
related to the whole of life. If you are merely concerned with the
earning of a livelihood, unrelated to the rest of our existence, then
that earning a livelihood does cause great mischief, then we
become totally competitive - all that is happening in the world.
So we have this problem of death, and later on perhaps we will
talk about meditation and all that. We have got two more talks,
haven't we? Two more. We'll have to cover those two things in
next two days that we meet here. But you know, if you have no
sense of beauty - not painting and all the rest of it, paint your face
and long hair and short nose and the latest fashion, you know - but
the feeling of beauty which can only come about when there is
total abandonment of selfishness, the total abandonment of the 'me'
which thought has created. That means: there is only beauty, when
thought is silent. You understand this? I've got it! Not when
thought is chattering about the thing that is painted, only when
thought is completely silent, then there is beauty. But when you
say: how is thought to be silent, which is what you will ask - then
you have lost beauty. And the gurus and all the professionals are
supplying 'how to make thought silent'. Therefore they never had
beauty. And when you pursue them, you are denying beauty. For
god's sake see this.
So the whole meaning, the whole substance of life is this, if you
can capture it and live with it; and if you do live with it then you
will affect the consciousness of every human being. You can't help
it.
SAANEN 6TH PUBLIC TALK 24TH JULY 1975.
We said we would talk about the very complex problem of what is
death. I think we should look at this question not as something
separate from other factors of life, like suffering, love, fear,
pleasure and the chaotic world we live in and the confusion for
most people. We should not separate this factor of death from the
rest. We should take it, I think, as a whole process from being born
to dying, a total, a whole movement of life.
And before we go into that we should also understand, I think,
not verbally, the question of authority also. As the world is
becoming more and more confused, more and more disturbed,
authoritarian governments are gradually creeping in, in the East
and so on. And when a political life is dominated by terrorism, by
imprisonment, by all the totalitarian methods of propaganda which
breeds fear, one has to be, I think, very much aware of this
question, that it does breed great fear and so for those who live in
those countries fear becomes part of their lives. And those who are
seriously concerned with the whole of life should go into this
question of authority. We are so eager to accept authority, the sayso
of somebody, intellectual, so-called religious or psychological;
so we submit ourselves to their concepts, to their description, to
their way of thinking. And specially when we are considering this
question of death, we should bear this in mind, that there is no
authority whatsoever, including and specially of the speaker.
And we also should apprehend, that is hold, participate in the
question of what is creation, which we went into the other day
when we last met here. That which has continuity, which is
thought, as movement in time - as long as time has no stop, there
cannot possibly be creation. Time must have a stop to bring about
that creative feeling, that creative action. And it is always very
difficult to understand what it means for time to have a stop
because we are going into the question of death, which is the
ending of time in a totally different way. So we should understand,
not intellectually, but feel our way, investigate, whether there is a
possibility of time coming to an end. I do not know if you have
ever thought about it. Poets have written about it, talked about it.
Novelists have said there is an ending to time. But one does not
accept all these romantic theoretical suppositions, one wants to find
out for oneself what it means for time to end.
We said, thought is movement in time. That time is a bondage
in the world of reality. We went into that. And whether time as
measure, as movement of thought, can ever possibly end - either
consciously or deep down. One may theoretically accept the
possibility of time coming to an end, consciously one can work at
it, one can imagine, one can almost feel the ending, but the
movement in the semi-conscious state, in that dim consciousness,
time is part of the structure. Because after all, all our conditioning
is a result of time - it may be one day or ten thousand years. We are
conditioned in so many ways, influenced through propaganda,
influenced by books, by talks, by radio; everything around us is
trying to penetrate deeper and deeper and deeper. And the more
authoritarian the world becomes, with more penetration, the
technological penetration of propaganda is becoming more.
So we are the result of all that which is fairly obvious, which we
do not have to go into in great detail. You can believe in god,
because that is your conditioning. But a Communist says: "That's
all nonsense" - because that is conditioning. So, we are all
conditioned. One can consciously eliminate, if one is at all serious
and aware and alert, one can consciously put away all that. That is
fairly simple, and not fall into another trap of conditioning. But the
unconscious movement - that is, in the deep layers of one's
consciousness, deep recesses of one's mind, there is the movement
of time, the hope, the events of the past are deeply embedded. And
whether that time as a whole, both as the conscious and at the
deeper level, can totally come to an end? One can ask this question
verbally but to penetrate into that, not intellectually, you can't do
this intellectually which is the structure of words, the
comprehension of words, the realization intellectually that words
have no significance, but yet be caught in words.
And to go into that question of time coming to an end - because
if it does not come to an end there is only variety in continuation, a
modified change in continuity which is time. Thought can adjust
itself to any environment and shape itself according to various
influences and demands. One must have noticed all this around
you, and to find out whether time has a stop, which is a
tremendously important question, because that stops one's
evolution, as we know it, which is a process of time: gradual
growing, gradual becoming, gradual fulfilment, gradual activity of
desire - all that is part of the continuity of time.
