Hindu Vedic Philosophy (The Paramardha Tattwam): Jiddu Krishnamurti

Jiddu Krishnamurti - THE WORLD OF PEACE" -1

4:25 PM | Posted in Jiddu Krishnamurti - THE WORLD OF PEACE" -1

THE WORLD OF PEACE"

Public Talk by

Jiddu Krishnamurti

"THE WORLD OF PEACE" BROCKWOOD

PARK 1ST PUBLIC TALK 27TH AUGUST 1983

First of all, if one may remind you, this is not an entertainment, it

is not an intellectual feast, or intellectual stimulation, or some kind

of romantic, sentimental nonsense. We are going to deal with the

very, very complex problem of living together in this world - this

world that has gone almost mad; there is such chaos and misery,

the threat of war. And religions have played very little part in all

this, in our daily life. And I think we ought to go together -

together, not that the speaker will talk about various things - but

together we ought to go into these matters, not that you listen and

the speaker talks, but together. And so if we are going to work

together, think together, perceive together and act together, one

must, it appears, listen very carefully, not only to what is being

said, but also to listen to our own reactions to what is being said -

our reactions of approval or disapproval, our sense of restrictions,

our resistances, our fears, and all the complexities of our reactions

to any form of stimulation. And so the act of listening is very

important if we are going together to explore, to think together,

into the whole problem of our present day existence.

We are very circumscribed, limited. Our brains have been so

programmed and conditioned, so limited that most of us are

unaware of this. We are conditioned linguistically, whether we are

or not, that's a very serious subject into which we will go if we

have time. We are conditioned, shaped, moulded by the

environment, by tradition, by religion, by the solitude of our own

illusions, our own imaginations, the solitude of our own

aspirations, circumscribed, limited. So our brain - not that the

speaker is an expert at it, but having listened to a great many

people talk about the brain, specialists and others, one perceives

that through this long process of evolution our brains are very, very

limited. Apparently only a very small part of it acts or thinks or

lives - the rest is in abeyance. That is what some of the specialists

who have studied the quality of the brain and the workings of the

brain have said.

And also we can see for ourselves, without relying on the

experts, that our life is very small. We are so concerned with

ourselves, with our success, with our miseries, and all the turmoil

of one's own limited life - the sorrow, the pain, the anxiety, the

various forms of reactions which arise from our prejudices, our

bias, our tendencies. All this does condition our brain, and so we

never have the awareness of the whole of life, the whole of

existence which is vast, immeasurable and tremendously potent.

And if we could together, this morning, go easily and happily,

and enquire into the quality of our own life - if you are willing -

into the nature of our behaviour, into the whole process of our

thought, if we could enquire together into all this. And not only

enquire, but through the very enquiry, apply. Enquiry by itself has

very little meaning. Enquiring into ourselves, into our

environment, into the state of the world - mere enquiry, either

intellectual or the enquiry of curiosity, of information, and so on,

has very little effect on our lives. But if we enquire into ourselves,

into the way of our thinking, why we think this way - why human

beings who have lived on this beautiful earth for so many millenia

are still what they are - unhappy, violent, ready to kill each other

for some idiotic reasons. If we could go together into all this - and

in the process of going together on this path, on this road which has

no end and no beginning, then perhaps our meeting here will be

worthwhile. But to merely listen year after year and not apply, has

very little meaning. It is a waste of time and energy.

So could we, this morning, be serious enough for at least an

hour to look at this whole world in which we live, the world which

we have created. This society is the result of our own complex life.

You are conditioned by health, by environment, by our culture, by

nationalism, and so on. Unless we break through all this

conditioning, we will go on as we have been going on for

thousands of years. And so violence will go on, corruption, each

one seeking his own fulfillment and pursuing his own ambitions -

isolated, and where there is isolation there must be conflict. And so

could we this morning go into all this. One is asking this seriously

because you have taken the trouble to come here. And it's no good

merely talking about the ideas, the expressions, the reactions, but

go into this with tremendous energy, vitality and see if it is

possible to break down this conditioning so that the brain will have

immense capacity.

It has the capacity now, extraordinary capacity in the

technological world - in the computers, the biological chemistry,

genetic engineering and various forms of other activities from the

outside to affect the brain. I don't know if you are aware of all this.

Scientists in the various disciplines are trying desperately to bring

about a change in man. And such change has been from the outside

- I hope we understand each other. They are trying through genetic

engineering, to change the very genes themselves so that the

human being is something entirely different. And the computer is

taking over perhaps a great deal of our activity - again from the

outside. The Communists have tried that, tried to control, changed

the environment, hoping that man would change, through

authority, through discipline, through complete obedience, and

they have not succeeded. On the contrary, they are creating great

misery in the world. So we are asking a most fundamental

question, whether it is possible, not to be affected from the outside

- I hope we understand when I use the word the 'outside', whether

the outside be god, music, art, or the external laws that are

established by governments, and so on - all these outside agencies

in various forms and disciplines are trying to force man to

conform, to bring about a radical change in their behaviour so that

man will live without wars, and so on.

And also, on the other side, they are preparing for wars. Every

government throughout the world is armed, ready to kill and be

killed. So this is going on all the time around us. I am sure most of

us are aware of all this.

We are asking a totally different question. Religions have tried

to change man, to tame him down - through fear, heaven and hell,

and all the rest of it. And they have not succeeded either. These are

all facts. It is not the speaker's imagination or bias. This is what is

going on in the world around us, affecting through propaganda,

through various forms of chemical engineering, and so on, to force

man. And they have never succeeded, and they will never succeed

because the psyche is far too strong, far too cunning,

extraordinarily capable. So we are asking - you and the speaker are

asking - I am not asking you, you are asking this question: since all

outside influences, including the idea of god and ideologies,

various forms of historical dialectical conclusions have not

changed man, whether it is possible for human beings to change

radically, fundamentally, without the external influence at all? You

understand? Gurus throughout the world have not succeeded. They

are all pretentious and seeking money. They can be put aside

completely. They are not important. But what is important and

essential to ask is, what will make each one of us, intellectuals,

whether we are scientists, whether we are artists or various forms

of activities, whether we are capable, fundamentally, deeply, to

bring about a mutation in the very brain cells themselves? Have I

made this question clear?

We were talking the other day in New York to some scientists.

After a great deal of discussion - it lasted over two hours - I asked

them what would bring about a mutation in the brain cells

themselves, not from the outside - genetic engineering,

biochemistry - you follow all that. What will change the brain cells

themselves which have been conditioned for thousands of years? I

hope you are putting this question to yourselves. What would be

your answer? If you are serious and earnest and passionate enough

to put this question, what would be your answer? If you have

thought a great deal about all this - either you would say, it is not

possible, and so close the door for your further enquiry, or you

would say, I really don't know, is it possible? We are in that

position. We are not closing the door by saying, it is not possible -

it's impossible. How can man, who has been so conditioned for

thousands and thousands of years, through vast knowledge,

experience - how can that brain transform itself? It's not possible!

