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

Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 4

4:14 PM | Posted in Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 4

TRUTH AND ACTUALITY

Jiddu Krishnamurti

BROCKWOOD PARK 2ND PUBLIC TALK 7TH

SEPTEMBER 1975

It is a lovely morning, but this gathering isn't an entertainment. We

are rather serious and we must be serious in facing what we have to

do in life, with all the problems, miseries, confusion, violence and

suffering. It is only those who are really earnest live, but the others

fritter their life away and waste their existence. And if we may we

will continue with what we were talking about yesterday. We were

going to consider this morning, the whole complex problem of

fear. Whether the human mind, which has lived so long, so many

centuries upon centuries, putting up with fear, escaping from it,

trying to rationalize it, trying to forget it, or completely identifying

with something that is not fear. We have tried all these methods,

conscious as well as unconscious fear. And when one asks if it is at

all possible psychologically and from that physiologically, whether

it is at all possible to be free totally, completely of fear. And we are

going to discuss this, talk it over together, and find out for

ourselves if it is at all possible.

Before we go into that we must consider energy, the quality of

energy, the types of energy, and the question of desire. So in order

to understand completely, and if it is possible to be totally free of

fear, we must go into, and consider energy - whether we have

sufficient energy to delve deeply into this question. We know the

energy and friction of thought. It has created most extraordinary

things in the world technologically, and also psychologically we

don't seem to have that deep energy, drive, interest to penetrate

profoundly into this question of fear.

So we have to first of all understand and go into this question of

thought bringing about its own energy, and therefore fragmentary

energy; and the energy through friction, which is through conflict.

That is all we know: the energy of thought, the energy that comes

in contradiction, in opposing, in duality, the opposites, and the

energy of friction - all that is in the world of reality, reality being

the things with which we live daily, both psychologically as well as

intellectually and so on - right? I hope we are communicating with

each other. Communication implies not only verbal understanding,

but sharing, actually sharing what is being said. Otherwise there is

no communion, communication. There is not only a verbal

communication but a communion which is non verbal. But to come

to that non verbal communion one must understand very deeply the

question, whether it is possible to communicate with each other at

a verbal level, which means that we both of us share the meaning

of the words, have the same interest, the same intensity, at the

same level, so that we can proceed step by step. That requires

energy. And that energy can come into being only when we

understand the energy of thought and its friction, in which we are

caught. That is all we know actually. If you investigate into

yourself you will see that what we know, or experience, or are

aware of, is the friction of thought in its achievement, in its desires,

in its purposes - the striving, the struggle, the competition. All that

is involved in the energy of thought.

Now we are asking if there is any other kind of energy, which is

non mechanistic, non traditional, non contradictory, and therefore

tension and that tension creates energy. I hope you are meeting all

this. To find that out, if there is another kind of energy, not

imagined, not fantastic, not superstitious, traditional, but to find

out, we have to go into the question of desire. May we go along?

We are communicating with each other, a little bit at least?

Desire, as most of us have, is the want of something - right?

That is one fragment of desire. Then the longing for something,

whether it is sexual longing or psychological longing, or the socalled

spiritual longing. And the third part of that desire, the other

fragment, is how does this desire arise? Do you follow? There is

desire - desire is the want of something, the lack of something,

missing something. Then the longing for it, either imaginatively, or

actually wanting, like hunger. And there is this whole problem of

how desire arises in one. Because in comprehending, in coming

face to face with fear, we have to understand desire. Desire may be

the root of fear, not the denial of fear, but the insight into desire.

The religious monks throughout the world have denied desire, they

have resisted desire, they have identified that desire with their

gods, with their saviours, with their Jesus and so on and so on and

so on. But it is still desire. And without the full penetration into

that desire, having an insight, fear cannot possible be free from

one's mind.

So first, how does desire arise? Please you are following all

this? That is, we need a different kind of energy, not the

mechanistic energy of thought, because that has not solved any of

our problems. On the contrary it has made it much more complex,

more vast, impossible to solve them. So we must find a different

kind of energy, whether that energy is related to thought, or

independent of thought, and in enquiring into that one must go into

the question of desire. You are following this? Not somebody else's

desires, but your own desire. Now how does desire arise? If you

have observed yourself, how does this whole feeling of desire,

which is the lack or the want of something? One can see that this

movement of desire takes place through perception, seeing, visual,

then sensation, contact and desire - you follow? One sees

something beautiful, the contact of it, visual, and physical, sensory,

then sensation, then from that the feeling of the lack of that, and

from that desire. That is fairly clear.

Why does the mind, the whole sensory organism, lack - you

follow? Why is there this feeling of lacking something, of wanting

something? I hope you are giving sufficient attention to what is

being said because it is your life. You are not merely listening to

words, or ideas, or formulas, but actually sharing in the

investigating, in the investigating process so that we are together

walking in the same direction, at the same speed, with the same

intensity, at the same level. Otherwise we shan't meet each other.

That is part of love also. Love is that communication with each

other, at the same level, at the same time, with the same intensity.

So why is there the sense of lacking or wanting in oneself? I do

not know if you have ever gone into this question at all: why the

human mind, human beings, are always after something apart from

technological knowledge. Apart from learning languages and so on

and so on, why is there this sense of wanting, lacking, pursuing

something all the time - which is the movement of desire, which is

also the movement of thought as time and measure? All that is

involved in that. I hope you are following. Shall we go on?

We are asking: why there is this sense of want. Why there is not

this sense of complete self sufficiency. Why is there this sense of

longing for something in order to fulfil, or cover up something? Is

it because for most of us there is this sense of emptiness,

loneliness, sense of void? Physiologically we need food, clothes

and shelter, that one must have. But that is denied when there is

political, religious, economic division, nationalistic division, which

is the curse of this world, which has been invented by the western

world, it did not exist in the eastern world, this spirit of nationality.

It has come recently into being there too, this poison. So when

there is division between people, between nationalities and

therefore between beliefs, dogmas, and from that arises economic

division, security for everybody becomes almost impossible. And

the tyrannical world, the dictatorship is trying to provide that, food

for everybody, but it cannot achieve it for everybody. We know all

that. We can move from that.

Then there is this question why psychologically there is this

sense of want, this sense of lacking. And what is it that we lack?

Knowledge? Knowledge being the accumulation of experience,

both scientific, psychological and in other directions, which is,

knowledge is the past. Knowledge is the past. Is this what we

want? Is this what we miss? Is this what we are educated for - to

gather all the knowledge you can possibly have, to act skilfully in

the technological world? Or, is there a sense of lack, want,

psychologically, inwardly? Which means you will try to fill that

inward emptiness, which is the lack, through or with experience,

which is the accumulated knowledge. So you are trying to fill that

emptiness, that void, that sense of immense loneliness, with

something which thought has created. Therefore desire arises from

this urge to fill that emptiness. After all when you are seeking

enlightenment, as you call it, or self-realization as the Hindus call

it, it is a form of desire. This sense of ignorance which will be

wiped away, or put aside, or dissipated by acquiring tremendous

knowledge, enlightenment. It is never the process of investigating

'what is', but rather by acquiring. I wonder if you follow all this?

Not actually looking at 'what is', but inviting something which

'might be', or hoping for a greater experience, greater knowledge.

So we are always avoiding 'what is'. And the 'what is' is created by

thought - my loneliness, emptiness, sorrow, pain, suffering,

anxiety, fear - that is actually 'what is'. And thought is incapable of

facing it and tries to move away from that.

In the understanding of desire, which is perception, seeing,

visual perception, contact, sensation, and the want of that which

you have not, which there is not, and the desire, the longing for it.

That involves the whole process of time. I have not, but I will have.

When I do have, it is measured by what you have. So desire is the

movement of thought in time as measure. Right? Please, you are

not agreeing with me. I am not interested in doing propaganda. I

don't care if you are here or not here, if you listen or don't listen.

But as it is your life, as it is so urgently important that we be

deadly serious, the world is disintegrating. You have to understand

this question of desire, energy and the enquiry into a different kind

of non-mechanistic energy. And to come to that you must

understand fear. You get it now? That is, does desire create fear,

the want of something? So what is fear? We are going to enquire

together into this question of fear, all related to each other, they are

not something separate. You say, "Well let's forget about energy

and desire and please help me to get rid of my fear" - that is too

silly. They are all related. You can't take one thing and approach it

that way. You must take the whole packet.

So what is fear, how does it arise? Is there a fear at one level,

and not at another level? Is there fear at the conscious level, or at

the unconscious level? Or is there a fear totally? Now how does

fear arise? Why does it exist in human beings? And human beings

have put up with it for generations upon generations, they live with

it. And fear distorts action, distorts clear perceptive thinking,

objective efficient thinking, which is necessary, logical, sane

healthy thinking. Fear darkens our lives. I do not know if you have

not noticed it. If there is the slightest fear there is a contraction of

all your senses. And most of us live in whatever relationship we

have, in that peculiar form of fear.

Our question is: whether our mind, our whole being can ever be

free completely of fear? You see, the education, society,

governments, religions have encouraged this fear. All religions are

based on this fear. And fear also is cultivated through the worship

of authority - right? The authority of the book, the authority of the

priest, the authority of those who know, the authority of the

politician and so on and so on. We are carefully nurtured in fear -

right? And we are asking whether it is at all possible to be totally

free. So we have to find out what is fear. Is it the want of

something, which is desire, longing? Is it the uncertainty of

tomorrow? Or the pain and the suffering of yesterday? Is it this

division between you and me, in which there is no relationship at

all? Is it that centre which thought has created as the 'me' - the 'me'

being the form, the name, the attributes, and loosing that 'me'? Is

that one of the causes of fear? Or is it the remembrance of

something past, pleasant, happy, and the fear of losing it? Or the

fear of suffering, both physiologically, neurologically and

psychologically? You are following all this? So is there a centre

from which all fear springs? Like a tree, though it has got a

hundred branches it is a solid trunk, its roots, and it is no good

merely pruning the branches. So we have to go to the very root of

fear. Are we walking together?