So we are going to go into this question of authority, which we
have done a little bit, of the mind, thought, the brain adjusting itself
to all environment whatever it is, because the brain needs security
and therefore thought will adjust itself to Communism, to
Catholicism, to whatever it is. And as long as there is a continuity,
which is a movement of time as thought, unless that movement,
however expressive, however capable, technologically perfect,
unless that movement comes to an end there is no creativeness,
because if we continue the same pattern - not only the same pattern
but in a different mode - there is a constant continuity.
So that is the question. And is it possible, not consciously,
because if you do something consciously, then it is part of the
process of thought, to find out whether time has an end, not
cultivated, not through the action of will to stop thought? Will is
part of thought, will is part of desire, and when there is an action of
will, then there is no ending of thought.
So we are going then to find out, what does it mean to die?
Because that may be the absolute truth, that may be the ending of
all time. Please, we are sharing this together, I am not taking a
journey by myself. Is death something separate from living? Is
death something totally opposite from existence? Is death the
ending of all that one has built in oneself, that one has experienced,
that one has observed, gone into? Does it all end? You understand
my question? Or is death not something separate, but part of living
though we have separated it, put it far away from us because we
are frightened of it, we never even talk about it? Or is it part of the
whole movement of life? Is it part of love? We are going to find all
these things out.
First of all one has to consider what various religions and socalled
people of ancient times have said about death. Because the
modern generation does not talk about death. No books are written
about it. Nobody says: "Live properly in order to die properly".
Death is something to be avoided, something which you do not
want even to look at. You may pass a cemetery or a crematorium
and then shut your eyes and say: "How ugly it all is" - and move
on.
So if we are serious we are going to look at it, we are going to
face it, not avoid it, not speculate about it, not demand comfort and
no tears. The Asiatic world, specially in India which at one time
exploded over the whole of Asia, as Greece exploded over the
western world, said there is an entity, called the 'self', the ego, the
'me', that gathers experiences through life after life, which is called
reincarnation, goes through life after life, perfecting itself and
ultimately arrives at the highest principle which is Brahman. They
all call it different names. That is their whole concept. And people,
specially in the Asiatic world, believe that most intensely. They
said that they have proof that you exist, that what you are now, is
the result of your past and that your future as an entity depends on
how you behave now, what your actions are now. That will
determine what you will be. Though the believers say this, they do
not act, they just believe which is a very comforting, nonsensical,
meaningless thing.
And you have in the western world also a concept of that kind.
The Christian believes that you must be buried and ultimately
Gabriel blows a trumpet and you go to heaven. You know all that
business. And the ancient Egyptians - from what one has been told
and one has been told accurately by professionals - that they
believed in this reincarnation. It is a very old concept, it is a very
old belief which gave man a great comfort, because they have said:
"After all I live only eighty, forty, fifty years and accumulate so
much - and what is the point of it all, if I don't continue?"
We want to find out what is the truth of this. Not a speculative,
imaginative acceptance of tradition - tradition being that which is
handed over from generation to generation, and also that word
means; betrayal, betraying the present by the past. So we are going
to find out. Please don't accept at all what the speaker is saying
under any circumstances, because you are very easily influenced -
because it is your life.
Before we go into that, you must also understand very deeply,
not verbally, that you are the world and the world is you. Not an
idea, but a deep understanding of it, the truth of it. What you are in
essence, deeply, the world is. You are like the rest of the world,
you have your problems, your suffering, your tears, your pleasures,
your fears, your anxieties - all that is like anybody else, whether he
lives in China, Japan, in Russia or America. Basically you are that,
you are the world. And at the peripheral existence you are
conditioned. And according to that conditioning your temperament
is, your idiosyncrasies are, the way you behave - all conditioned by
the culture in which you live on the outside, at the peripheral level
- but basically you are like the rest of the world. Right? Please that
is something you have got to understand. Therefore you are not
different from somebody who is greedy, envious, accepting
authority, afraid, competitive, violent. That is the world and you
are part of that.
So what is death? There is old age, disease, accident, poisoning,
various forms of physical destruction of the organism. That is a
fact. I don't think one is afraid of that. One accepts it, doesn't one?
As you grow older, as you may have an accident, you walk across
a road and a bus strikes you or a car and that is the end. One
accepts, if one is at all rational, sane, that the organism comes to an
end naturally or unnaturally. That does not cause so much fear.
What causes fear, it seems, is that the ego, the 'me', that has
acquired so much, that has lived such a strenuous life, that has
accumulated knowledge, that has accumulated all kinds of
movement, it has accumulated and there is the ending of all that. It
is that, that one is afraid of if one observes that.
So what is the 'me' that clings to what is the known? You
understand? The unknown is the death and I cling to the known.
The 'me' says: "I know, I have lived, I have acquired, I have
experienced, I have suffered enormously, I have been through all
kinds of delights". And that 'me' is resisting, frightened, avoiding
this thing called death. Right? This is so. Please, we are going
together, I am not dragging you like a train!
So one has to enquire, investigate, what is the 'me'? Is it the
result of thought? Is it put together by the movement of time? Does
it exist by itself, apart from thought? First of all, does it have a life
of its own, independent of thought, or has thought put it together
and that self thinks it is independent of thought? You understand
the question? Do you understand the question? Thought we said is
the movement of time. Thought in the world of reality separates
itself from that which it has put together. Thought has built this,
but that has become independent of thought. The mountain or the
tree is not put together by thought, but it is independent of thought.