If you are serious and answer that way - "It's not possible" - then

you have closed completely the avenue of enquiry. But if you are

enquiring into it - that is, whether the brain, which has such

extraordinary capacity in one direction, and so utterly limited,

circumscribed, conditioned, programmed, to be a Catholic,

Protestant, to be British, French and English, you know, and all the

rest of it - whether that brain can be totally free - not free to do

what you like. We're all doing that anyhow - pursuing our own

pleasures, our own solitary ambitions, our own salvation if you are

at all religiously minded, our own isolated pleasures and illusions.

We do that every day of our life. That's a common occurrence for

all of humanity, pursuing their own isolated, solitary illusions,

stimulations, aspirations and ideologies. And that is what they call

freedom. Surely, that is not freedom. Freedom requires a great deal

of discipline. Please understand what we mean by that word. We

will go into it in a minute - freedom implies great humility, innate

inward discipline and work. We'll go into those three.

Most of us are so arrogant because we rely so much on our

knowledge. We are certain; our beliefs, our conclusions our desires

are so strong that we have lost all sense of deep, natural humility.

Again, it is a fact - how strong when a Frenchman says, "I'm a

Frenchman" or when you say, "I'm British". I don't know if you

have noticed - god-given race - and everyone feels this in every

country. The other day an Indian was talking to us. He said, "We

have the greatest culture in the world. We are the most highly

civilized people." I said, "Yes, you are corrupt. You're

superstitious. Your beliefs have no value at all. Your ideals, your

religions are just a stack of words." He said, "Oh, but we are still

the highest culture." I said, "All right." No, no. Please don't laugh.

This applies to you too.

So, when we identify ourselves with a country, with certain

ideologies, with conclusions, concepts, then we are incapable of

being humble. Because then only when you are enquiring in

humility, you learn, you find out. And humility is necessary. Then

you see things as they are, around you and in yourself. And

discipline is constantly watching, watching your own reactions,

continual observation, seeing what the source of your thought is,

why you react in certain ways, what your biases are, your

prejudices, your hurts, and so on. Constant watching brings its own

natural discipline, order. That's what we mean by discipline. Not

conformity, not following a certain pattern either established by

society or by yourself, but the eternal watching of the world and of

yourself. Then you see there is no difference between the world

and yourself. That brings about naturally a sense of order.

Therefore order is discipline, not the other way round. And work,

not only physical work, which unfortunately most of us have to do

- not if you are unemployed in this country - but also work in the

sense of applying what you see to be true - apply it, not give a

period of time between perception and action. If one sees, as the

speaker has seen many, many years ago, as a boy, that nationalism

was a poison - I hope you don't mind my saying all this - that he

was no longer a Hindu, he just walked, he was no longer a Hindu -

finished with all those superstitions and you know all that rubbish

that goes on in every nationality.

So, to live on this earth peacefully, in spite of the governments,

requires a great deal of enquiry. To live peacefully demands great

intelligence. Right sir? Can we go on like this? It is easy for the

speaker to talk about all these things because that's his life. But

merely listening to what is being said seems so futile. But the

moment you apply: if you see something to be true - instant

application, then that removes conflict altogether.

Conflict exists only when there is a gap, a division between

what you see to be actual, to be true, and all the implications of

fear of your action. So there is an interval, a gap, a hiatus which

brings about conflict. I hope you understand all this. May I go on?

Or am I going on for myself? Are we following each other a little

bit? We are not doing any kind of propaganda. We are not trying to

convince you of anything - on the contrary, one must have doubt,

scepticism, question, not only what the speaker is saying but

question your own life, question, doubt your own beliefs. If you

begin to doubt it gives certain clarity. It doesn't give you a feeling

of great importance to yourself. Doubt is necessary in our

exploration, in our enquiry into this whole problem of existence.

And the question whether it is possible for human beings, who are

perhaps somewhat neurotic, whether that neuroticism can be wiped

away, become sane, rational - with such a brain, enquire.

We are enquiring whether the brain cells can, without any

influence from outside - governmental, environmental, religious

and all the rest of it - can bring about a mutation in the brain cells?

Is this question clear? Are we putting this question to ourselves?

This is a serious problem. This cannot be answered by yes or no,

affirmative or negative. One must look at this whole question as a

whole; not as British, French or some kind of religious,

superstitious nonsense, or according to your own particular

discipline or profession. You must look at the whole of life as one

unitary movement. You understand all this? If we do, then we can

begin to ask - is it possible? And if we do ask that question, what

difference does it make if a few of us bring about, perhaps, a

mutation? What effect has it on the world? You know, that's the

usual question. Right? I may change and you may change. A few

of us may bring about a mutation, but what effect has that on the

mass of people, on the governments, will they stop wars, and so

on?

I think that's a wrong question to put - what effect has it on

others? That's a wrong question. Because then you are not doing

the thing for itself, but how it will effect others? After all, beauty

has no cause. Right? To do something for itself - for the love of

itself, then it has an extraordinary effect - may or may not have.

For example, we have talked for the last sixty years, unfortunately

or fortunately - need I answer the question any further? One might

ask, "How has it affected the world? You go to various parts of the

world, has it changed anybody at all?" I think that is rather a

foolish question. We might ask, "Why does a flower bloom? Why

is there a solitary star in the heavens in the evening?" The man who

has freed himself from his conditioning never asks that question.

For in it there is compassion, with its great intelligence.

So let us proceed. Can we proceed? You are not too tired?

First of all, do we realize that we are conditioned; aware

without any choice, aware that my brain is conditioned? Or you

accept what another says and therefore say, "My brain is

conditioned." You see the difference? If I am aware that my brain

is conditioned, that has a totally different quality. But if you tell me

that I am conditioned and then I realize that I am conditioned, then

it becomes very, very superficial. I hope you are following all this.

So are we aware that we are conditioned - as a Britain, by our

experiences - we are not saying that it is right or wrong, we are

going to find out - by our culture, by our tradition, by our

environment, by all the religious propaganda for two thousand

years as Christianity, or as Buddhism two thousand five hundred

years ago, or Hinduism, perhaps longer? Are we aware? If you are

aware, then you ask, why?

Why is the brain conditioned? What is the nature of

conditioning? Is it essentially experience and knowledge? Please

go slowly with this. Experience conditions the brain. Right?

Obviously. Do we meet each over there? And experience means

knowledge - right? To learn to drive a car you need experience.

You get into a car, drive it and gather through that experience

knowledge, how to drive a car. Please listen carefully, if you will,

kindly: is knowledge the basic factor of our conditioning?

Knowledge being the repetition of certain tradition - right - and so

on. Knowledge is necessary. Otherwise you couldn't go home, you

couldn't drive a car, you couldn't go back to a job, if you have a

job. So knowledge in one area, physical knowledge is necessary.

But knowledge also conditions our brain - , knowledge being

tradition, the being programmed as we are, by newspapers, by

magazines, by constant repetition that you are British, British,

British. Or when you go to France, it's the same old thing, French,

French. Again when you go to India, again, Indian - this constant

repetition. So the brain becomes dull, repetitive, mechanical. And

perhaps that's a safe way of living but it's got tremendous danger.