What is that root of fear? Because if one can be totally free of

fear, then heaven is with you. So what is the root of it? Is it time?

Please, we are investigating, questioning, we are not theorizing, we

are not coming to any conclusion, because there is nothing to

conclude. The moment you see the root of it, actually, with your

eyes, with your feeling, with your heart, with your mind, actually

see it then you can deal with it. That is if you are serious. So what

is the root of it? We are asking: is it time? - time being not only

chronological time by the watch as yesterday, today and tomorrow,

but also psychologically - yesterday, the remembrance of

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

anxieties of yesterday, which is time. We are asking whether the

root of fear is time - time to fulfil, time to become, time to achieve,

time to realize god, or whatever you like to call it. And what is

time - not by the watch, that is fairly simple, but psychologically

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

time at all? Or we have invented psychological time? Is there

psychologically tomorrow? And if you say there is no time

psychologically as tomorrow, it will be a great shock to you. Won't

it? Because you say, "Tomorrow I will be happy. Tomorrow I will

achieve something. Tomorrow I will become the executive of some

business. Tomorrow I will become the enlightened one. Tomorrow

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

tremendously important. And is there a tomorrow psychologically?

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

there is a tomorrow. And when you look psychologically,

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

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

go into this, it is very important to understand.

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

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

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

- right? And thought says, "I hope I never have that pain again" -

that is, tomorrow. There has been great pleasure yesterday, sexual,

whatever kind of pleasure that one has, and thought says,

"Tomorrow I must have that pleasure again." You have had great

experience - at least you think it is great experience - and it has

become a memory, and you realize it is a memory but yet you

pursue it tomorrow - right? So thought is movement in time. So is

the root of fear time? Time as 'me' compared to you, 'me' more

important than you, 'me' that is going to achieve something,

become something, get rid of something. So thought as time, which

is to become, is the root of fear.

We have said time is necessary to learn a language. Time is

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

process to the psychological existence. You are following? I need

several weeks to learn a language and I say in order to learn about

myself, what I am, what I have to achieve, I need time. And we are

questioning the whole of that - whether there is time at all

psychologically, actually, or is it an invention of thought, and

therefore fear? You get it? That is one problem.

And consciously we have divided consciousness into the

conscious and the hidden. Again division by thought. And we say,

"I may be able to get rid of conscious fears, but it is almost

impossible to be free of the unconscious fears having their deep

roots in the unconscious." You follow? We say that it is much

more difficult to be free of unconscious fears - which is the racial

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

instinctively rooted. We have divided consciousness into two

levels. And then we ask: how can I, how can a human being delve

deeply into the unconscious? - having divided it then we ask this

question, as the Christians who first invented sin, and then the

Saviour who will save you from the sin! This is the same old

problem.

Now: we say it can be done through careful analysis,

introspection. Careful analysis of the various hidden fears, through

dreams - I haven't time to go into all that, I must be quick because

there is a great deal to cover in one hour. To uncover the

unconscious with all the inherited fears, the racial, the family, the

name, all that is hidden there, and we say we must analyse it -

right? That is the fashion. We never look into the whole process of

analysis, whether it is self-introspective, or professional. In

analysis is implied the analyser and the analysed. Who is the

analyser? Is he different from the analysed? Or the analyser is the

analysed, and therefore it is utterly futile to analyse? I wonder if

you see that? Right? If the analyser is the analysed, then there is

only observation, not analysis - right? But if the analyser is

different from the analysed, which is what you all accept, all the

professionals, all the introspective, all the people who are trying to

improve themselves - god forbid! - they are all concerned with this

thing, that there is a division between the analysed and the

analyser. But the analyser is a fragment of thought which has

created that thing to be analysed. I wonder if you follow all this?

So in analysis is implied a division, and that division implies time -

because you have to keep on analysing until you die!

So when analysis is totally false - I am using the word 'false' in

the sense of incorrect, it has no value - then you are only concerned

with observation, that is, to observe. So we have to understand the

whole question of what is observation. You are following all this?

We started out by enquiring if there is a different kind of

energy. I am sorry we must go back to it so that it is in your mind -

not memory - then you can read a book and repeat to yourself, that

is nothing. So we are concerned, or enquiring into energy. We

know the energy of thought is mechanistic, a process of friction,

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

the whole, therefore it is a fragment. And we have said, is there a

different kind of energy altogether? And we are investigating that.

And enquiring into that you see the whole movement of desire.

Desire is the state of wanting something, longing for something.

And that desire is a movement of thought as time and measure. "I

had this, I must have more". And we said, in the understanding of

fear, the root of fear may be time as movement. That may be the

root of it. And if you go into it you will see that it is the root of it,

not may be. That is the actual fact. Then is it possible for the mind

to be totally free of fear? That is, the brain which has accumulated

knowledge and can only function effectively when there is

complete security - right? And that security may be in some

neurotic activity, in some belief, in the belief that you are the great

nation, in the belief of dozens and dozens of things - all belief is

neurotic, obviously, because it is not actual.

So the brain can only function effectively, sanely, rationally,

when it feels completely secure, and fear does not give it security.

And to be free of that fear we say, analysis is necessary. And we

see that analysis does not solve fear. So when you have an insight

into the process of analysis, you stop analysing - right? And then

there is only the question of observation, seeing. If you don't

analyse, what are you to do? You can only look. And it is very

important to find out how to look. What does it mean to look?

What does it mean to look at this question of desire as movement

in time and measure? How do you see it? You are following this?

Do you see it as an idea? As a formula because you have heard the

speaker talking about it, therefore abstract what you hear into an

idea and pursue the idea, which is still away from fear. I don't

know if you see this. So when you observe it is very important to

find out how you observe. Can you observe your fear without the

movement of escaping, suppressing, rationalizing, or giving it a

name, which is quite complex? That is, can you look at fear, your

fear of not having a job tomorrow, of not being loved, a dozen

forms of fear, can you look at it without naming, without the

observer who is different from that which is observed, because the

observer is the observed? I don't know if you follow all this? So the

observer is fear, not, he is observing fear. Is this getting all too

much?

So can you observe without the observer - the observer being

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

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

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

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

thing as I believe you are my friend. If I don't believe the same

thing as you do you are my enemy. So I am always looking at you

or another - not I, I don't, thank god - can you look at another

without all these movements of thought, of remembrances, of hope,

all that, just look at yourself, look at that fear which is the root of

time? Then is there fear at all? You understand? You will find this

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

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

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

different from joy, from enjoyment. Pleasure you can cultivate,

which the modern world is doing, both sexually, in every form of

cultural encouragement, pleasure, tremendous pleasure and the

pursuit of pleasure. And therefore in the very pursuit of pleasure

there must be fear also, because they are the two sides of the same

coin. And joy you cannot invite. If it happens then thought takes

charge of it and remembers it and pursues that joy which you have

had a year ago, or yesterday, which becomes pleasure. And when

there is enjoyment - seeing a beautiful sunset, a lovely tree or a

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

brain as memory and the pursuit of that memory as pleasure. Do

you follow? There is fear, pleasure, joy and enjoyment. And is it

possible - this is a much more complex problem - is it possible to

observe the sunset, the beauty of a person, the lovely shape of an

old ancient tree in a solitary field, the enjoyment of it, the beauty of

it, and observe it without registering it in the brain, which then

becomes memory, and the pursuit of that tomorrow? Do you

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

So there is this problem of fear, pleasure, and also there is

another principle in man: that is the principle of fear, the principle

of pleasure, and suffering. Is there an end to suffering? We want

suffering to end physically, so we take drugs, and do all kinds of

yoga tricks and all that. But we have never been able to solve this

question of suffering, human suffering, not only of a particular

human being but the whole of humanity suffering. There is your

suffering and millions and millions of people in the world suffer,

through war, through starvation, through brutality, through

violence, through bombs, and can that suffering in you as a human

being end? Because if it comes to an end in you, as your

consciousness is the consciousness of the world, because your

consciousness is the consciousness of every other human being -

you may have different peripheral behaviour but basically, deeply,

your consciousness is the consciousness of every other human

being in the world, they suffer, they have pleasure, they have fear,

they are ambitious - you follow - all that is your consciousness. So

you are the world. And if you are completely free of fear you affect

the consciousness of the world. You understand how

extraordinarily important it is that we human beings change,

fundamentally, because that will affect the consciousness of every

human being. That Hitler has done, Stalin affected all the

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

name of somebody, it has affected the world. So if you, as a human

being, radically transform yourself, be free of fear you will

naturally affect the consciousness of the world.

Similarly if there is a freedom from suffering, because when

there is freedom from suffering there is compassion, not before.

You can talk about it, write books about it, discuss what

compassion is, but the ending of sorrow is the beginning of

compassion. And can your human mind, which has put up with

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

suffering, and willing to accept further suffering by future wars.

Suffering through education - modern education is to achieve a

certain technological state and nothing else and that brings great

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

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

And can that suffering end - not in somebody else, in you? The

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

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

affair, that what you have done in a past life, you are paying for in

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

you behave properly now. But they never behave properly now. So

they carry on with this belief which is utterly meaningless. But if a

man who is serious, who is concerned with compassion, what it

means to love, because without that you can do what you like,

build all the skyscrapers, have a marvellous economic world and

social behaviour and all that, but without that life becomes a desert.

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

must understand what suffering is. Is suffering apart from the

physical pain, physical disease, physical accident, which generally

affects the mind, distorts the mind? If you have had physical pain

for some time it twists your mind, and to be aware that the physical

pain cannot touch the mind requires tremendous inward awareness.