And thought has built the 'me', obviously. And the 'me' has
separated itself from the thought which has built me.
Now what is the reason for building the structure, called the
'me'? Why has thought done this? You are following all this?
Please, move with me, don't go to sleep because this is really an
extraordinarily important question, all this, because it is our life.
We have to take this desperately seriously. Why has thought
created the 'me'? If you see the fact that thought has built the 'me',
if you say, the 'me' is something divine, something that existed
before all time - which many do - we have to investigate this too.
So first we are asking, why has thought created the 'me' - why? I
don't know, I am going to find out. Why do you think thought has
created the 'me'?
There are two things, aren't they? One is, thought demands
stability, because it is only where there is security there can be a
satisfying answer to the brain. That is, where there is security the
brain operates marvellously either neurotically or reasonably. So
one of the reasons is that thought, being insecure in itself,
fragmented in itself, broken up in itself, has created the 'me' as
something permanent; the 'me' which has become separate from
thought and therefore thought recognizes it as something
permanent. And this permanency is identified through attachment:
my house, my character, my wish, my desire, all that gives a
complete sense of security and continuity to the 'me'. Isn't that so?
We are investigating. You are not silent, just listening to me, you
are going into it with the speaker. And the idea that the 'me' is
something before thought - is that so? And who can ever say that it
existed before thought? You understand my question? If you say it
existed before thought - as many do - then on what reason, on what
basis do you assert that? Is it an assertion of tradition, of belief, of
not wanting to recognize that the 'me' is a product of thought, but
something marvellously divine - which again is a projection of
thought that the 'me' is permanent?
So one observes, putting away the idea that the 'me' is
everlastingly divine, or everlastingly timeless or whatever it is, that
is too absurd, but one can see very clearly 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' which is
the past. The 'me' which is the past, 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. Right?
Shall we go on from there? Please, don't accept the description, not
the words, but see the truth of this thing. As you see the fact of the
microphone, see that thing. That 'me' has a name, a form. The 'me'
has a label, called K or John and it has its form, it identifies with
the body, with the face, with the whole business. So there is the
identification of the 'me' with the name and with the form, that is
the structure and with the ideal which it wants to pursue, or the
desire to change the 'me' into another form of 'me', with another
name. So this is the 'me'. That 'me' is the product of time and
therefore thought. That 'me' is the word. Remove the word, what is
the 'me'?
So that 'me' suffers. The 'me', as the you, suffers. So the 'me' in
suffering is you. The 'me' in its great anxiety is the great anxiety of
the you - therefore you and I are common. That is the basic
essence. Though you are taller, shorter, more clever, have a
different temperament, different character - all that is the peripheral
movement 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. I wonder if you get this? Please, do not
accept what I am saying, see the truth of it. That is: you are selfish
and another is selfish, you are frightened and another is frightened
- basically - you are aching, suffering, tears, greed, envy - that is
the common lot of all human beings. That is the stream in which
we are living in the present. Right? That is the stream in which we
are caught - all of us. We are caught in the stream while we are
living. Please see that, that we are caught in that stream as an act of
life. That is, the stream is selfishness. Let's put it this way - in that
stream we are living, the stream of selfishness. That word includes
all the descriptions which are just now given. And when we die,
the organism dies but the selfish stream goes on. You understand?
Just look at it, take time, consider it. Suppose I have lived a very
selfish life: that is, self-centred activity: my desires, the importance
of my desires, the ambitions, the greed, the envy, the accumulation
of property, the accumulation of knowledge, the accumulation of
all kinds of things that we have gathered - 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 relationship it is the same.
So while living, we are together flowing in the stream of
selfishness. Got it? This is a fact, not my opinion, not my
conclusion. If you observe it, you see it. Then you go to America,
you see the same phenomena, in India, all over Europe, modified
by the environmental pressures and so on - but basically that is the
movement. And when the body dies, the movement goes on.
So there is this vast stream of selfishness, if I may use that word
to include all the things implied in that word, is the movement of
time and when the body dies that goes on. Go slowly in this. I am
going to go into this a little more.
And I die, my wife tearful, upset, lonely, missing the
companionship, having no money - you follow - still like the rest
of the world. And she goes to a medium, seance, because she wants
to get in touch with me, because she is lonely, unhappy, suffering,
no money - all that. And the medium there gets into contact with
what it calls the 'me', the husband and says: "Your husband is here,
he has a message for you. He says, he is perfectly happy. Look
under the drawer and you will find the testament". This phenomena
is repeated differently in a different way all over the world. Either
it is the medium picking up the intimations, unconscious
intimations of the wife and repeating it. One can do that very
simply if you have observed there is such a thing as transmission of
thought. You must have played with it, you must know it, it has its
own reality. Or out of that stream of selfishness the thought of K
still exists and the thought manifests. So there it is.