This repetition of various cultures, countries, is an isolating process

and therefore division, therefore war - that's only one of the reasons

for war. So are we aware that our brain is being programmed?

Please don't look at others: look at yourself. If one is aware that

one is programmed, conditioned, then one asks, "Is it knowledge?"

And apparently it is knowledge. Then why do we live

psychologically, why is the structure of the psyche essentially

based on knowledge? You understand? Have I made the question

clear? The psyche, the 'me', the self, is essentially a movement in

knowledge, a series of knowledge which is a series of memories.

Right? So we are a series of memories - so we are memory. Do you

see that fact? Not that we are divine and, you know, all that blah

that is trotted out by religion. But the actual fact is that we are

nothing but memories. Most unpleasant discovery, isn't it! Or do

you say, "Look, there is part of me which is not memory." The

moment that you say that, it's already memory. I don't know if you

see that. When I say I am not wholly the result of memories, that

very statement implies that there is part of me which is not. And

that part of me when I look at it, is also memory. So memories are

the past, projected perhaps in the future, but it is still memory.

Those memories are modified by the present and continue into the

future, but is still a series of memories.

Please don't let's become sentimental about all this - that's so

meaningless or romantic. These are facts. What are you without

memory, without all the remembrances of your achievement, of

your wife, of your son, of your brother, family, memories of your

travels, what you have done, what you have achieved? Right? They

are all in the past. So memories are dead things. On those dead

things we live. Right? Do see all this. Please we are not trying to

persuade you to look at this, we are not trying to persuade you or

convince you of anything. The speaker is not your guru. So don't

follow anybody including the speaker. But look at these facts.

Then the question arises: is it possible to live psychologically

without a single memory? You understand? Put this question,

please, to yourself. My brother, son, wife, husband, is dead. I

remember all the incidents, happiness, you know, all the rest of it,

intimate relationships. It is a vast reminiscence of the past,

memory. And I live on that. I have a picture, photograph, and there

is this constant stimulation from the photograph. So the 'me', the

self, the ego is a movement of identification with memory. Right? I

am a Christian, I am a Hindu, a Buddhist, an American, and so on.

How tremendously attached we are to our identifications. That's

our conditioning. And when you see that, not verbally, not as an

idea, but actually see the fact, then there is action. Like when you

have a violent toothache, there is action because it's there. But if

you imagine you have a toothache, then that's quite a different

process.

So do we see clearly, without being persuaded, without being

pushed into a corner, do we see very clearly for ourselves what we

are - which is our conditioning, which is our consciousness. And

seeing that, what is one to do? Clear? Can we go on from that?

We've got another ten minutes. Have we reached that point?

Please, have we all of us, or at least some of us, reached that point

when we realize completely that we are conditioned and that

conditioning is a vast series of movements, of memories. And

memories are always the past, remembrance of things past which

are then projected into the future, modified by the present, but still

it is a movement of memories. Right? And these memories we call

knowledge. Right?

Then how does one look at these memories? You understand

my question? How does one observe these memories? We have

thousands of memories. Right? From childhood we have gathered

them - pleasant, unpleasant, memories that are of our aspirations,

memories of achievements, memories of pain, fear, great sorrow.

These are all memories.

And do we see these memories as different from the observer?

You understand the question? We are observing. I am observing

that I am a long series of memories. I've stated that - that I am

memories; but there is in me the feeling that I'm not all that, there's

something else that's observing. Right? Are you following? Are we

together in this? So is the observer different from the observed?

This is an old theme. Many of you probably have heard of it. "Ah,

you say, well, you're trotting that out." But when you realize this

fact, something extraordinary happens - not something mysterious,

not parapsychological, and so on, and so on - something which

ends conflict which is far more important then anything else.

As long as there is division between the memories and the

observer, this division creates conflict. Right? Division between

the Arab and the Jews, between the British and the Falklands - may

I mention the Falklands? Right? Between the Hindu and the

Islamic world. Wherever there is division there must be conflict.

Right? No, no, pursue that please. Wherever there is isolated

action, isolated solitary pleasure, solitary aspirations, that very

solitude is an act of separation. Therefore, that very person who

pursues his particular ambition, his particular fulfillment, his

aspirations, and so on, must inevitably create conflict, not only for

himself but for others.

So from this arises the question whether conflict of every kind,

in our very being, can end? Because we live with conflict. You

might say, "Well, all nature is in conflict. A single tree in a forest is

fighting to achieve light, is struggling, fighting, squeezing out

others. And human beings, born from nature, are doing the same

thing." If you accept that, then you accept all the consequences of

conflict - wars, confusion, brutality, ugliness, the nastiness of war.

As long as you are British, French or an Indian you are inevitably

going to create wars. Right? But you see this, and we don't do

anything about it.

So, to end conflict, which means to live with that peace which

requires tremendous intelligence, is to understand the nature of

conflict. I must stop for now. We will continue tomorrow morning,

may we? Sorry to stop at this point. Not that it is an enticement for

you to come tomorrow.

Q: Can you just say something about when a memory comes it

seems to come from outside and then you react. Say, you are

embarrassed, then you remember something - at least I do. Do you

understand?

K: The gentleman says - memory is outside, comes from

outside. You react to that memory and you strengthen that memory

or you put aside that memory. Right? Are you different from

memory? You see, that's the whole point. We are the result of this

movement from the outer to the inner. Right? From the inner to the

outer. Right? Have you not noticed - like the sea going out and

coming in. We have created this monstrous society, and that

society controls us. Right? And we try to change that society,

through law, through governments, through all kinds of strikes, and

all the rest of it, and then react to that. So it's a constant movement

from the outer to the inner, from the inner to the outer. Right? It is

one movement. It's not separate movement - water is water. It goes

out and comes in. It's salt water.

Now, the question arises from that, whether this movement can

stop - action and reaction - you hit me and I hit you back. If you

hate me, I hate you back. I own this particular piece of land and

you fight for it. And I defend and I attack. You follow? This has

been going on for millions of years - the ebb and flow of reaction.

If you will, kindly put the question whether this movement can

end. If that wasp stings me, I react, naturally. But why should I

react if you flatter me, or insult me?

So to ask this question, whether this movement of action and

reaction can stop - to find an answer to that, one has to go a great

deal into it.

"THE WORLD OF PEACE" BROCKWOOD

PARK 2ND PUBLIC TALK 28TH AUGUST 1983

May we go on where we left off yesterday. We were talking about

conflict, not only in ourselves, but in the society in which we live -

conflict between nations, between groups, between the various

gurus, between ideologies, the communist ideology and the socalled

democratic ideology. Apparently man has lived, throughout

these centuries, in a state of constant conflict, struggle, fighting

each other, killing each other, destroying that which he created and

then rebuilding it again. This has been the historical process for the

last five thousand years or more. Religions have also, except

perhaps Buddhism and Hinduism, have created wars - a hundreds

heretics, burnt them, destroyed them. And so man has lived on this

earth without any peace. And to live in peace appears to be almost

impossible - to live without conflict, without aggression, not only

in personal relationships, but also with those with whom we don't

agree, or have not the same belief, the same concepts, the same

culture. There is this constant, endless, struggle, conflict. And one

asks whether it is possible to live in this world utterly peacefully.