And then there is the suffering apart from the physical, there is

suffering of every kind, suffering in loneliness, suffering when

there is no love and you are not loved, the longing for you to be

loved and never finding it satisfactory, because we make love into

something to be satisfied, we want love to be gratified; and

suffering because there is death, suffering because there is never a

moment of complete wholeness, a complete sense of totality, but

always living in fragmentation, which is contradiction, strife,

confusion, misery. And to escape from that we go to temples, drugs

and various forms of entertainment, religious and non-religious,

group therapy, and individual therapy. You know all those tricks

we play upon ourselves and upon others, if you are clever enough

to play tricks upon others. So there is this immense suffering

brought by man against man. We bring suffering to all the animals,

we kill them, we eat them, we have destroyed species after species

because our love is fragmented: we love god and kill human

beings.

So there is this problem: can that end? Can suffering totally end

so that there is complete and whole compassion? Because suffering

means, the root meaning of that is to have passion, not the

Christian passion, passion, not lust, that is too cheap, that is very

easy, but to have compassion, which means passion for all, for all

things, and that can only come when there is total freedom from

suffering.

You know it is a very complex problem, like everything, like

fear, pleasure and suffering, they are all interrelated, and to go into

it and see whether the mind, which includes the brain can ever be

free completely of all psychological suffering, inward suffering. If

we don't understand that and are not free we will bring suffering to

others, as we have done - though you believe in god, in Christ, in

Buddha, in all kinds of beliefs, you have killed men generation

after generation. You understand what we do, what our politicians

do in India, and here. So what is suffering? And why is it that

human beings who think themselves extraordinarily alive and

intelligent, why have they allowed themselves to suffer? Do you

understand? There is the suffering when there is jealousy - jealousy

is a form of suffering, a form of hate, not only jealousy of those

who have achieved something in this world, or supposedly

achieved in another world, envy is part of our structure, part of our

nature, which is to compare ourselves with somebody else, and can

you live without comparison? We think without comparison we

shall not evolve, we shall not grow, we shall not be somebody. But

have you ever tried to live really, actually without comparing

yourself with anybody? You have read the lives of saints, etc., etc.,

and if you are inclined that way, as you get older, you want to

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

as you are approaching the grave you wake up.

So there are different forms of suffering and can you look at it,

observe it, without trying to escape from it, just remain solidly with

that thing? When my wife - I am not married - when my wife runs

away from me, or looks at another man because the wedding has

by law said she belongs to me and I hold her - stupid stuff all this -

and when she moves away from me I am jealous because I possess.

In possession I feel satisfied, I feel safe. And also it is good to be

possessed, that also gives satisfaction. And that jealousy, that envy,

that hatred, can you look at it without any movement of thought

and remain with it? You understand what I am saying? Jealousy is

a reaction, a reaction which has been named through memory as

jealousy, and I have been educated to run away from it, to

rationalize it, or to indulge in it, and hate, anger and all the rest of

it. But without doing any of that can my mind solidly remain with

it without any movement? You understand what I am saying? Do it

and you will see what happens

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

with it completely without a single movement of thought. Then

you will see out of that suffering comes that strange thing called

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

creative. So out of that suffering comes compassion. And that

energy is totally different from the mechanistic energy of thought -

right?

BROCKWOOD PARK 1ST PUBLIC DIALOGUE

9TH SEPTEMBER 1975

This is a dialogue between two friends, talking over their problems,

who are concerned with not only their own personal affairs, but

also with what is happening in the world. Being serious these two

friends have the urge to transform themselves and see what they

can do about the world and all the misery and confusion that is

going on. So if we could this morning spend some time together

having a friendly conversation, not trying to be clever or trying to

oppose one opinion against another opinion or belief or conclusion,

but together examine earnestly and deeply some of the problems

that one has. And so communication becomes rather important.

And any one question is not only personal but universal. So if that

is understood then what shall we talk over together this morning?

Q: The compilation of your biography has caused much

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

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

K: Do you want to discuss the Biography, written by Mary

Lutyens - do you want to go into that?

Q: No.

K: Thank god!

Q: Briefly and then finish with it.

Q: I would propose that you go into the question of correct and

incorrect thinking as that is a problem. Both kinds of thought, or

thinking processes are mechanical processes.

K: I see. Now wait a minute. Have many of you read the

Biography? Some of you. I was just looking at it this morning.

Most of it I have forgotten, and if you want to talk over the

questions that Anneka Korndoffer has put, shall we do that briefly?

Basically the question is: what is the relationship between the

present K and the former K? I should think very little. The whole

question is - if you want to go into it very deeply - how was it that

boy who was found there, discovered as it was called, how was it

that he was not conditioned at all from the beginning, though he

was brought up among a very orthodox traditional Brahmin family

with their superstitions, arrogance and extraordinary religious

sense of morality and so on? Why wasn't he conditioned then? And

also during all those periods of the Masters, Initiations and so on

and so on and so on - if you have read any of them - why wasn't he

conditioned and what is the relationship between that person and

the present person? Right? Are you really interested in all this?

Audience: Yes.

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

to tackle this. One of the questions is: do the Masters as they are

explained, not only in the Theosophical world, but in the Hindu

tradition and the Tibetan tradition maintains that there is a

Bodhisattva - do you understand all this? And that he manifests

himself rarely and that is called in Sanskrit, Avatar, which means

manifestation. And this boy was discovered and prepared for that

manifestation. And he went through all kinds of things. And one

question that may be asked: must others go through the same

process? Christopher Columbus discovered America with sailing

boats, dangerous seas and so on. And must we go through all that

to go to America? You understand my question? It is much simpler

to go by air. That is one question.

What is relevant and irrelevant in all this is the whole structure

in which he was brought up is totally irrelevant, and what is

relevant is the present teachings, and nothing else. So if you are

interested in wanting to find out the reality of the whole past - and I

don't know why you should be interested in it - if you are and if the

idea that the Bodhisattva - you know this is a very ancient tradition

that there is a state of consciousness, let us put it that way, which is

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

essence of compassion manifests itself. That is the whole idea

behind the Avatar and behind the Bodhisattva. And there are

various gradations in all that - Initiations, various Masters and so

on. And also the idea when he manifests all the others keep quiet.

You understand? And he, that essence of compassion, has

manifested at other times. So what is important in all this is, if one

may talk about it briefly: can the mind passing through all kinds of

experiences, either imagined or real - because truth has nothing to

do with experience, one cannot possibly experience truth, it is

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

imagined or illusory or real states has not left the mind

conditioned. The question is: can the mind be unconditioned

always - not only in childhood and therefore gradually get rid of

conditioning, but start unconditioned? I wonder if you understand

this question. That is the underlying problem or issue in these

questions.

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

anything about the ancient tradition of India and Tibet and

therefore China and Japan at one time, that the awakening of

certain energy, called Kundalini, if you are interested in all this.

And there are now all over America, and in Europe, various groups

trying to awaken their little energy called Kundalini. You have

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

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

teaching them how to awaken Kundalini, that energy, and making

all kinds of tricks and all kinds of words and gestures, which all

become so utterly meaningless and absurd. And there is apparently

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

complex and probably is not necessary or relevant.

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

The other question which was put: is there a non-mechanistic

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

state of mind, active which is not only not mechanical but not in

the field of time? That is what the question raised involves. Do you

want to discuss that, or something else?

Somebody also put a question on a paper which was sent: what

does it mean to be aware? Is awareness different from attention? Is

awareness to be practised systematically, or does it come about

naturally? That is the question. Are there any other questions?

Q: Would you go into the question of what it is to find one's

true will?

K: Finding out one's true will. What is one's true will.

Q: What is the difference between denial and suppression?

Q: I lose all my awareness when I am alone.

K: Can we talk over together awareness, begin with that and

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

the destiny, the will in a certain direction? (Is that what you mean

sir?)

Q: Well I am not sure.

Q: What about earnestness and effort?

K: We are now discussing awareness. Does choice indicate

freedom? Please this a discussion. I chose to belong to this society,

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

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

freedom? Or freedom denies choice? Please let is talk over together

this.

Q: Freedom means no choice is needed.

K: But we chose and we think because we have the capacity to

choose that we have freedom. I chose between the Liberal Party

and the Communist Party, or the Conservative Party. And in

choosing I feel I am free. Or I chose one particular form of guru or

another, and that gives me a feeling that I am free. So does choice

lead to awareness?

Q: No.

K: Go slowly.

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

K: That is what I want to find out.

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

responds without thinking.

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

respond without choice. We are used to choosing. That is our

conditioning.

Q: Like and dislike.

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

my friendship to another and so on and so on and so on. I want to

find out, one wants to find out if awareness includes choice. Or is

awareness a state of mind, a state of observation in which there is

no choice whatsoever? Is that possible? One is educated from

childhood to choose, and that is our tradition, that is our habit, that

is our mechanical, instinctive reaction. And we think because I

chose there is freedom.

And what does awareness mean? To be aware? It implies,

doesn't it, not only physiological sensitivity, physical sensory

sensitivity, but also a sensitivity to my environment, to nature,

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

reactions - not I am sensitive and to every other person I am not

sensitive. That is not sensitivity.

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

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

implies awareness, doesn't? I am aware of this tent, the shape of it

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

nature, the trees, the beauty of trees, the silence of the trees, you

know the shape and the beauty and the depth, and the solitude of

trees. And one is aware also of one's relationship to others, intimate

and not intimate. Whether in that awareness there is any kind of

choice. That is a total awareness, not only neurologically,

physiologically but psychologically, to everything around me, to

the influences, to all the noise and so on and so on. Is one so aware

- not only to the beliefs of one's own but of others, the opinions,

judgements, evaluations, the conclusions? All that is implied -

otherwise one is not aware. And can you practise awareness? By

going to a school, college, or going to a place where there is a guru

who will teach me to be aware, is that awareness? Which is, is

sensitivity to be cultivated through practise? Come on sirs.

Q: That becomes selfishness.

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

then becomes concentration on oneself.