We live in that stream in our daily life till we die, and when we
die that stream continues. That stream is time. That is, the
movement of thought which has created suffering, which has
created the 'me', which the 'me' has now asserted itself, being
independent and divides itself from you, but the 'me' is the same as
you when it suffers. So the 'me' is the word. 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 and all the rest of it. In that movement of selfishness,
while we are living we are being carried in that stream. When I die,
that stream exists.
Is it possible for that stream to end? You understand? I die
physically, that is obvious. My wife may cry about it, but the fact is
I die, the body dies. And this movement of time is going on, of
which we are all part. That is why the world is me and me is the
world. And will there be an end to this stream and is the
manifestation of the ending of the stream, is it the manifestation of
something totally different from the stream? I wonder if you follow
all this? Are you interested in all this? Which is: can selfishness
with all its decoration, with all its subtleties, come totally to an
end? And the ending is the ending of time, and therefore there is a
totally different manifestation of that ending - which is no
selfishness at all. I wonder if you have understood this a little bit.
You see there are several things involved in this: in that stream,
is there a 'you' and a 'me'? You understand? 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 me suffer
something independent of you who are suffering. I wonder if you
see that. So there is only suffering: not I suffer and you suffer. You
suffer because my son, my wife, my husband, my neighbour, my
relative is dead. I suffer because my wife has turned away from
me. I suffer because there is loneliness. I suffer because I can't
fulfil, because I can't get everything I want. I want position, power,
money, sex - in that order - and I suffer. Don't you also suffer in
the same way? So the suffering is the same as 'me'. It is not, "I
suffer something separate from you". You understand? That is a
tremendous thing to find out.
So there is no individual suffering. There is individual blindness
- but that is a physical phenomena. But the suffering is the same as
you and me. Therefore there is only the factor of suffering. Do you
know what it does when you realize that? Out of that nonpersonalized
suffering, non-identified as the 'me' who is suffering,
separate from you - when there is that suffering - out of that comes
a tremendous sense of compassion. I wonder if you see that.
The very word suffering comes from the word 'passion'. So I
have got this problem now: living, there is selfishness, dying, there
is selfishness. And that is the stream of time as a movement of
thought. And that stream of selfishness can manifest itself, which is
happening all the time. That manifestation of that selfishness may
have a name - as John Smith, K and somebody else. But if there is
no name, if there is no naming of that suffering as belonging to me
- what is then the individual at all? You follow? I wonder if you
see this? There is suffering and that suffering has been given a
name, a form as K , K is me - and that name and form becomes the
individual, separate from the stream of suffering. And that
individual says: "I am different from you. I am cleverer, I am duller
or you are more clever or this and that". If there is no naming the
form, then is there an individual at all? The word individual means
'indivisible' - a human being who is not fragmented, indivisible in
himself. That he is the whole - whole being healthy, sane, rational,
holy. And when that takes place, when there is living is there an
ending of time as movement of thought and suffering now? You
follow the question? Can I as a human being, living, knowing in
that stream I exist as selfishness, can that stream, can that
movement of time come totally to an end? Both at the conscious as
well as the deep level? You understand my question after
describing it?
Now how will you find out? How will you find out whether you
who are caught in the stream of selfishness, can completely step
out of it, which is the ending of time? And therefore death is the
ending of time as a movement of thought, if there is this stepping
out of that. Can you, living in this world with all the beastliness of
it, the world that man has made, which thought has made - the
dictatorship, the totalitarian authority, the destruction of human
minds, the destruction of the earth, the animals - everything he
touches he destroys, including his wife and husband - now can you
live in this world completely without time? That means no longer
caught in that stream of selfishness? Can you?
Now who is going to tell you whether you can or cannot? You
understand? Or will you take time? You understand? If you take
time, you are still in there, still in the stream. So the whole idea of
gradual change, gradual evolution, gradual process, is still the
continuity of suffering, continuity of selfishness. So do you
actually see that? See in the sense clearly as you see the speaker
sitting on the platform.
You see there are many more things involved in this which we
have not time to go into. But there is such a thing as great mystery
- not the things invented by thought - that is not mysterious. The
occult is not mysterious, which everybody is chasing now, that is
the fashion. The experience which drugs give is not mysterious.
This thing called death and seeing all this, the description and
much more involved in it and the mystery that lies when there is a
possibility of stepping out of it. Which 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? Wait, wait, wait. Think about it.
Look at it, look at it! Don't say: "Yes" - or "No". If there is no
ending of suffering in the world of reality, which is order, if there
is no ending of suffering, which is 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 have not understood or
grasped the full significance of ending time. Therefore you have to
bring order in the world of reality. That is, in the world of
relationship, in the world of action, in the world of rational and
irrational thinking - the fear, the pleasure - all that is in the world
of reality.
So can one living in the world of reality as we are, end
selfishness? You know it is a very complex thing ending
selfishness, it is not just: "I won't think about myself". It is a very
complex thing and very subtle. One may think one is not selfish,
but deeply there is this root of it which shows itself in its peculiar
ways. So to be enormously aware about all this, that means, being
sensitive. You cannot be sensitive if you drink, if you take drugs,
smoke, obviously. Or you cannot learn by going to college how to
be sensitive. You cannot learn how to be sensitive from another.