Because it is only in peace that a flower can flower. It's only in

peace that the human mind, the human brain can really be free.

And why has man who has learned so much, who has acquired

such extraordinary knowledge, experience, why can he not live in

peace?

As we said yesterday, this is not a talk, a lecture on a particular

subject, to be informed, to be instructed. But we are together

exploring this question. Not that the speaker explores, and you

listen, but together, you and the speaker investigate, sanely without

any bias, without any definite conclusions, to find out why we

human beings cannot live on this beautiful earth with peace and

without conflict. That is where we left off yesterday.

There are various forms of chemical injections to make man

peaceful. They are doing it now: in the totalitarian states they send

them to hospitals, psychotherapeutic hospitals where they are

drugged, kept peaceful. And also belief has also drugged us

tremendously, to be peaceful. We all believe, if you are Christians,

in some form of saviour. And that belief has kept us somewhat

tamed.

There have been attempts of every kind, throughout the world to

help man to live peacefully. They have said: meditate, follow,

obey, conform, don't hurt, love another - the whole religious

instructions throughout the world. And yet, in spite of all that, and

perhaps because of all that, man has not lived at peace with himself

or created a society that's peaceful. Why? We are asking, you are

also asking the question not only me.

Are we different, each one of us, from the world outside of us?

Are you, as British, or French or American, Russian or whatever

nationality, group to which one belongs, or Indian, are we the rest

of humanity - or separate individuals, struggling, separate souls,

each one seeking his own fulfilment, his own happiness, his own

salvation, identifying himself with something, noble, illusory,

imaginary, and so on? Are we living in isolation on this earth, each

one of us isolated, separated from the rest of mankind? And this

separation, this so-called 'individualism' may be one of the causes

why human beings do not live at peace, either in their

relationships, or with his neighbour who might be next door, or a

thousand miles away.

Please, you and the speaker are putting these questions. I am not

- the speaker is not putting the question for you to answer. This is a

question which all of us have to face. Either we face it intelligently,

rationally, sanely, or escape into some form of illusory peace.

Peace can only exist if we have complete security, both

outwardly and inwardly, psychologically and environmentally. We

all want security, even the greatest scientist and the poorest very

uneducated villager - all of us want security. Like every animal,

every living thing needs security. And apparently we don't have

security. We have sought it in religions, in beliefs, in ideologies, in

some form of authority - followed them, and yet we remain

separate. We are asking, is that one of the basic causes why human

beings, thinking they are separate, isolated entities, each one

seeking his own particular form of security, must inevitably come

into conflict with others who are also seeking their own particular

form of security?

So we are asking a question, which is, are we separate from the

rest of humanity? You understand my question? Are you separate?

Are you an individual so that you as an individual are seeking your

own happiness, your own pleasures, solitary in your illusions, in

your particular form of imaginative hope? So this is a question that

must be answered very carefully, gone into, by both of us. Because

if that is the cause of it, it is, either the cause is rational, real, actual

and then we have to deal with that, or it is really illusory. Each one

of us has been brought up to think that we are individuals, separate.

Is that a fact? Is our consciousness - which contains our behaviour,

our reactions, our pleasures, fears, anxieties, sorrow and all the

experiences, knowledge, all that is our consciousness, what you

are, what each one of us is - is that consciousness different from

the rest of humanity? You understand my question?

When you travel around, when you observe without even

travelling around, when you observe the world, all humanity goes

through, more or less the same forms of suffering, anxiety,

insecurity, they believe in some kind of illusory nonsense, full of

superstitions, fears, and all the rest of it. Everywhere every human

being goes through all this. Right? Insecure, uncertain, fearful,

constantly in conflict, burdened with great sorrow - like those who

live in this country. Right? This is a fact. So is your consciousness

different from the rest of mankind?

I may be an Arab, with my peculiar Islamic tradition, and as a

human being, apart from the label as an Arab, I go through all the

turmoil of life, like you do - pain, sorrow, jealousy, hate. So is

there a difference, apart from labels, apart from culture, between

you and me, as an Arab. Please consider all this. As we said

yesterday, we are not trying to convince you of anything, doing

any kind of propaganda, any kind of persuasion or stimulation.

Because if you are capable of being persuaded, then another will

come and persuade you differently. If you depend on propaganda,

the same thing, another type of propaganda will show you. So one

must be clear for oneself, absolutely, upon this matter. It is your

psyche. And the psyche is the content of its own consciousness.

And that consciousness is shared by all human beings, though

outwardly you may have a different culture, different environment,

different food, different clothes, more affluent, but essentially,

deeply, most profoundly we are the rest of the world, and the world

is us. Right? Be quite clear on this point. You may not like it

because we have been brought up from childhood, perhaps right

before childhood, in the very genes, that we are separate

individuals. We are questioning that very thing, not only

subjectively but objectively.

If you examine without any bias, without any tradition, if your

brain is eager to find out whether it is possible to live in this world

with complete freedom and peace and therefore with order. One

has to put this question. You may be a great scientist, a great

painter, a marvellous poet, like Keats, but the scientist, the poet,

the painter have their own sorrow, pain, anxiety like the rest of us.

And as long as we think we are separate, conflict must exist -

between the Arab and the Jew, as is happening in Beirut, between

the black and the white, between the Muslim and the rest of the

world. So please, consider this question seriously - exercise our

brains, not accept.

And if that is one of the causes of war, one of the causes of

conflict between human beings, this fallacy that each one of us is

entirely different, we are questioning that very thing. And if we are

not, then we are the rest of mankind. You are the rest of mankind.

With that goes tremendous responsibility which you may not like

to have. We like to avoid responsibility.

As long as one is violent, aggressive, you contribute to the rest

of the world, to the rest of mankind's aggression, violence. This is

natural, all this. So the question is, if you are the rest of mankind,

you are the mankind, not part of mankind, you are the entire world

- if you have that feeling, that truth of that, then your whole

outlook is entirely different. Then you have totally abolished all

division. Right? I wonder if you see the truth of this? Not the

sentimentality of it, not a romantic, Utopian concept but the

actuality of it, the fact of it.

So let us examine it much more closely. Conflict exists as long,

as we said, there is separation: between me and you, we and they.

Conflict must exist in our relationships, between man and woman,

of which we all know. Right? Between you and your wife, the wife

and the husband, the family against the community, the community

against the larger community and so on.

So why is there conflict in our relationships? Please answer

these questions. One is married, with children, or unmarried and all

the human relationships - conflict exists as long as the husband or

the wife or the man is pursuing his own sense of fulfilment, both

sexually and in the world. Right? This is a fact, isn't it? The wife

pursues her own particular form of pleasure and the man pursues

his own, so actually they never meet, except perhaps in bed. That's

a fact.