Q: Which excludes awareness.

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

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

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

K: This is so obvious. One goes to India, or to Japan to learn

what it means to be aware. The Zen practice, you know all that. Or

is awareness a movement of constant observation - not only what I

feel, what I think, but also what other people are saying about me,

if they say it in front of me, to listen, and to be aware of nature, of

what is going on in the world? That is the total awareness.

Obviously it can't be practised.

Q: It is a non-movement.

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

Q: It is a participation.

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

that is one kind of action. If there is an action of total awareness,

that is a totally different kind of action, obviously. So is one so

aware? Or we indulge in words of being aware? You understand?

To be aware of the people around one, the colour, their attitudes,

their walk, the way they eat, the way they think - you know aware -

without indulging in judgement.

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

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

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

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

something or other. And the other doesn't, therefore there is choice

and so on.

So is this possible, this sense of total awareness?

Q: Is there a degree of awareness?

K: Is there a degree of awareness. That is, is awareness a

process of time?

Q: Can one man be more aware then another?

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

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

of our education, our social conditioning which says we must

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

painter and so on and so on. And we think by comparing we begin

to understand. Comparing means measurement, which means time,

thought, and is it possible to live without comparing at all? You

understand? One is brought up, educated, in schools, colleges, and

universities to compare oneself with A who is much cleverer than

myself and try to reach his level. This constant measurement, this

constant comparison, and therefore constant imitation, which is

mechanical. So can we find out for ourselves whether it is possible

to be totally sensitive and therefore aware?

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

K: Can you know if you are aware or not.

Q: Totally aware.

K: Totally.

Q: Can we think our thoughts? Can we be aware of our

awareness?

K: No. Can we be aware of our awareness?

Q: You can be aware when you are not aware.

K: Watch it in yourself. It becomes speculative, verbal, but

when you are aware, do you know you are aware?

Q: No.

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

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

longer happiness.

Q: You know when you have got a pain.

K: Wait. That is a different matter. When I have got pain I am

aware that I have got pain and I act, do something about it. That is

one part of being aware, unless I am paralysed totally, then I am

not aware that I have pain. Most people are in other directions.

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

I am aware, I am asking, one is asking oneself if there is that

quality of awareness? Does one watch the sky - you follow? - the

evening stars, the moon, , the birds, and people's reactions, you

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

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

you are aware? You understand? When I say, I am aware, then

from a centre I move, I respond to nature, from a centre I respond

to my friends, to my wife, husband or whatever it is - right? If there

is a centre from which I respond - that centre being my prejudices,

my conditioning, my desires, my fears and all the rest of it - then in

that awareness is there a centre? You follow? So in attention there

is no centre at all, obviously. Now please listen to this for two

minutes. You are now listening to what is being said, and to what

is being said you are giving total attention. That means you are not

comparing, you do not say, I already know what you are going to

say, or I have read what you have said, etc., etc. All that is gone,

you are completely attentive and therefore there is no centre and

that attention has no border. I don't know if you haven't noticed.

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

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

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

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

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

understand this? And this you cannot practise. It would be too

childish, that becomes mechanical.

So we go to the next question, which is: is there an activity

which is non-mechanistic? That means, is there a part of the brain

which is non-mechanical. Do you want to go into this. No, no,

please, this isn't a game. First of all one has to go into the question

of what is a mechanical mind - right?

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

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

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

wonder if you see.

Q: What do you mean by mechanical?

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

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

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

whatever it is - according to a pattern set by society, by influence,

by my reading, and accept that pattern or a belief and so on, then

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

mechanical process is, having had experiences of innumerable

kinds which have left memories, and act according to those

memories, that is mechanical - like a computer, which is purely

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

but let's leave that alone for the moment.

Then mechanical action is, accepting tradition and following

tradition. One of the aspects of that tradition is acceptance and

obedience to a government, to priests, you know, obedience. And

the mechanical part of the brain is following consciously or

unconsciously a line set by thought as the goal and purpose. All

that and more is mechanical. And we live that way.

Q: Is thought of itself mechanical?

K: Of course. That is the whole point.

So one has discovered for oneself, not told by others as then that

becomes mechanical. If one discovers for oneself how

mechanically our thinking, our feeling, our attitudes, our opinions

are, all that, if one is aware of that, which means thought is

invariably mechanistic - thought being the response of memory,

experience, knowledge, which is the past. And responding

according to that pattern of the past is mechanistic, which is

thought. Right?

Q: All thought?

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

thought, sexual thought or technological thought, it is all thought.

Q: Part of the great genius also?

K: Absolutely, Wait, wait we must go into the question of what

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

Q: So if all thought is mechanical, the expression which you

often use 'clear thinking' seems to be a contradiction.

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

thinking is to think clearly, objectively sanely, rationally, wholly.

Q: It is still thought.

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

Q: So what is the use of it?

K: What is the use of clear thought. If there was clear thought I

wouldn't belong to any political party. I might create a global party,

because obviously - that is another matter.

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

part of the brain which is untouched by conditioning?

K: That's right sir. To go into this requires one to be very

careful and hesitant - you know, one has to enquire into this - not

say "Yes, there is", or not. "I have experienced a state where there

is no mechanism" - that is all too silly. But to really enquire and

find out you need a great deal of subtlety, great attentive quality to

go step by step into it, not jump.

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

pleasure is mechanistic - right? But we are pursuing pleasure. Now

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

conditioned? How will you find out? This is a very, very serious

question, it is not for sentimentalists, or romantic people, or

emotional people, this requires very clear thinking. And when you

think very clearly you see the limitation of thinking.

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

interfere with an unconditioned mind?

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

mechanistic mind first. Without understanding the totality of that,

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

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

brain, emotions, neurological responses, the total brain, is that

completely mechanistic? And when I put that question to myself I

might imagine that it is not, because I want the other, therefore I

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

completely understand the movement of desire. You follow all

this? Not suppress it, but understand it, have an insight in this -

which means fear, time and all that we talked about the day before

yesterday.

So we are now enquiring: is our total activity mechanistic? That

means am I, or you, are we, or is one clinging to memories? - the

Hitlarian memories and all that, the memories of various

pleasurable and painful experiences, the memories of sexual

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

past?

Q: Always I am.

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

mechanistic. So knowledge is mechanistic. I wonder if you see

this?

Q: Why is it so difficult to see this?

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

of what actually is going on within oneself - not imagine what is

going on, or speculate about what is going on, or repeat what is

going on because we have been told by somebody else, but actually

being aware.

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

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

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

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

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

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

cruel, violent, or justified, to observe it and not register it. You

understand? Try it sir. You try it, test it out.

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

sir, we never forget it.

K: Don't forget. Do go into this. From childhood we are hurt,

which is happening to everybody, in school, at home, at college, in

universities, the whole society is a process of hurting others. One

has been hurt and one lives in that, consciously, or unconsciously.

So there are two problems involved: the past hurt retained in the

brain, and not to be hurt. That which has given you and the

memory of hurts, and never to be hurt. Now is that possible?

Q: If you are not there.

K: Go into it sir, go into it. You will discover it for yourself and

find out. That is, you have been hurt.

Q: The image of myself...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fear, all that is involved in the past hurt; and also how not to be

hurt any more - right?

Q: One has to be totally involved.

K: Go into it sir. Look at it and you will find out. You have

been hurt haven't you - I am not talking to you sir. You have been

hurt haven't you, and you resist, you are afraid of being hurt more.

So you build a wall round yourself, isolate yourself, and the

extreme form of that isolation is total withdrawal from all

relationship. And you build a wall and you remain in that but you

have to live, you have to act. So you are always acting from a

centre that is hurt and therefore neurotically acting - right? You can

see this happening in the world, in oneself. And how are those

hurts to be totally dissolved and not leave a mark, and also in the

future not to be hurt at all? Right, the question is clear, is it?

Now how do you approach this question: how to dissolve the

hurts and be concerned with that, or how not to be hurt at all?

Which is the question you put to yourself? Put to yourself. Now

which do you want answered? To dissolve all the hurts, or no more

hurts. You understand? Which is it that comes to you naturally?

Q: No more hurts.

K: Don't guess. If you say "I will find out if it is possible not to

be hurt at all" - then you will have to solve the problem of past

hurts, won't you? I don't know if you see that. But if you say, "I

will try to dissolve my past hurts", you are still living with hurts. I

wonder if you see - right? So if you see that: if it is possible to have

no hurt, then you have solved the past hurts. Shall we go on? So

the question is: is it possible not be hurt? Which means is it

possible not to have an image about yourself?

Q: If we see that image is false...

K: No false or truth. Don't - you see you are already operating

in the field of thought. So is it possible not to have an image at all

about yourself, or about another, naturally? And if there is no

image, isn't that true freedom? You see it? We are doing it slowly.

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

it doesn't matter, and it won't affect you and it won't hurt you. If

you have managed to get rid of your self importance...

K: Yes, sir. The gentleman says if you can get rid of your self

importance, your arrogance, your vanity, your etc., etc. then you

won't be hurt. But how am I to get rid of all that garbage which I

have collected?

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

relationship between yourself and your physical body and your

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

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

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

Please go into this a little bit and you will see. First of all the

idea of getting rid of an image implies there is an entity who is

different from the image, and therefore he can then kick the image.

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

of it? Therefore there is no control. Therefore when you see that

you are no longer functioning mechanistically.

Q: Surely by destroying one image we are immediately building

another one?

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

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

does the mind create an image about itself? Come on sirs. Why do

I create an image about myself? I say I am a Christian, that is an

image. I belief in the Saviour, in Christ, in all the rituals, you

know, all that, why? Because that is my conditioning. Go to India

and they say "What are you talking about, Christ? I have got my

own gods, as good as yours, if not better." So that is his

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

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

prophet" and so on and so on and so on.

So the image formation is brought about through propaganda,

conditioning, tradition - right?