One has to be aware of one's insensitivity.
One is sensitive to one's desires, to one's hurts, to one's
demands, but we are talking of being totally sensitive - both
physiologically as well as psychologically. That means one has to
have an excellent body, not a drugged body by alcohol or
overeating or all the rest of it. So one has to be aware of this
selfishness in the field of reality, because 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.
SAANEN 7TH PUBLIC TALK 27TH JULY 1975.
We have been talking over together the many issues of our daily
life. We have talked about education - perhaps not completely - we
have talked about the world as it is with all the misery, confusion,
suffering, dictatorship and a lack of freedom, and we also talked
about fear - whether it is at all possible to eradicate it totally, not
only the conscious but the deeper recesses of one's own mind, and
we talked about thought, pursuing pleasure, and the things that
thought has created, both outwardly and inwardly. Both the
outward and the inward structure of thought is the world of reality
in which we live. And we also talked about, considerably at length,
I think, about death and the meaning of love - apart from the thing
we call love which is the pursuit of pleasure and the fulfilment of
desire. We talked about this whole process as a unitary movement,
not to be fragmented - and thought invariably fragments all our
existence. We talked about all this. We also asked, why thought is
fragmentary, why all its structure in the technological world as
well as in the psychological area, why thought must be fragmented,
inevitably. And we said it comes about when thought has created a
centre and that centre separates itself from thought and therefore
thought becomes fragmentary.
We have talked about all this and we would like, if we may, this
morning to talk about the quality of energy which comes about
through meditation, and the quality of energy which is totally
different from the energy of meditation and the energy which
thought has created. This is what we are going to talk about this
morning, as this is the last talk and we are going to have
discussions or dialogues on Wednesday morning for the next four
or five days.
There are two kinds of energies. I think they are separate. One
is the energy of conflict, of division, of all the movement of
thought. Thought has built outwardly a tremendous structure,
technologically, socially, morally. That thought in its movement,
which is time, has gathered together momentum, a tremendous
vitality of force. And that energy is totally different from the
energy which comes about through the understanding of the right
area of thought and moving away from that area, which is the
movement of meditation.
We know very well and fairly clearly after these days of talking
over together and also by observing what is going on in the world:
the division, the wars, the utter lack of consideration, callousness,
brutality, violence and immense suffering brought about by this
division, ideologically as well as psychologically. That energy has
built the world of reality. I think this is fairly clear when one
observes it, not only outwardly but also when one is aware of what
is going on inwardly.
Now we are asking: as that energy has not solved any of our
problems psychologically, and unless one solves this psychological
problem of correct living - correct living implies accurate living,
not a living according to a pattern or according to an ideal or to
some gathered experience as knowledge, but that energy which
thought has brought about has not solved human relationship. Now
is there another kind of energy. We are inquiring together. We are
not laying down, we are not the authority, we are just together, you
and the speaker are investigating into a question which is: is there
another kind of energy which is not the energy of thought in its
movement as time, is there another kind of energy which will solve
the problem of relationship, the problem of death, the whole human
existence with all its complex problems? Because our existence is
not very simple, it is getting more and more complicated, more and
more complex. And we want a single answer to all this complexity:
'Tell us what to do and we will do it'. Or is there a way of living
which is not the mere movement of thought with all its conflict? Is
there a way of living in which there is no conflict, in which there is
a unitary movement of mankind? And is there an energy which is
not time-binding and which may uncover something that is really
sacred? This is what we are going to enquire into together. The
speaker is not talking to himself. We are sharing together this
problem, knowing that thought, because it is fragmentary, is not
the factor of the unification of mankind. Politically that is essential
and no dictatorship, no Socialist or Communist government is ever
going to produce this unity. Otherwise we will be destroying each
other, which is what is going on.
So we are going to enquire into the origin of an energy which is
not the movement of time. I do not know if we can do this together
with such a large audience, because this requires a great deal of
attention, a great deal of care, and no possibility of illusion, no
possibility of deluding oneself that one has this peculiar energy. So
one has to understand first that there must be no kind of selfhypnosis,
no illusion, no deception, no hysteria. So we have to find
out what is the cause of illusion. Right? If we are to enquire into
this question, whether there is an energy which is not that of
thought, one must be absolutely clear that one does not create
illusion. The word illusion means sensuous perception of objective
things, involving belief. So a mind that is caught in belief must
inevitably bring to itself illusion. And there must be illusion as
long as there is a desire - desire being something to which we cling
to, which we long for, which we subjectively run after. All these
factors produce illusion.
So if we are to enquire together into the question one must be
free of having no end, no goal, no belief and therefore no illusion.
Can you do this? Because we are going to go into something very,
very complex and unless one's mind is very clear on this point that
illusion, deception, imagination, a desire for some kind of energy,
if there is any of that wave, or movement in one's enquiry, then you
are going to end up in an asylum - which most people are doing
already. This is very, very serious, it is not a thing that you play
with.