Now is it possible to be free of this separation? Then one begins

to enquire into the nature of what is called affection, into the nature

of what is love - if you are interested in all this. If it bores you, you

can always get up and go. But if you are serious, as we must be

considering what the world has become - insane, disorderly,

corrupt, heaven knows all the ugly things that are going on. If you

are at all serious, looking at all this, one must inevitably ask: why,

in close relationship where there is a sense of affection, tolerance,

acceptance, there is conflict, divorce, hate - you know, the whole

field of turmoil? Is it possible to live with another completely at

peace? You are all married probably, aren't you, or have girl

friends. What do you say to all this? It's your life; not the life of the

speaker. It's your life and you have to answer these really serious

questions, not evade them.

As long as we are caught in this illusion of individuality

however close our relationship with another, however intimate,

however personal, companionship, escape from loneliness, this

question must be answered. Because all life is relationship, with

nature, with the universe, and with the tiniest little flower in the

field; and also relationship with another human being. We cannot

live without relationship. Even the monk, who has taken various

forms of vows, is related. And in this relationship conflict seems to

be all-pervasive. Therefore we must start very near to go very far.

We must start where we are, with our family, with ourselves -

whether we can live without conflict and therefore with peace.

From this arises the question: how do you observe all this? How

do you observe, when I say 'you', I'm not being personal, how do

you observe this conflict - the present state of the world, the

present relationship with each other - how do your observe it? It is

very important to understand the nature and the structure of the

observer. Right? May we go on with this? Are we together in all

this, or am I talking to myself? I really would like to know. Are we

going along the same path, along the same lane, taking a journey

together, or you are ahead or I am far behind? Or are we walking

together, perhaps hand-in-hand. If we are walking together, with

the same step, looking at the world together, looking at our

relationship together, and as friends we can question each other, we

can doubt what we're saying without hurting each other because

we're friends. And out of this friendship, we can understand the

depth and the beauty of relationship in which there is no conflict.

So relationship is extraordinarily important. It's our life. And as

long as there is conflict, relationship becomes most destructive.

Suppose I realize that - I am married, I'm not - suppose I realize

that I am living with a woman and actually we are separate human

beings, following parallel lines but never meeting inwardly,

psychologically. Now, how do I observe that - the fact that we two

are separate, each with his own ambition, his own greed, his own

particular form of irritation you know, and all the rest of it - how

do I observe it? Because in my observation, I may be biased,

prejudiced. And so it is very important for me to find out the nature

of the observer. Right? If I am not clear how to observe, in what

manner to look, I may distort the whole thing. So I must enquire

into the nature of the observer. Right?

A great scientist - they all think they are great - a scientist,

unless he is very clear both subjectively and objectively, when he

looks through a microscope and all the rest of it, that he is

observing without any bias, without any prejudice, the self doesn't

enter into his observation, otherwise his observation will be

distorted, untrue, non-factual. Right? So similarly, we have to be

very clear of the nature of observation, who is the observer? Are

we together in this? Who is the observer? You look at those trees, a

field full of cows or sheep, you see the horizon lit up by the

morning sun. How do you observe all that? - if you ever do! When

you look at a tree or a house, your very perception of looking is

blocked by the word you use. Right? You understand? I can look at

a Frenchman and say, "Oh, he is a Frenchman." That means that all

my prejudices, all my knowledge of the French comes in between

me and observing a man who calls himself French. Right? So can I

look at him without all the prejudices, antagonisms? Can you?

So the observer is the past. Right? Are you following this? So

the observer is full of his past knowledge, whether that knowledge

is absurd, silly or actual, that knowledge is blocking my

observation. Right? Are we following this?

Now, to observe my relationship with my wife or husband, I

must observe without any previous, accumulated incidents,

knowledge, all that. Is that possible? You understand my question?

Otherwise, I never see my wife for the first time. You understand?

I'm always looking at her with all the memories of a thousand days.

Now, is that a fact, that I am looking at another from the past

knowledge - a living thing can never be observed with a limited

knowledge. And knowledge is always limited. You understand? A

living thing must be observed freely, without all the accumulation,

experiences, knowledge. So is it possible for me to look at my wife

or husband, or the girl friend or whatever you like, without the

previous remembrances?

Have you ever tried to look at a tree without the word 'tree', to

look at a flower without the label so that you are actually observing

what actually is, in which there is no subjective reaction? You are

following all this? Are you? Or is this Greek or Chinese, better

still.

You see, our brain is a network of words, a network of

remembrances. It is never free to look because it has been

conditioned through identification. To us, identity is very

important. I am Hindu, whatever that silly word may be, but it

gives me a sense of assurance, a sense of security. I have roots in

that - like the British, like the French, German, you know, the rest

of the world. And can we look, observe, without any identity? You

understand? Are you doing it now? Or are you going to try and do

it when you go home? If, when you are listening to this and doing

it now, perhaps you are sitting next to your wife, or husband - to do

it now, the very action of perception is to destroy that division.

Right? If you do it now, which means, action is not of time. You

follow this? Look sir, I've heard this. I have paid attention to what I

have heard. I am sitting next to my wife. I'm a serious person and I

hope she is too. And I see that I am not looking at her freely,

without any past incidents and all the rest of it. And to me it is

important to have a relationship with her, or with him, in which

there is no conflict because if I can live that way, I have peace in

my heart and brain. So the very moment I hear this, the actual

perception that I am in conflict and I am looking at her, or him,

with all the accumulated memories which are all dead anyhow; and

so I am looking at her.

Action is the moment of perception of the fact, and not allowing

time to interfere with the action. You understand? Am I conveying

something? So for most of us, action implies conflict. I have to do

something. I don't want to go to the office today from nine to five -

god knows why you go anyway. See sir, what we're doing, how we

are giving up an extraordinary life, life that is immense, is

extraordinarily beautiful, that has great depth, unfathomable depth,

and we spend our lives from nine to five. And our society demands

that, governments demand it, and our wives demand it, because to

be at home is rather a bore. So the whole structure of society is that

our ethos is to work, and we miss the great width and the depth of

life.

So can I look at her, or him without any past remembrances?

Will you do it now? See what it entails - do it, and you will find

out how tremendously we are bound to the past. Our life is the

past, that is, past memories. And apparently they have such a

strong hold on our brain. And we say "It's impossible to look

without the knowledge of yesterday". And so we give up and

pursue the old way, quarrelling, nagging, fighting, miserable,

unhappy - you know, the whole business of it. Whereas, if one

actually sees the fact that conflict must exist between two human

beings, and therefore with the rest of humanity, as long as there is

this concept of 'individual', with his own particular memories. And

seeing that is to act, not postpone action. When you postpone

action, time is involved. Right? And during that postponement,

other things take place; other complexities arise. I wonder if you

are following all this? So action is perception and instant action so

that your brain is not cluttered with problems.

I do not know if you have gone into the question of problems.