Q: Sir, is that related to the fact that out of fear one behaves in a

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

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

talking about.

K: The image is what we call oneself. I must express myself. I

must fulfil myself - myself is the image according to the

environment and culture in which I have been born. I believe there

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

who had an image about himself was killed, was liquidated. That

lead to ambition and all the rest of it. I wonder what would happen

if they did it to all of us. It would be a lovely world, wouldn't it?

So: is it possible not to create images at all? That is, I know, I

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

through propaganda, tradition, family, you follow, the whole

pressure.

Q: We cling to the known.

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

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

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

status, might lose a certain relationship and so on and so on, so it is

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

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

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

Christ. Or in Krishna, or whatever they believe in in India, or

Marx. They are just words ideologically clothed. And if I am not a

slave to words then I begin to lose the image. I wonder if you see

how deeply rooted words have become significant.

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

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

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

K: It is not an ideal.

Q: Freedom itself. Then knowing that there is a discrepancy can

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

K: That is why sir - is freedom an abstraction, a word in

abstraction? Or a reality?

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

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

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

the brain, which means any part of the total entity, that is not

conditioned? We said conditioning means the image forming - the

image that gets hurt and the image that protects itself from being

hurt. And we said there is only freedom, the actuality of that state,

not the word, not the abstraction, but the actuality of that word

when there is no image which is freedom. When I am not a Hindu,

Buddhist, Christian, Communist, Socialist - you follow? - I have

no label, and therefore no label inside. I am a global politician -

sorry!

Now is it possible not to have an image at all? And how does

that come about?

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

K: No sir. Look. Please we come to a point and go off after

something else. I want to find out, one wants to find out whether it

is possible to live in this world without a single image.

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

one comes across something in this silence.

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

your life, not occasionally? Please, please - we go off into

something. Is it possible to be free of the image that society,

environment, culture, education has built in one? Because one is all

that - right? You are the result of your environment, of your

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

technological job, of your pleasure, you are all that.

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

K: All that comes a little later, please.

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

K: Now are you actually, not theoretically or in abstraction,

actually aware that you are conditioned this way, therefore you

have got an image?

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

place is.

K: Wait, listen to that carefully. If you have no image, you have

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

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

world, secure?

Q: No.

K: Be actual.

Q: Sir when you see that the image that you have built, you

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

words...

K: So you are finding security in a word, and therefore it is not

a security at all. You understand sir? We have lived in words and

made those words something fantastically real. So if you are

seeking security, it is not in an image, it is not in your environment,

in your culture. I want security, I must have security, that is

essential, food, clothes, and shelter. I must have it otherwise I can't

function. Now that is denied totally when I belong to small groups

- right? When I say I am a German, or a Russian, or an

Englishman, I deny complete security. That is, I deny security

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

I wonder if you see? Right, we meet this? This is what is actually

happening, the Arab and Israel, both want security - right? And

both are accepting words and all the rest of it.

Now we come to the point: is it possible to live in this world,

not go off into some fantastic realm or illusion, or monasteries and

all the rest of it, live in this world without a single image and be

totally secure?

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

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

Q: All right. I am going to hold on to it.

K: All right you have got your security, then hold on to your

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

security, absolute security, not in images.

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

does not exist.

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

and that image has been formed by the culture, society and all the

rest of it? Are you aware of that image? And you discover that

image in relationship, don't you? How you react in relationship

with each other. When you tell me something ugly and I get hurt,

that is, the image is hurt, the image is me, carefully put together by

words. I am a Christian. I believe in this. I do not believe in that.

This is my opinion - you follow? Now we are asking ourselves

whether it is possible to be free of images? That means sir - listen

to it carefully - that means when you say something to me that is

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

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

like what you said about me, it is pleasant and I hold on to that, and

what somebody else says is unpleasant and I get hurt. But to be

totally aware of both, the pleasurable image which I have and the

unpleasurable image which has been put together. To be aware

totally at the moment of the reaction to your insult or praise. At

that moment you don't then form an image. There is no recording

in the brain of the hurt, of the insult or the flattery, therefore there

is no image. That requires tremendous attention at the moment.

Which demands a great inward perception, you understand sir -

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

have worked. You don't just say, "Well tell me all about it. I want

to be comfortable."

Q: Who watches all this?

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

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

Obviously.

So: in that state of attention both the hurt and the flattery, or the

pleasant things, are both observed, not reacted to. Both observed

and you can only observe when there is no observer, who is the

past. It is the past observer that gets hurt. There is only observation

when there is flattery and insult, then it is finished. And that is real

freedom.

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

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

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

you have also found security in belief. I believe - if I am a Catholic

living in Italy - I believe in that it is much safer to believe what ten

thousand people believe. There I have a place. And when that

belief is questioned I resist. And Protestantism grew out of that and

so on and so on.

Now can there be a total awareness of all this? So my mind is

tremendously active you understand? Not say, "I must be aware",

"I must learn how to be" - play games. It requires that you are

tremendously active, the brain is alive.

Then we can move from that to find out if there is in the brain a

part that has not been conditioned at all, which is part of the brain

which is non-mechanistic. I am putting a false question, I don't

know if you see that. Do see it quick; do see it. Please just listen

for two minutes, I am on fire, sorry, excuse me.

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

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

conditioned. Full stop. You understand? Then my whole brain is

unconditioned.

Q: It is on fire!

K: Yes, therefore it is non-mechanistic and that has got a totally

different kind of energy. Not the mechanistic energy - right? I

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

because then it becomes words. But if you see this, that your brain

has been conditioned through centuries, saying survival is only

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

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

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

Englishman - you follow - I am better than anybody else, or a

Frenchman or whatever it is. Now my brain is conditioned, I don't

know whether it is whole or part, I only know that it is conditioned.

There is no enquiry into the unconditioned state until the

conditioning is non-existent. So my whole enquiry is to find out

whether the mind can be unconditioned, not jump into the other

because that is too silly. So I am conditioned by belief, by

education, by the culture in which I have lived, by everything, and

to be totally aware of that, not discard it, not suppress it, not

control it, but to be aware of it. Then you will find if you have

gone that far there is security only in being nothing.

Q: What about images in relationship? Don't belong to a

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

psychological image but you must have a physical image for your

physical survival. And even if you want to drop it you can't

because the other one puts it on you.

K: Sir, if I want to survive physically, what is preventing it? All

the psychological barriers which man has created - right? So

remove all those psychological barriers, you have complete

security.

Q: No, because the other one puts it on you, not yourself.

K: Nobody can put you into prison.

Q: They kill you.

K: Then they kill you, all right. Then you will find out how to

meet death - not imagine what you are going to feel when you die,

which is another image. Oh, I don't know if you see all this.

So nobody can put you psychologically into prison. You are

already there. We are pointing out that it is only possible to be

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

one of the questions about the biography is that whole point: how

was one, that young boy, or whatever he was, how was he not

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

complex problem, I will not go into that. If one is aware of one's

own conditioning then the whole thing becomes very simple. Then

genius is something entirely different.

That leaves the question of what is creation - right sir?

BROCKWOOD PARK 2ND PUBLIC DIALOGUE

11TH SEPTEMBER 1975

K: What shall we talk over this morning together?

Q: Continue with the question about security and being nothing.

Q: You were going to speak on what is creation and to say

something about creative intelligence.

Q: Is there any reality in the belief of reincarnation, and what is

the nature and quality of the meditative mind?

Q: The difference between denial and suppression of habit.

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

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

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

one encounters the horrors and the difficulties which makes things

so hard and impossible sometimes. What is the right action?

K: I don't quite follow this.

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

taking part in all the horrors that are involved in this?

K: Do we understand rightly that you are asking: what is the

correct action in a world that is chaotic, insecure, where there is no

security, one must have security and what is one to do? Is that the

question? Are you quite sure?

Q: I have a question that when I ask myself I always come up to

a wall. I say, "I am the observer" and I would like to see the whole

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

can only see in fragments: so how is the observer to see the whole

of the observer unless there is no observer? So how can the

observer see the observer with no observer?

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

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

Q: When a situation occurs, what keeps one into the

observingness that the observer is different from what is observed?

It seems a lack of attention to the moment, at that point, but that

attention to the point requires a tremendous vitality that we don't

have.

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

enough energy to observe wholly. Is that it?

Q: Yes.

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

Q: May I just ask a question? Can an act of will-power - I think

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

passion?

K: Can will generate sufficient energy to see clearly. Would that

be right?

Q: Yes.

Q: What happens to the brain and the process of thought during

hypnosis? Is hypnosis a way of looking at one's thought process?

K: Have you heard that question?

Q: For medical reasons, we use hypnosis in medicine. What is

the process of thought in that particular case?

K: What is the process of thought when there is hypnosis. Is that

it?

Now wait a minute sirs: we have got so many questions. What

shall we begin with? The observer?

Q: Yes.

K: The observer, and to see the whole of that of that observer

one needs energy, and how is that energy to be derived, to be got.

How is that energy to be acquired? And will that energy reveal the

totality of the whole nature and structure of the observer? Should

we discuss that? And what is the quality of the mind that has this

meditative process and so on. Now wait a minute.

How is one to observe the whole of something,

psychologically? How is one to be aware of oneself totally? Can

we begin with that? How am I, or we, or one to be wholly aware of

oneself?

Q: Surely one can only be aware.

K: Yes sir. How is one, you or I, to be aware of the totality of

our consciousness, with all its content - right? Would you like to

discuss this? That is what was proposed. Is it possible to see the

totality of one's own reactions, the motives, the fears, the anxieties,

the sorrows, the pain, the totality of all that? Or must one see it in

fragments, in layers? Shall we discuss that? How is one to be

aware of the content of one's consciousness? Right, can we begin

with that?

What is consciousness? What do you think is consciousness?