So we are going to enquire with a mind that is not going to be
caught in any form of deception. Deception arises only when there
is a desire to achieve something, or to realize something, or to
come upon something. Is this clear? So is there a different kind of
energy? And to find that out accurately we must have naturally put
order in our daily life. Because if there is no order in our daily life,
enquiry into that is merely an escape, like taking a drug, drink,
anything, it is just an escape and that escape becomes actual and
illusory. Right? We mean by order in the world of reality, which is
order in the world of relationship between you and another,
between man and woman and so on - that relationship is society.
Please, listen to all this. It is your life. And if there is no order in
that life, in the field of reality in which we live, you cannot
possibly - do what you will - come upon that energy which is not
the product of thought.
We mean by order, a movement of total comprehension of the
activity of thought which we have discussed perhaps ad nauseam
for the last seven talks. To perceive totally as a whole movement of
thought which has brought about in reality utter confusion. Perhaps
this is the first time some of you are hearing all this, so I am afraid
we can't go over all the things that we have already talked over
together. But what we are saying then is that thought has brought
about confusion. Thought has brought about division between
human beings. And yet thought wants unity. Please follow this.
And so it has created a centre, a centre that will hold things
together, not only a centre in oneself but a centre in governments.
You follow? After all dictatorship is a form of centre, trying to
hold a group of people. Religions have made that centre, hoping to
hold man together - Catholicism, Hinduism and so on, and so on,
and so on. Thought has created a centre and that centre has become
independent of thought and that centre exists hoping to create,
bring about a complete unity of mankind. You are following this?
You watch this in your own relationship. In the family there is a
centre, the centre is the family and trying to hold that family
together.
And thought in the field of reality, wanting unity, security,
stability has brought about instability, insecurity. There is no
cohesive movement, no co-operation. And when we are talking
about order, we mean unity in the field of reality. Is this clear? So
unless that sense of harmonious existence happens in the world of
reality, you cannot possibly enquire into the other. Then your
enquiry will be distorted because it is an escape, your enquiry then
will pursue illusory imitations which then you will accept as
reality. Right?
So we are going to see whether one's mind, whether one's life,
daily life is accurate, which means care, which means attention,
which means diligent application not negligence. There is a
difference between diligence and negligence. Diligence means
care, accuracy, mean what you say and live a life that is completely
correct, orderly, with care. Contrary to that is negligence. So
having laid the foundation of order in reality, then we can proceed
to enquire into the question whether there is or there is not an
energy which is not the movement of reality, which does not mean
illusory. Right? That means there must be freedom to enquire, no
attachment to a belief, to a person, to an idea, to a country, to a
leader, because if you are attached, held to your opinion, to your
judgement, to your conclusion, to your leader, to your guru, to your
priest - all that - that very attachment denies freedom of enquiry.
These are obvious facts. As a scientist: if he is to enquire very
deeply, he cannot be bothered with the country, with the nation,
with the border - he is completely absorbed in what he is doing.
So then the mind now is capable of enquiring. I hope your mind
is capable. Capable means, having an instrument that can be
actively, swiftly able to perceive, to see without distortion. And
that distortion will take place as long as there is the observer. The
observer is the past, the conclusions, his memories, his desires, his
will. As long as there is that observer, whatever he perceives must
be distorted. If I am a Hindu or a Catholic, or a Communist or
whatever it is, or addicted to beliefs then perception, that is, seeing,
becomes, clouded, distorted, not accurate.
What we have been talking about for the last six gatherings here
is part of meditation. Meditation is not something separate from the
understanding and the action in the world of reality. That is part of
meditation. The meaning of that word meditation means to ponder
over, to think about, to go into. That is what we have done, which
is - we are saying - part of meditation. But unfortunately for most
people meditation is something apart from life, apart from daily
existence. We think by meditating we will achieve an experience
which will alter our structure of thought and from there act in the
world of reality. You understand? That is, I hope by meditating I
hope to have a certain experience or understanding or realization
which will then function in the world of reality and therefore bring
order there. This is what most people are doing right through the
world, unfortunately introduced by the gurus from India. See the
fallacy of this. "First seek god, or whatever it is and then
everything will be all right". But you have never enquired who is
the seeker. The seeker is the observer, is the thing put together by
thought.
So meditation is the understanding of order and accuracy in the
world of reality. That's part of meditation. Meditation also means
much more; not just bringing order in reality. Anybody can do that,
any sane, rational, healthy human being can do that without
meditating. But through meditation it gives beauty to the order in
daily life. Are you following all this? Are you following
somewhat?
So what is meditation? A mind that is free from all illusion, that
is not attached to belief, to persons, to ideas, to conclusions.
Complete freedom is absolutely necessary to proceed further.
What place has will in meditation? You understand my
question? What place has will in trying to meditate - or in
meditation. What is will? It is the action of desire for something. I
desire to be rich - god forbid! - and I work for it. I exercise my
will, my desire to achieve all the things that money will give. I
work for it. That is, will is a movement of desire as thought. Will is
thought. Will is desire. Desire is thought. They are not separate.