Why human beings have problems at all? The word 'problem'

means something thrown at you. That's the actual meaning, the

etymological meaning of that word, something thrown at you,

which is a challenge. Our brains, from childhood, are trained to

solve problems. Right? Poor child, at the age of two now they are

teaching babies to count, how to learn a language. I don't know if

you have followed all that. From childhood through school,

college, university, business, family - everything has become a

problem which must be solved. So we treat life as a vast problem,

because our brain is trained that way. I don't know if you see all

this. We never meet anything easily, happily, but it becomes a

dreadful problem to be solved. So relationship has become a

problem. You understand, sir. Are we together in all this? For god's

sake, tell me, yes. And when we try to solve a problem - because

our brains are trained that way, to solve problems - in the solution

of that problem, we have other problems from that very solution. I

don't know if you have noticed all this. Politically that is what is

happening. You have the Falklands war and innumerable problems

arising from it.

So can you look at life, not as a problem, though problems exist,

but have a mind that is free from problems? You understand the

difference? Problems exist. I have a toothache, I have to go to the

doctor. Problems of tax, follow? Problems exist. But if my brain is

free of problems, then I can deal with those problems easily. But if

my brain is trained, conditioned to deal with problems, I increase

problems. Right? I wonder if you see this?

There is a question, for example, about god. It's a problem,

whether god exists or not. Most Christians believe that there is god.

And Buddhists have no idea of god. He doesn't exist in their

religious philosophy, and all the rest of it. But they make Buddha

into a god, that's a different matter. Now, that's a problem. You

believe and suppose I don't believe. Are you willing to look why

god exists, if he does exist. Because I have no belief, one way or

the other - suppose - actually I have no belief about it. Can you

look at that question and find out why, throughout the ages, man

has invented god - invented, I'm using that word purposely. I hope

you won't get hurt. Man has invented it because he is frightened.

He wants somebody, an outside agency to protect him, to give him

security, to feel somebody out there is looking after you. That

concept gives you great comfort. Whether that is an illusion or an

actuality, doesn't matter. But as long as you have that kind of

belief, it gives you great comfort. Now, if you strongly believe in

all that, would you doubt it, question it, find out? Or are you so

frightened, you won't even think about it. You understand?

So, to find out whether there is something beyond man's

measure, one must be free to enquire. As we enquired into

relationship, one must be free to enquire, to observe. And if the

observer, the enquirer is prejudiced, is convinced deeply, though he

may pretend outwardly to examine, then his examination will be

according to his conviction. So can the brain be free to look - to

look at my wife, husband, to look at all the governments, my guru,

the whole world around us - to look so carefully without the

background of my tradition, values, judgements? The brain then is

acting wholly, not in fragments. You understand?

Scientists are saying, probably you know all this - if you know

it, please forgive me for repeating it - only one very small part of

the brain is functioning with most people and therefore this outlook

on life is fragmentary. You understand? Only one part of my brain

is actively sharing or actively operating throughout my life, only a

part. And therefore the brain is not functioning wholly. Right? You

understand the question? If it interests you, you want to find out

whether the brain can operate holistically, completely, not just a

part. Are you interested in that kind of question? Why? Is it

curiosity, or just to argue about it? Or are you serious enough to

say, I want to find out whether the brain which is now very limited

- because all knowledge is limited. Right? You must be quite sure

of that - all knowledge, whether it be the knowledge of the past or

the knowledge of the future, knowledge is everlastingly limited.

They are discovering more and more and more in the scientific

world. No scientist can ever say, "My knowledge is complete".

Right?

So knowledge is always incomplete. And knowledge being

incomplete, thought is incomplete. Because thought is born out of

knowledge as memory and thought is limited. Right? Without

memory you have no thought, without knowledge there is no

existence as thought. And we only function, now, with the limited

thought. Right? You understand? I wonder if you are following all

this?

My thought and your thought, the thought of the great scientist

or the uneducated individual, his thinking is similar. Thinking is

similar. They may express it differently but that thought is limited.

So as long as our thinking is the basis of our action, the basis of our

life, the brain can never function as a whole. Right? Logically see

this, please. Our lives are fragmentary: I'm a businessman. I'm a

scientist, I am a painter - right? - and so on and so on. We are all

put in categories. Therefore our life is fragmentary because our

thinking is limited and therefore it must inevitably be fragmentary.

Would you accept this? Not accept it - see the fact of it, would

you? You are all so doubtful, aren't you? Because we are cutting at

the very root of our life, which is thinking. And we have built

marvellous cathedrals, great architecture, great implements of war,

the computers and so on, all the product of thought. And all the

things in the cathedrals and the church are the product of thought.

Right? Nobody can deny this - all the vestments, all the robes the

priests put on, are copied, or part of it, from the Egyptians -

thought has produced all this. And thought has also invented god.

Now, the question is whether to eliminate thought altogether.

And who is the entity who is going to eliminate all thought? It is

still thought. Right? I wonder if you see that? Your meditation, if

any of you indulge in that kind of stuff, is to eliminate thinking.

But you never examine who is the eliminator, who is saying, "I

mustn't think"? It's still thought who says "By Jove, if I don't think

I might get something." And yet thought is necessary, knowledge is

necessary in certain areas otherwise you can't get home, you can't

write letters, you couldn't speak English and so on and so on.

So thought has been the instrument of our fragmentation. And

to so observe that, not say, "How to get rid of thought" but to

observe the fact that thought is necessary in certain areas, and

thought in the psychological world may not be necessary at all. In

our relationship with each other, if thought is the instrument, which

it is, then that very thought is the factor of divisiveness. To see it,

not what to do about it. To see the danger of this, then you move

away from danger. Like a precipice, like a dangerous animal, you

run away. Similarly, thought is dangerous in the psychological

world. I wonder if you see this? Though it is necessary in certain

areas. Then, if you observe this very carefully, without any bias,

then thought begins to realize its own place.

"THE WORLD OF PEACE" BROCKWOOD

PARK 1ST PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER

MEETING 30TH AUGUST 1983

We have to go into these questions. First of all if one may ask most

respectfully, from whom do you expect the answers? It is good to

question, not only the speaker or to question your friends, your

wives and your husbands, question, to doubt, to enquire, to be

sceptical. And when one puts a question, which is a challenge, to

whom or from whom do you expect that challenge to be answered?

Is it a challenge to oneself? Or are you challenging the speaker?

There is a great deal of difference: when you are putting the

question to yourself, to oneself, then you are really probing into it,

putting your teeth into it. And if one is earnest and really deeply

concerned then the answers can only be found in the question. The

answer is not, if one may point out, separate from the question, it is

not somewhere the answer is, and the question is somewhere else.

So we are saying that in the very questioning is the answer. I hope

we understand that.

So we are together going to enquire into these questions. And in

enquiring together we will find the answer. It is not that the

speaker is going to answer, like a politician, he has got all kinds of

answers, but here we are together enquiring into these questions.

The question is far more important, is it not, than the answer. Why

do I put a question to myself, or to the world, or to my friend? If I

put a question rather superficially the answer will inevitably be

superficial because my question is really not very important, to

myself or to the world. But if I put a question and try to find the

nature, what lies behind the question, then I am opening the

question. It is like digging in a well, the more you dig the more

water. So we are together, if I may point out again, we are going

together to go into these questions. Is that all right?