Under hypnosis as well as when one is not hypnotized. Most of us

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

things that we believe in, and so on. We are hypnotized not only

externally, by external influence, but also we have our own

peculiar process of hypnotizing ourselves into believing something,

or not believing, and so on and so on. All that - can one see the

totality of one's consciousness? Come on sirs, let us enquire into

this?

Q: The observer cannot see.

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

enquire.

Q: One has the feeling one has to begin.

K: We are going to begin sir. How shall I begin, from where

shall I begin? To be aware of myself - myself being all the beliefs,

the dogmas, the conclusions, the fears, the anxieties, the pain, the

sorrow, the fear and the fear of death, and so on, the whole of that,

where shall we begin to find out the content of this? You

understand?

Q: You just asked what consciousness was.

K: We are going into that.

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

outside the things that one is observing?

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

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

serious, where shall I begin?

Q: Is the question "Who I am?"

K: Enquire who I am, that becomes intellectual, verbal. Would

you please follow this. I can only know myself, begin to know

myself in my relationship to others - right? Do let's face that fact. I

cannot know myself in abstraction. It would be rather a vain

process to say to myself, "I am going to learn about myself". And

then I can imagine all kinds of fantasies, illusions and so on. But

whereas if I could observe what my reactions are in my

relationship to another, then I begin to enquire. That is much

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

relationship with my wife, husband, friend, or boy, girl and so on,

with my relationship to nature, with my relationship to the

neighbour and so on, I discover the nature of myself. Right?

Please, this is a dialogue, not a talk by me. So how do I observe my

reactions in my relationship with another?

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

becomes knowledge.

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

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

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

I can really observe. When I am angry in my relationship I see

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

K: Sir, you and I are related. You and I are related as friends, or

husband, wife or this or that: what is our relationship? What do we

mean by relationship?

Q: When we seem to want something...

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

Q: I like to compare myself with the other.

K: Sir we are asking, if I may, the meaning of the word itself,

relationship.

Q: Communication.

Q: It means you are relating to that person.

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

husband, father, son, neighbour, what does that mean?

Q: Care for the person, I care for the person.

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

Q: I'd rather you told us.

K: Ah! (Laughter). I am related to you, either in blood, same

father and mother, or I am related to you economically, I am

related to you sexually, socially, or I am related to you because we

have both the same belief, the same ideal, the same purpose.

Relationship means, does it not, I am enquiring please, I am not

stating it, doesn't relationship mean to respond accurately. To be

related, the meaning in the dictionary, says to respond -

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

relationship to you, if you are my wife, husband and all the rest of

it? Am I responding according to the image I have about you? And

you are responding according to the image you have about me? Or

are we both free of the images and therefore responding

accurately? I don't know if you see.

Q: Isn't it largely subconsciousness?

K: We will go into that. First let us see what the word means in

itself.

Q: What do you mean by accurate?

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

care. Therefore accurate, if you care for something you act

accurately. If you care for your motor you must be very well

acquainted with it, you must know all the mechanical processes of

it.

So accurate means infinite care. We are using that word in that

sense: that when there is a relationship with another, either

intimate, or distant, the response depends on the image you have

about the other, or the image the other has about you; and when we

act according to that image, that is we respond according to that

image, it is inaccurate, it is not with complete care. Is that clear?

Q: What is a love hate relationship?

K: Love and hate relationship. Sir we are just beginning to

enquire. We will come to that. Now I have an image about you and

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

through, it may be one day or it may be ten years, through pleasure,

fear, nagging, domination, possession, various hurts, impatience

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

that image then that action, being incomplete, it is inaccurate, and

therefore without care, which we generally call love. May we go

on from there? Please, not verbally. Are you aware, is one aware

that you have an image about yourself, about another? And having

that image you respond according to the past, because the image

has been put together but has become the past.

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

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

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

can you write a letter?

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

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

ourselves but about another?

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

relation with the image of yourself.

K: So there is - you see what you are saying - there is a thing

different from the image.

Q: The image of the other is made from the image you have of

yourself.

K: That is what we said sir.

Q: Sir would anything practical help?

K: Sir this is the most practical thing if you listen to this. You

want something practical, and the practical is to observe clearly

what we are and act from there. Is one aware that one has an image

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

oneself? Are you aware of that? This is a simple thing. I injure you,

I hurt you, and you naturally have an image about me. I give you

pleasure, and you have an image about me. And according to that

hurt and pleasure you react; and that reaction, being fragmentary,

must be inaccurate, not whole. This is simple. Can we go on from

there?

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

another? I am conscious, I am aware that I have an image about

myself, and I have an image about you, so I have got two images,

the one that I have about myself and the other is about you. Am I

conscious of this?

Q: From moment to moment.

K: Just look now, sir, not moment to moment. Now if I have an

image why has this image been put together? And who is it that has

put the image together? You understand the question? Why is it

that there is an image and who is it that has put it there? Who is the

creator of these images? Let us begin there. I have an image about

you. How has that image been born? How has it come into being?

Q: Is it a necessary imaginative process? - experience,

imagination and previous images.

Q: Lack of attention.

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

does come? You say through experience, through various

incidents, through words.

Q: Retaining it all as memory.

K: Which is all the movement of thought, isn't it? No? So

thought as movement, which is time, put this image, created this

image. It does it because it wants to protect itself - right? Am I

inventing or fabricating this, or is this actual?

Q: Actual.

K: Actual. That means 'what is'. Actually means 'what is'. Sorry

I am not teaching you English!

Q: It means that it then can see itself.

K: No, no sir. You have an image about me, haven't you?

Q: Well it is changing.

K: Wait, wait, go slow. You have an image about me, haven't

you, if you are honest, look into yourself, you see you have an

image. How has that image been brought about? You have read

something, you have listened to something, there is a reputation, a

lot of talk about it, some articles in the papers and so on and so on.

So all this has influenced the thought and out of that you have

created an image. And you have an image, not only about yourself

but about the other. So when you respond according to an image

about the speaker you are responding inaccurately, in that there is

no care. We said care implies attention, affection, accuracy; that

means to act according to 'what is'. Now let's move from there.

Q: Is not an image a thought?

K: We said that sir, a thought.

Q: Thought has created images and it seems to imply that

thought has created thought so...

K: Wait sir, we will get very far if we go slowly. So thought has

built this image through time. It may be one day or fifty years. And

I see in my relationship to another this image plays a tremendous

part, if I become conscious, if I don't act mechanically, I become

aware and see how extraordinarily vital this image is. Then my

next question is: is it possible to be free of the image? I have the

image as a Communist, believing in all kinds of ideas, or a

Catholic - you follow? It is not just an image but this whole

cultural, economic, social thing has built this image also. And I act

according to that, there is a reaction according to that image. I

think this is clear. May we go on from there?

Now is one aware of it? Then one asks: is it necessary? If it is

necessary one should keep it, one should have the image. If it is not

necessary how is one to be free of it? Right? Now is it necessary?

Q: Images form the whole chaos in the world where we live, so

it is not necessary.

K: He says this whole image making is bringing about chaos in

the world - the image as a Hindu, as a Buddhist, as a Communist,

as a Mao, as a Trotsky-ite, as a Catholic, as a Protestant, good god,

you understand?

Q: Aren't we making a lot of judgement?

K: Are we making a lot of judgement?

Q: In making an image there is a lot of judgement.

K: But we are asking a little more. We are asking whether it is

necessary to have these images?

Q: No, we can be free of it.

K: Wait. Is it necessary? First let us see.

Q: No.

K: Then if it is not necessary why do we keep it?

Q: I have a feeling being what we are we can hardly help it.

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

this image, and whether it is worthwhile to be free of this image,

and what does it mean to be free of the image.

Q: What is the relation with the chaos? Judging that chaos is

wrong.

K: No, no sir. Look: I have an image about myself as a

Communist, and I believe in Marx, his economic principles, I am

strongly committed to that. And I reject everything else. But you

think differently and you are committed to that. So there is a

division between you and me, and that division invariably brings

conflict. Wait, go slowly. I believe that I am Indian and I am

committed to Indian nationalism, and you are committed to a

Muslim and there is a division and there is conflict. So - wait,

slowly. So thought has created this division, thought has created

these images, these labels, these beliefs and so there is

contradiction, division, which brings conflict and therefore chaos.

That is a fact. Now wait a minute. That is a fact. So if you think

life is a process of infinite conflicts, never ending conflicts, then

you must keep these images. Wait. I don't say it, we are asking it

sir. All our wars - I believe there have been five thousand wars

within the last two thousand years, more, five thousand years - and

we have accepted that: to have our sons killed, you know, the

whole business, because we have these images. And if we say that

is not necessary, it is really a tremendous danger to survival, to

physical survival, then I must find out how to be free of the images

- right?

Q: I think something else is involved in that because you say we

always react from the past but what difference does it make - the

past is a cyclic phenomenon that repeats so you can't prevent

yourself, you know it is a fact that you will repeat it in the same

way all the time.

K: Sir, we are talking about the necessity of having an image, or

not having an image. If we are clear that these images are a real

danger, real destructive processes then we want to get rid of them.

But if you say, I keep my little image and you keep your little

image, then we are at each other's throats. So if we see very clearly

that these images, labels, words are destroying human beings...

Q: Krishnamurti, doesn't spiritual commitment give us the

penetration of energy. I mean if I am a committed Buddhist and I

channel my energy into that direction, it doesn't necessarily mean

that I am in conflict with those that aren't Buddhist.

K: If I am a committed Buddhist, it does not necessarily mean I

am in conflict with another - right? Just examine that please. If I

am a committed human being to Buddhism and another is

committed equally to the Christian dogma, and another equally

committed to Communism...

Q: That is not my concern.

K: Isn't this what is happening in life? Don't say, it is not my

business if you are a Communist. It is my business to see if we can

live in security, in peace in the world, we are human beings,

supposed to be intelligent. Why should I be committed to

anything?