Desire, the action of will, the movement of thought are one. And in
meditation if there is the action of will that will is a form of
resistance, and therefore that will is still the movement of thought
as time and division. I wonder if you get this. Don't be bored. Do
not yawn yet, give me another ten minutes or half an hour, before
you yawn. You understand my statement? We are asking, what
place has will in meditation? We say: there is no place for will, for
will is desire. Desire means to achieve something or to cling to
something, or demand enlightenment, beauty, love, all the rest of
it.
And in that movement of meditation there are a whole
complexity of activities. First of all let us look into the word
'Yoga'. Right? You know something about it, don't you? Yoga in
Sanskrit means 'join', the root meaning of it. And there are different
kinds of Yoga - the highest Yoga being Raja Yoga - 'King of
Yogas' in which there is only the activity of the mind, the activity
of living a right kind of life, accurate life. It has nothing whatever
to do with exercises, postures, breathing and all that business.
There are different kinds of Yogas and they have also said: "What
the speaker is saying is another form of Yoga". You can wipe out
all that rubbish and start again.
Then through meditation - because all this implies a highly
sensitive mind, a highly sensitive body, therefore no drugs, no
drinks, no tobacco - you follow - anything that makes the mind
dull, which is repetition. Any practice will inevitably make the
mind dull. Right? That is why when the gurus come to this country
and bring their superstitious, traditional, conventional, conditioned
practices of various kinds, they are destroying your brain, they are
making your mind dull. And you need a very clear, active, subtle,
sensitive mind and you cannot have that if you keep on repeating,
repeating, repeating. You understand this, naturally. Then your
mind becomes mechanical, which it is already, and you are making
it more mechanical. So, put away, if I may suggest altogether this
whole idea of following somebody and accepting their systems.
Many gurus have come to see the speaker and they have brought
out all their arguments. They say: "What you are saying is the
highest truth, but we translate this truth to others, because they
can't understand you". You understand the game they play?
So therefore first: no acceptance of authority. Please, do see
this. When you don't accept authority there is the activity of
freedom, which is intelligence. Then that intelligence will bring
about right political activity which is not dependent on party
politics, on their leaders, dictatorship and all that business.
So then in meditation because the mind has become
astonishingly sensitive, there is all this field of clairvoyance, right?
Field of healing, field of investigating into occult things, hidden
things. Right? Unfortunately it is becoming the fashion now to talk
about the occult, the hidden, the mysterious, all that. When the
body is sensitive, the mind is active, accurate, therefore all these
things come about. But they are totally irrelevant. They are
playthings. Please, the speaker knows something of all this and
there is great danger in all that, unless you really want to pursue
that like a child with a toy. It has no value.
Now we can proceed to enquire, after clearing the ground
accurately, with the question: is there an energy, a something,
which is totally different - not the opposite, because the opposite of
the energy of thought is still its own opposite, is still the movement
of thought. Therefore we are using purposely a word that is totally
different. Now we can proceed.
And also there is the whole question, brought over from India,
of the energy which they think will come about through awakening
the various centres in the body which is called 'Kundalini'. Have
you heard all about this rubbish? It isn't rubbish if you know what
it is, but as you don't know, you are playing with rubbish. Please
forgive me if I talk frankly about all these nonsensical, unreal
things, unless you have gone into it. You cannot go into it unless
you have brought order in your life. They have brought this word
called 'Kundalini' from India. It is now a fashionable thing to
pursue. When it becomes common it has lost its reality, its
worthwhileness. You understand? When everybody is trying to
awaken their beastly little what they call 'Kundalini' it becomes too
silly. A truth, when made common, becomes vulgar and therefore
no longer truth.
Now we can proceed. No action of will, therefore no action of
deception, illusion, no attachment to belief, to dogmas, to rituals, to
all the myths that man has put together through thought. Then what
takes place to a mind that has done this - not imagined it has done,
actually has done? To such a mind there is that quality of silence, a
silence that is not between two noises, the silence that is not
between two thoughts. Please, watch it in yourself, you will see
this. A silence that has not been put together by thought because it
desires to be silent. Because there has been order in our daily life,
because there has been no conflict as will, there is no division
politically, religiously, no practice. Out of all that comes a natural
intelligence, natural sensitivity and therefore a mind that is
astonishingly quiet. That is, a mind that has put a stop to time -
mind has not put it - but it has inevitably come about. You
understand what I am saying? Time is movement of thought as
measure. Time is thought. And thought as measure is from here to
there, psychologically as well as physically. And when there is this
movement of time as achievement, as experience, as gaining
something, it is still the activity of thought, and therefore it is
fragmentary, not whole. From that, when the mind has perceived
the totality of thought - that is the totality of the movement of
thought, all its varieties, all its movements, all its subtleties hidden
and open - when the mind is totally aware of all that, then time, to
such a mind, comes to an end, therefore there is complete
quietness. Right?
Perception can only take place in silence. You follow this?
Please. Are we sharing this together? Or am I pursuing my own
investigation? You understand? If you want to hear what the
speaker is saying, you have to listen, you have to pay attention. If
you want to listen, if you don't want to, that is quite a different
matter. But if you want to listen you have to pay attention. That
means care. That means you have to listen, listen without any
prejudice, without conclusion, comparing what you hear with what
you already know. All those inhibit, prevent listening. So, when
you want to listen, you must be completely silent, naturally. When
you want to see the mountains, the flowing of the water in the
river, there must be total observation, not the observer observing.