1st QUESTION: How do you know what you are saying is true?

Why do you ask me that question? Isn't it true that as long as

there is national division, economic division, racial division,

religious division, there must be conflict. That is a fact. Right?

Would you accept that? So it is not what I say to be true, but the

fact itself. Facts themselves show what the truth is. As we talked

the other day about relationship: as long as there is this separation

between two human beings, psychologically, there must be

conflict. That is a fact. It is not what I say - how do I know what I

say is true, but it is a fact that as long as I am ambitious and

pursuing my particular form of pleasure, particular fulfilment, and

my wife or husband, or girl friend does the same, we must

inevitably end up in conflict. That is a fact. So it is not, how do I

know what truth is. First of all let us look at facts.

We are greatly prejudiced people. We have a great many

prejudices. We have cultivated them, we have strengthened them

by public opinion and so on, that our prejudices prevent

understanding other people. Right? That is a fact. So can one be

free of prejudices, free of certain opinions which become so very

strong in our lives. And the question then arises: how is it possible

for human beings to be free of prejudices? That we can discuss.

That we can have a conversation, a dialogue and say, look I have

prejudices, suppose I have them, and you have them, and so these

prejudices, whether they are idealistic prejudices, capitalist

prejudices, totalitarian prejudices, religious prejudices, they divide

people. Right? This is a simple fact. And where there is division

there must be conflict - the Arab and the Jew, the Islamic world

and the rest of the world, those who are terribly bigoted and those

who are not, must be in conflict. It is a fact. I have nothing to do

with it. It isn't how do I know what I am saying is true, we are just

facing facts.

Now what is a fact? What do you think is a fact? That which

has happened before, an incident, a car accident, that is a fact. Or

what is happening now, sitting here, is a fact. But what will happen

in the future may not be a fact. So fact implies that which has

happened before: yesterday, walking along the lane, I met a viper, I

saw it, it didn't bite me. That is a fact. And what is happening now,

what I am thinking, what I am doing now, is a fact. And what I will

do may not be a fact. It might happen, or might not happen. So if

we are clear on what is a fact, and then what is an idea. You

understand? Is an idea a fact? And the word 'idea', the Greek and

so on, Latin, means to observe. The root meaning of that word

'idea' is to observe, to perceive, to see. What we do is see a fact and

make an abstraction of it and then pursue the idea. Which means

there is always the fact and a conclusion from the fact, and pursue

the fact, pursue the conclusion, not the understanding of the fact.

Am I making myself clear?

So please it is not how do you know what you are saying is true,

the speaker is merely pointing out facts. Those facts are not

personal. If I say I am a Hindu and I stick to it, that is a fact.

Whether it is an illusion, whether it is some kind of superstitious

sentimental nonsense, that also is fact. You understand? Fact can

be an illusion, or actual. But most of us live with illusions. I am an

Indian - that is an illusion. And you are, if I may most gently point

out, you are British - that is also an illusion. This tribal insular

worship is destroying the world. That is a fact. As long as I am an

Arab and you are something else, I am going to destroy you

because I believe by destroying you I will go to heaven. Right?

That is an illusion which they have accepted as a fact, and for that

illusion they are willing to fight and kill, and destroy. Right? So

can we always deal with facts? I am asking: can we always be with

facts? Not translate the facts according to my prejudice, according

to my belief, according to my neurotic illusions, however noble

they are, can I look at these facts and understand what those facts

are telling, saying? Suppose I had an accident in a car, can I look at

that fact that I was rather careless, driving too fast, not paying

complete attention to what I was doing because I was talking to my

friend next to me - that is a fact. But I then say, "No, it is your

fault" - you know, the other fellow is a fool!

Now, it is a fact that we have ideals. Right? Don't you all have

ideals? No? I wish we could have a dialogue, friendly, talk to each

other. Don't you have ideals? I am afraid you do. Ideals. What are

those ideals? Are they facts? The ideal that we must live

peacefully. Right? The ideal that we must be - whatever it is, nonviolent,

or the ideals of a communist, which are drawn from

historical study, but those studies are prejudiced by my

conditioning, so why do we have ideals at all? I know this is a

dangerous thing to say because most of us live with these

extraordinary ideals. We are questioning, please I am not saying

you should or should not have ideals. I am saying, why do we have

ideals, faiths, beliefs, as a Christian, as a Buddhist, as a Hindu, I

am an American, you are British, you know, all the rest of it -

why? Is it our brain is incapable of living without any illusion?

What do you say to that? Is my brain capable, strong, vital, to

understand things as they are and not create a future ideal? Ideal is

non-existent. Right? All Christians and all religious people believe

that you must not kill. Right? And probably the Christians have

killed more than anybody else. Right? And the British. And the

Islamic world have killed more - not so many as the Christians.

And probably the Buddhists and the Hindus come on a lower scale

because they are barbarians, they are uncivilized people. And so it

goes on. And we know that ideals of every kind, faith, belief,

divide people. That is a fact.

So, can we be free of ideals, of faith, of being identified with

one group and against another group which identifies with another

group. You follow? Be free of all this. Could we - or is that

impossible? If we could have a dialogue about this then we would

exchange views - yes, it is possible, it is not possible, why is it not

possible - you understand? Could we do that now? To have a free

mind, free brain, that is not cluttered up with a lot of rubbish, a lot

of illusions, is that possible? And some of you may say, no, it is

not possible because I can't live without my beliefs. I must have

my ideals, my faith, otherwise I am lost - with your faiths, with

your beliefs, ideals you are already lost. That is a fact. You are

very lost people. But whereas if we could have a dialogue,

conversation, and say, why do I cling to my particular prejudice,

particular ideal, and so on, why have I identified myself with

them? Why do I identify myself with anything? You follow? Push

it. Push it deeply to find out why we do all these things. Why we

have allowed ourselves to be programmed. Why are we afraid of

public opinion and so on and so on.

So the question: how do you know what you are saying is true?

I am afraid it has very little meaning. Truth is not something that is

mysterious, truth is where you are. From there we can begin. Truth

is I am angry, I am jealous, I am aggressive, I quarrel. That is a

fact. So one must begin, if one may most respectfully point out,

where one is. That is why it is important to know oneself, to have

complete knowledge of oneself, not from others, not from

psychologists, brain specialists and so on, but to know what you

are. Because you are the story of mankind. Do you understand all

this? If you know how to read that book which is yourself, then

you know all the activities and the brutalities and the stupidities of

mankind because you are the rest of the world. Right? Is that

question clear?

2nd QUESTION: Is desire something fundamental in human

beings? Without desire could we function in this world at all?

Could we talk about this? Have a conversation: what is desire,

why desire has become so important in our lives and why desire

dominates and why desire changes its object from year to year.

Right? You understand? Why? And all the various monks

throughout the world, they are supposed to be serious people,

dedicated, committed, they suppress their desires, they are tortured

by their desires. Right? They may worship whatever symbol,

whatever person, but desire is there burning like a fire. Right? This

is a common fact. And to understand the whole nature of desire

one must go into it very, very carefully. Let's talk about it together,

shall we? Join me please.