Q: Because it gives energy, the power of penetration.

K: No, no.

Sirs, let's go on.

Q: The danger is that we are moving away from the central fact.

K: Yes, we are always moving away from the central fact.

Q: We are doing that right now, it is not necessary.

K: You may think it is necessary, people think it is necessary to

be an Englishman, to be a German, to be a Hindu - you follow - or

a Catholic, they think it is important. They don't see the danger of

it.

Q: Some people think it is not.

Q: Why don't you see the danger?

K: Why don't I see the danger. Because I am so heavily

conditioned, it is so profitable, my job depends on it. I might not be

able to marry my son to somebody else, who is a Catholic. All that

stuff. So the point is: if one sees the danger of these images, then

how can the mind free itself from these images? That is the next

question. Can we go on from there?

Q: Can I be there when no image is formed?

K: Images, whether they are old or new are the same images.

Q: Yes but when an image is formed can I be aware.

K: We are first of all going to go into that. How is an image

formed? Is it formed through inattention, when I am not paying

attention the image is formed. You get angry with me and if I am at

that moment totally attentive to what you say there is no anger. I

wonder if you realize this.

Q: So the image and the image former must be the same in that

case.

K: Sir, look. Keep it very simple. I say something that doesn't

give you pleasure. You have an image instantly, haven't you? Now

at that moment if you are completely aware, is there an image?

Q: If you are not trying to utilize what has been said to you.

K: That's right, call it any word you like. Utilize, or liquidate,

any word.

Q: If you don't have that image, all the other images are gone.

K: Yes, that is the whole point sir. Can one be attentive at the

moment of listening? You understand? You are listening now, can

you be totally attentive, so that when you call me a name, not a

pleasant name, or give me pleasure, at that moment, at that precise

moment to be totally aware? Have you ever tried this? You can test

it out, because that is the only way to find out, not accept the

speaker's words. You can test it out. Then if there is no image

forming, and therefore no image, then what is the relationship

between the two? You understand? I wonder if you follow all this?

You have no image about me, but I have an image about you, then

what is your relationship to me? You are following this question?

You have no image because you see the danger of it, but I don't see

the danger of it, I have my image and you are related to me, I am

your wife, husband, father, whatever it is, girl, boy and all the rest

of it. I have the image and you have not. Then what is your

relationship to me? And what is my relationship to you?

Q: There is a barrier somewhere.

K: Of course there is a barrier. But we are saying what is that

relationship. You are my wife - my god! - and I am very ambitious,

greedy, envious, I want to succeed in this world, make a lot of

money, position, prestige, and you say, "How absurd all that is,

don't be like that, don't be silly, don't be traditional, don't be

mechanical, that is just the old pattern being repeated." What

happens between you and me?

Q: Division.

K: And we talk together about love. I go off to the office where

I am brutal, ambitious, ruthless, and I come home and be very

pleasant to you, because I want to sleep with you. What is the

relationship?

Q: No good.

K: No, is there any relationship at all? At last. For god's sake.

And yet this is what we call love.

So what is the relationship between you and me, I have an

image and you have no image? Either you leave me, or we live in

conflict. You don't create conflict but I create conflict, because I

have an image. So is it possible in our relationship with each other

to help each other to be free of images? You understand my

question? I am related to you by some misfortune - sexual

demands, glands frightfully active and so on and so on, I am

related to you and you are free and I am not, of the images, and

therefore you care infinitely - you follow? I wonder if you see that?

To you this is tremendously important to be free of images, and I

am your father, wife, husband or whatever it is, Then will you

abandon me?

Q: No.

K: Don't say, no, so easily. Because you care, you have

affection, you feel totally differently. So what will you do with

me? Drown me? Hold hands?

Q: There is nothing you can do.

K: Why can't you do something with me? Do go into it, don't

theorize about it. You are all in that position. Life is this.

Q: It depends if this person has the capacity to see what the

truth of the matter is.

K: This is the truth - you have none and I have.

Q: See through it all and don't take any notice of it.

K: When I am nagging you all the time? You people just play

with words. You don't take actuality and look at it.

Q: Surely if you have no image in yourself and you look at

another person you won't see their image either.

K: Oh goodness! If I have no image I see very clearly that you

have an image. Sir, look this is happening in the world, this is

happening in every family, in every situation in relationship: you

have something free and I am not and the battle is between us.

Q: I think that situation is in everything.

K: That is what I am saying. What do you do? Just drop it and

disappear and become a monk? Form a community? Go off to

meditation and all the rest of it? Here is a tremendous problem.

Q: I tell you how I feel first of all.

Q: But surely this is fictitious because we are trying to imagine.

K: I have said that madame; if you have an image and I have an

image, then we live very peacefully because we are both blind and

we don't care.

Q: That situation you have created for us because you want us

to be free of images.

K: Of course, of course I want you to be free of images because

otherwise we are going to destroy the world.

Q: Of course, I see that. But you say to us that situation.

K: We are not creating the situation for you: it is there. Look at

it.

Q: I have an image about you, and I have had it for a long time.

And there are different kinds of images. I have been trying to get

rid of those images because I have read that they have created

problems for me. Now every time I try to work it out with you and

it hasn't helped.

K: I'll show you sir how to get rid of it, how to be free of

images.

Q: I don't believe you sir.

K: Don't believe me.

Q: You are all the time just sitting there talking.

K: I am not asking you...

Q: Abstractions and abstractions. Me having an image about

you means you are sitting up on the platform being an enlightened

person. I am here as a listener, a disciple or a pupil. Now I feel

very strongly that is really not actuality or reality because we are

two human beings. But still you are the guru, you are the one who

knows and...

K: Please sirs be quiet, he is telling you something please listen.

I'll show you something. Please do sit down. I'll show you

something.

If that image of the guru had not created a problem you would

live with that guru happily - right? But it has created a problem,

whether it is the guru, the wife, husband, it is the same thing. Now

how am I, how is one, or you who have got the image about the

speaker as the supreme guru - talking about gurus, the word means

one who dispels ignorance, one who dispels the ignorance of

another. That is one of the meanings. But generally the gurus

impose their ignorance on you. This is a fact. Now we won't go

into the whole business of the gurus.

You have an image about me as the guru, or you have an image

about another as a Christian and so on and so on and so on. First of

all, if that pleases you, if that gives you satisfaction, you will hold

it - right? That is simple enough. If it causes trouble then you say,

"My god, it is terrible to have this" and you move away and form

another guru, another relationship which is pleasant, but it is the

same image making. Right? So one asks: is it possible to be free of

images? The speaker sits on the platform because it is convenient,

because you can all see, I can equally sit on the ground but you

will have the same image - right? So the height doesn't make any

different.

So the question is, please: whether the mind, the mind being

part of thought, and thought has created these images, can thought

dispel these images? Do you understand? That is the first question.

Thought has created it, and thought can dispel it because it is

unsatisfactory, and create another image which will be satisfactory.

This is what we do - I don't like that guru for various reasons,

because he stinks, or I don't like that guru and I go to another

because he praises me, gives me garlands and says, "My dear chap

you are the best disciple I have". And so on and so on and so on.

So thought has created this image. Can thought undo the image?

Q: Not if you are looking at it intellectually. Looking at it

intellectually you are not using your senses.

K: I am asking that first. Look at it. Can the intellect,

intellection, dispel the image?

Q: No.

K: Then what will?

Q: The thing that stands in the way is merely self, the I. You

overcome this.

K: No sir. I know but I don't want to go into the much more

complex problem of the I.

Q: You say the image but what do you mean by the I?

K: How does thought get rid of the image without creating

another image?

Q: It feels uncomfortable perhaps with the image if the guru

causes trouble, so if one can see the trouble then perhaps that guru

can help?

K: You are not going into it at all sir, you are just scratching on

the surface.

Q: Thought cannot get rid of the image.

K: If that is so, if thought cannot get rid of the image then what

will?

Q: Understanding.

K: Don't use words like understanding. What do you mean by

understanding?

Q: Getting rid of the thoughts.

K: Getting rid of thought. Now who is going to get rid of

thought?

Q: Is it a question of time? Would it be that our energies are all

in the past, and we need to think now.

K: All the images are in the past, why can't I drop all that and

live in now?

Q: That is what I meant.

K: Right. Yes. How can I, with a burden of the past? How do I

get rid of the burden? It comes to the same thing.

Q: Sir if one lives in the present, do the past images still come

through?

K: If I live in the present will the past images come? Can you

live in the present? Do you know what it means to live in the

present? That means not a single memory except technological

memory, not a single breathe of the past. And therefore you have to

understand the totality of the past, which is all this memory,

experience, knowledge, imagination, images, which is the past. I

am asking. You go off from one thing to another, you don't pursue

steadily one thing.

Q: Please keep going with one having no image and the other

having an image.

K: We have been through that sir. I'll answer it, all right, if you

want it. You have no image and I have an image. I want you to be

the richest man, etc., etc. I have got an image, and you haven't.

And I live with you, what happens? Aren't we eternally at war with

each other? No?

Q: I can't drown him.

K: No you can't drown me.

Q: What am I going to do with you?

K: I am going to go into it. I have an image and you haven't. We

are living on the same earth, in the same house, meeting often,

living in the same community, what will you do with me?

Q: I would try to explain to him.

K: Yes, you have explained it to me, but I like my image.

Q: Sir we cannot know because we have this image ourselves.

K: That is all I am saying. You are living in images and you

don't know how to be free of it. And these are all speculative

questions.

So let's begin again. Are you aware that you have images? If

you have those images that are pleasant and you cling to them, and

discard those which are unpleasant, you have still images. Right?

Then the question is really: can you be free of them?

Q: Go and listen to some music.

K: Go and listen to music. The moment that music stops you are

back to those images. This is all so childish. Take drugs, that also

creates various images.