Right? So there is this silence.
And what is the unifying character, what is the unifying
movement, so that it brings about no division between man and
man? Because that is a tremendously important question. You
understand? When the world is divided - nation against nation,
people against people, ideas against ideas - democracy - so-called
democracy against autocracy and so on. When there is this
tremendous division taking place in mankind, in human beings
outwardly as well as inwardly, what is the unifying factor? Is there
is no unifying factor we are going to destroy ourselves - unifying
factor being co-operation. You understand all this? So what is that
unifying factor in meditation? Because that is one of the most
urgent absolute necessities. Politics and 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 at Bonn or
Moscow or in Washington or some other hideous place - thousands
of years. Think of such a mentality that is going to bring unity to
mankind.
What is that factor? You understand? 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? You understand? Are you
interested in this? It is your problem, isn't it? Unity between you
and your wife, unity between you and another. You see we have to
bring about this unity, thought sees the necessity of this unity and
therefore has created a centre. Like the sun is the centre of this
universe, holding all things in that light, so this centre created by
thought hopes to bring mankind together. Great warriors try to do
this, great conquerors. They did it through bloodshed. Religions
have tried to do it, and those religions who have tried to do it
brought about more division with their cruelty, with their wars,
with their torture. Science has enquired into this, and because
science is knowledge, the accumulation of knowledge, and the
movement of knowledge, which is thought being fragmentary
cannot unify. You understand all this?
So is there any energy which will bring about this unity? This
unification of mankind? And we were saying: in meditation this
energy comes about, because in that 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 that you will become compassionate
which is again another deception, but be compassionate. That can
only take place when there is no centre, the centre being that which
has been created by thought, thought which hoped by creating a
centre it could bring about unity - like a federal government, like a
dictatorship, like autocracy. All those are centres hoping to create
unity. All those have failed and they will inevitably fail. And there
is only one factor and that is the sense of great compassion.
And that compassion comes, when we understand the full width
and depth of suffering. That is why we talked a great deal about
suffering - suffering not only of a human being, the collective
suffering of mankind. You understand, sirs? 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 then you will inevitably bring about unity, you
can't help it.
Let us move further. That is: does this energy reveal that which
is sacred? Mankind has always sought something sacred, knowing
that nothing in this world is sacred - this world in which there is all
the movement of agony, suffering, lack of love, despair, anxiety,
competition, ambition, ruthlessness - anything, we are saying now,
anything that thought has created is not sacred, obviously. The
things that have been put in the churches, in the temples, in the
mosques is not sacred, but yet we worship it. We worship the
word, the symbol, created by thought and we pray to that. So we
project that which is sacred according to our conditioning. If I was
born in India - tradition and all the rest of it - I project that
sacredness in a statue or something, a symbol, in the temple. And
the Communist deny all that, but they have their own sacredness
which is the State. For that they are willing to sacrifice, kill and all
the rest of it. So anything that thought has put together is not sacred
- your Christ, your Jesus, your saviours, the Hindu Gods - nothing!
So in meditation, because the mind is absolutely quiet and
therefore compassionate, is there something sacred? If you do not
find it, life has no meaning. You understand? Has your life any
meaning? Except pleasure, money and power? That has very little
meaning. Your daily existence has very little meaning. Right? And
you try to find a meaning by joining communes, this or that, doing
something - which is still the movement of thought. So when you
see totally, when you perceive totally all the movement of thought,
and whatever thought creates is nothing sacred.
So we are going to find out when the mind is completely quiet
and therefore has that quality of great compassion, then is there
anything that is sacred? That is, not supernatural? When the mind
does not project anything, then the mind is still. You understand? If
it does not project according to his conditioning, that which is
called sacred, then the mind is still. Now in this stillness is there
anything sacred? Or is there anything sacred, holy out of this
silence?
You know there is mystery. All religions have said: there is a
mystery, you cannot go beyond a certain point - logically, sanely.
That is why they have created temples that are very, very dark. The
Cathedrals have coloured windows and all the rest of it, but it is
very dark, quiet, hoping thereby to create through thought a sense
of great mystery or great myth.
When you understand this movement of thought as a whole, you
have no myth, you have no mystery, no enquiry through reality a
mystery. So when you have put away all that, then is there a
mystery which thought cannot touch? You understand? That which
is mysterious, not in the sense of the mystery that thought has
created, that great sense of mystery which scientists are also
enquiring into that mystery, that mysterious thing is sacred. It has
no symbol, no word. You cannot experience it, because if you
experience there is still the experiencer who is the centre, who is
the 'me' who will experience, therefore still division. That division
is still the movement of thought. So the experience of 'it' is not
possible, but it is there when the mind has gone through this whole
business of existence with clarity, in which there is no fear and the
understanding of that enormous thing called death and suffering.
And out of that comes great compassion.
And then when the mind is totally still in this compassion - your
mind cannot be still without compassion, do understand this - then
out of that comes something mysterious which is the most sacred.
End
(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 - 6"