Q: Isn't the division between wanting to hold on to the images

and wanting to let them go.

K: Wanting to hold on to images and to let them go. What is the

line, the division? The division is desire, isn't it? Listen sir. Listen.

Desire isn't it? I don't like that image, I am going to let it go. But I

like this image, I am going to hold on to it. So it is desire, isn't it?

Q: I feel that there is a pleasure motive even in...

K: Of course sir. You don't stick to one thing sir.

Q: If I have no image then the other person has no image at all.

K: If I have no image, the other person has no images at all.

How inaccurate that is. Because I am blind therefore you are also

blind. Don't please. This is so illogical. Do think clearly. Let's go

into this.

What are the activities, what should I do so that there is no

image forming at all? May I talk a few minutes? Will you listen to

it? Let us think together.

Q: I think most people - I am sorry - I think most people in this

place are, in your words, here for consolation, rather then any

other; I mean it all gets such a bore really because the same words

get used over and over again, and everybody is looking like a load

of zombies.

K: I am aware that I have images - aware being I am conscious,

I know - there is no question of it, I know I have images - right? I

am an Englishman, Dutchman, or a Hindu, Buddhist, Catholic,

Communist and all the rest of it, I have an image about myself and

I have an image about you. That is very clear. If I am satisfied -

both you and I have the same image, then we are satisfied. That is,

if you think as I think, you like to be ambitious, I like to be

ambitious, then we are both in the same boat, we won't quarrel, we

accept it, and we live together, work together, be ruthlessly

ambitious. But if you are free of the image of ambition and all the

rest of it, and I am not, the trouble begins. What then will you do,

who are free of that image, with me? You can't just say, "Well it is

not my business" - because we are living together, we are in the

same world, in the same community, in the same group and so on.

What will you do with me? Please just listen to this. Will you

discard me, will you turn your back on me, will you run away from

me, will you join a monastery, learn how to meditate? Do all kinds

of things in order to avoid me? Or, you say, "Yes, he is here" -

right? He is in my house. What shall I do? What will he do with

regard to me, who has an image?

Q: First I would ask you politely to listen.

K: But I won't listen. You people! Haven't you lived with

people who are adamant in their beliefs? You are like that. You are

so...

Q: It is best not to waste one's time.

K: We are going to find out sir. You see this is really a

hypothetical question because you have got images and you live in

those images, and the other person lives in those images. That is

our difficulty. Suppose I have no images, and I haven't, I have

worked at this for fifty years, so I have no image about myself, or

about you. What is our relationship? I say please listen to me, but

you won't. I say please pay attention, which means care, to attend

means infinite care. Will you listen to me that way? That means

you really want to learn - right? Learn, not from me, but learn

about yourself. That means that you must infinitely care about

yourself, not selfishly, care to learn about yourself - right? Not

according to me, or to Freud, or to Jung, or to some latest

psychologist, learn about yourself. That means, watch yourself and

you can only do that in your relationship with each other. When

you say, "You sitting on that platform, you have gradually

assumed, at least in my eyes, a position of authority, you have

become my guru". And I say to you, "My friend, just listen, I'm not

your guru. I won't be a guru to anybody. It is monstrous to be a

guru". Therefore it means, please are you listening when I say this.

Or you say, "I can't listen to you because my mind is wandering."

Do you follow all this? So when you listen, you listen with care,

with affection, with attention, then you begin to learn about

yourself, actually as you are. Then from there we can move, we

can go forward, but if you don't do that, keep on repeating, "Oh I

have got my image, I don't know how to get rid of it" and so on and

so on, then we don't move any further. Right?

Now you have an image with regard to sex, that you must have

a girl, or a boy, you must be a Christian - you follow? We are so

conditioned. Now I say to you please listen, are you aware that you

are conditioned? Aware. Don't choose parts of the conditioning.

Right? Totally aware of your whole conditioning. One will explain

what it means to be totally aware of one's conditioning, not only at

the conscious level but the deeper levels - right? We are

conditioned much more at the deeper levels than at the superficial

levels - right? Is that clear? One is conditioned very deeply, and

superficially less. Now can the mind - are you listening? - listening

with your heart, not with your little mind, with your mind, with

your heart, with your whole being - then is it possible to be totally

aware of all this, the whole of consciousness? Do you follow? To

be totally aware implies no observer: the observer is the past and

therefore when he observes he brings about fragmentation. This is

clear, isn't it? When I observe anything, trees, mountains, you, my

wife, my husband, my children, my neighbour, and the politicians,

when I observe from the past, what I observe brings about a

fragmentary outlook - right? I only see parts, I don't see the whole.

So I realize that, I see when I observe from the past there must be a

fragmented outlook - right? This is simple. So I have an insight

that says, don't look from the past. That means, don't have an

observer who is all the time judging, evaluating, saying this is

right, this is wrong, I am a Christian, I am a Communist - you

follow? - all that is the past. Now can you listen to that, which is a

fact, which is actual, which is not theoretical. So you are facing

actually 'what is'. Are you? Facing in yourself what actually is

going on? And can you observe another without the past - without

all the accumulated memory, insults, hurts, so that you can look at

another with clear eyes? If you say, "I don't know how to do it",

then we can go into that.

As we said, any form of authority in this matter is the reaction

of submission to somebody who says he knows. That is your

image. The professor, the teacher knows mathematics, I don't, so I

learn from him, so gradually he becomes my authority. He knows,

I don't know - mathematics, geography and all the rest of it. But

here, psychologically I think I don't know how to approach myself,

how to learn about it, therefore I look to another, the same process.

But the other is equally ignorant as me, because he doesn't know

himself. He is traditional bound, he accepts obedience, he becomes

the authority, he says he knows and my dear chap you don't know,

you become my disciple and I will tell you. The same process. But

it is not the same process psychologically. Psychologically the guru

is me. I wonder if you see that? He is as ignorant as myself. He has

a lot of Sanskrit words, a lot of ideas, a lot of superstitions, and I

am so gullible I accept him. Here we say there is no authority, no

guru, you have to learn about yourself. And to learn about yourself,

watch yourself, how you behave with another, how you walk - you

follow? Then you find that you have an image about yourself, a

tremendous image. And you see these images create great harm,

they break up the world - right? The Krishna conscious group, the

Transcendental group, and some other group, you follow? And

your own group; you have your own ideas, you must have sex, you

must have a girl, you must have a boy, and all the rest of it, change

the girl, change the boy, every week. And you live like that. And

you don't see the tremendous danger and wastage of life - right?

Can we move from there?

Now we come to the point: how am I to be free of all image

making? That is the real question. Is it possible? So I will not say it

is, or it is not, I am going to find out. I am going to find out by

carefully watching why images are made. I realize images are

made when the mind is not giving its attention at the moment

something is said. Right? At the moment of something that is said

that gives pleasure, something that is said that brings about

displeasure, to be aware at that moment, not afterwards. But we

become aware afterwards and say "My god, I must pay attention,

terrible, I see it is important to be attentive but I don't know how to

be attentive, I lose it and when the thing takes place it is so quick

and I say to myself I must be attentive." So I beat myself into being

attentive - right? I wonder if you see this. And therefore I am never

attentive. So I say to myself, "I am not attentive at the moment

something is said which gives pleasure or pain." And I see that I

am inattentive. You understand? I wonder if you see this? I have

found that my whole mind, make-up is inattentive, to the birds, to

nature, to everything, I am inattentive, when I walk, when I eat,

when I speak, I am inattentive. So I say to myself, "I am not going

to be concerned with attention, but pay attention to inattention" -

you understand? Do you get this?

Q: Yes.

K: I am not going to be concerned with being attentive, but I am

going to see what is inattention. And I am watching inattention - do

you understand? And I see I am inattentive most of the time. So I

am going to pay attention to one thing at a time, that is, when I

walk, when I eat, I am going to eat with attention. I am not going to

think about something else - you understand? I am going to pay

attention to every little thing. So what has been inattention

becomes attention. I wonder if you see that?

Q: By fragmentation you mean choice?

K: No. Fragment means broken up.

Q: I mean by fragmentation you mean choice?

K: No sir. Fragmented. Sir is not thought a fragment? Or is

thought the whole? There is a fragmentation taking place when I

have an image and you have an image. In that relationship, that

relationship is broken up, fragmented, it is not whole.

So I am now paying, watching inattention. That is, I am

watching I am not attentive. I look at a bird and never look at it,

my thoughts are all... I am now going to look at that bird, it may

take me a second but I am going to look at it. When I walk I am

going to watch it. So that out of inattention without any effort there

is total attention. You understand? So when there is total attention,

when you say something pleasant there is no image forming, or

unpleasant there is no image forming because I am totally there.

My whole mind, heart, brain, all the responses are completely

awake and attentive. So aren't you very attentive when you are

pursuing pleasure? You don't have to talk about attention, you want

that pleasure. Sexually, when you want it, you are tremendously

attentive, aren't you? And attention implies a mind that is

completely awake, which means it doesn't demand challenge. It is

only when we have images that challenges come. I wonder if you

see this? And because of those images, challenge comes and you

respond to the challenge inadequately. Therefore there is constant

battle between challenge and response, which means the increase

of images and the more it increases the more challenges come, and

so there is always the strengthening of images. I wonder if you see

this? Haven't you noticed people when they are challenged about

their Catholicism, or whatever it is, they become more strong?

So by being completely attentive there is no image formation,

which means conditioning disappears. Right.

(Continued ...)

(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Sri Jiddu Krishnamurti and

gratitude to the great philosophers and followers of him.)

Category: Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 4

��

Comments

0 responses to "Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 4"

Hindu Vedic Philosophy (The Paramardha Tattwam)

Jiddu Krishnamurti - TRUTH AND ACTUALITY - 4

Comments

Post a Comment

About Me

Followers

map

Blog Archive

visitors

visitors

About Me

Labels

Blog Archive