Why have human beings yielded to desire, to do everything that

they wanted to do, on one side; and there are other human beings

who say you must suppress desire? You understand this? The

monks, the sannyasis of India, and the Buddhist monks, all say you

must control your desire, or transform your desire to god. Do you

understand all this? Turn your desire to the worship of your

saviour, turn this desire that is so strong, take vows against it -

vows of celibacy, vows of silence, vows of one meal a day. You

understand? Have you ever been in a monastery? No? I was in one

for some time for fun. And I watched, I listened, slept there, did the

things they did. It was really a cruel affair. Take a vow of silence

and never speak again - you understand what it means? Never look

at a woman. Do you understand all this? Never look at the sky, the

beauty of trees, the solitary tree in a field, never communicate what

you are feeling to another. Do you understand all this? In the name

of service, in the name of god, human beings have tortured

themselves to find illumination, to find enlightenment, to find

something or other, heaven. And that is a tremendously torturing

affair. And desire is at the root of all this. Right? I wonder if you

understand all this.

Human beings in India, in the West, and the Far East, they have

done everything to suppress this flame. I once met a man, an

Indian, highly educated, he had been to the West, talked excellent

English, very learned, and yet he had taken a vow never to enter

into a married couple's house. Please, you may laugh at it. Because

he said sex is an abomination; and when he said it is an

abomination you could feel the tortures he had been through. You

understand all this? Does it mean anything to you, all this?

So to go into this question: what is desire? Why are there these

two elements in life, the suppression, the control, and the other side

to do what you want. There are the gurus who say do what you

want, god will bless you, and of course they are very, very popular.

And thousands go, offer everything they have - you know all that is

happening in the world. So we must go into this question: what is

desire and whether it is the fundamental urge of life, of living. Is

this quite clear, up to now?

So let's go into it. What is desire? You understand? We

expanded desire, what is taking place in the world, night clubs, sex,

free sex, do what you want to do, gurus help you to do what you

want to do, really it releases all your inhibitions. Counter groups -

you know. God, this world is mad all right! But they never ask the

question apparently, I may be mistaken: what is the nature of

desire? What is that entity that controls desire? You understand?

The urge to have something, to possess something, and the entity

that says, "Don't". Right? There is this battle going on: one desire

opposing another desire. Right? Are we together in this? We are

having a conversation, I am not making a sermon. We are having a

dialogue together. Which is: why is there in human beings this dual

process going on, opposite processes, wanting and not wanting,

suppressing and letting go? You understand my question? Why is

there this contradiction in us? Does the contradiction exist because

we are not facing facts? Facts have no contradiction, it is a fact. I

wonder if you understand? I am angry. That is a fact. I am violent.

I am jealous, greedy. That is a fact. But when I say, "I am violent",

there is immediately an idea I must not be violent. Right? And I

must not be violent becomes the ideal, which is non-violence. So

there is a battle between violence, which I am, and trying to be nonviolent.

Why have we done this? The non-violence is non-fact. I

know it is a fashion brought about through Tolstoy in India and so

on, that we must all be non-violent. Whereas we are actually

violent human beings. Would you admit that? Therefore why do

we have its opposite? You understand? Is that an escape from fact?

And if it is an escape from fact why do we escape? Is it because we

do not know how to deal with the fact? I escape from something

because I don't know what to do about it, but if I know what to do I

can deal with it.

So let's find out - oh, that takes too long! I will go into it. Let's

find out how to deal with the fact only, not with its opposite. I am

violent. And I have no opposite. Because that is non-fact, that has

no validity at all. What has validity, what is truth, what is a fact, is

I am violent. Right? And what does violence mean? Not only to do

harm to another, throw a bomb and all the rest of things that are

going on in the world, it also means comparison. Right? When I

compare myself with you, who are clever, bright, noble and all the

rest of it, then what takes place when I am comparing with you?

Through comparison I make myself dull. Right? I wonder if you

follow all this? Is this too much? Why do we compare? Of course

you have to compare, if you have the money, between two cars, or

between dresses and so on, that is inevitable. But why do I

psychologically compare myself with anybody? Is it because I do

not know how to deal with myself? You understand? When you

say to a boy, you must be like your elder brother, as most parents

do, what happens to that boy, who is B? When you are comparing

B with A, what happens to B? Have you ever thought about it? I

have two sons, A and B - or two girls, whatever it is. I am

comparing A, the youngest boy to the older, and say, "You must be

like him." What does that do to A? You understand? When I say

you must be like B, what happens to A? Then he is imitating,

conforming. You have set a pattern and this comparison is a form

of violence. Right? I wonder if you see that. No? So imitation is

violence. You have to go into this to see all the subtleties of it.

So when you look at violence it opens itself more and more,

what the content of that word is, and it reveals most extraordinary

things. But if you are pursuing non-violence, which is illusory,

which is non-factual, it has no meaning. I wonder if you see this?

So, let's come back. Which really means: how do you observe

violence? Is the observer different from the thing called violence?

You understand? I am violent. That word indicates the reaction,

and I have used that word because I have repeated it so often - to

identify that particular reaction. Are you following? And by using

that word constantly I am strengthening that feeling. So can I be

free of the word and look? Do you understand all this? No, you

don't. So let's come back. What is desire? How does it happen?

And can that be understood, lived with, so that there is no

suppression, no condemnation, or indulging in it? Right? To look

at it, to understand it, so that when you understand something very

clearly then it becomes simple. If I know how to dismantle a car,

which I have done, not the modern cars, they are too complicated,

then it is fairly simple to deal with any misbehaving, or something

faulty. So it never frightens one. So let's look at this very carefully.

What is desire? What is the root and the beginning of desire? Right

sirs? Can we have a dialogue on it?

We are asking what is the root of desire and can we observe that

root and remain with that root? You understand? Not say it is right,

or wrong, it is good to have desire, or what will human beings do

without desire, and all that kind of question.

Q: I have an answer to your question. I think separation from

the mother is the root of desire.

K: From the mother? The baby gets desire from the mother?

Q: No, desire from the separation.

K: Desire from the separation from the mother? Is that so? Is

that true, a fact? We don't know. Don't go back to babies and

children and mothers, and all that. That is a different question. We

will deal with it when it arises.

We are asking: what is the root of desire? You see something

beautiful, a nice picture, a beautiful piece of furniture, jewelry.

You see it in the window. What takes place? Let's go slowly. You

see the particular jewel in the window. There is a reaction to that.

Right? You go inside the shop and you ask the man to show you

that particular jewel. You touch it. The you have a certain

sensation. Right? That is, seeing, going inside and contact with

your fingers, then sensation. Right? Seeing, contact, sensation.

Then - please go slowly, you will see it for yourself - then thought

imagines how lovely you would look with that jewel, on your

hand, or round your neck, or in your ears. Right? So at that

moment desire is born. Am I making myself clear? That is, it is

natural to have this sensation - seeing that jewel in the window,

going into the shop, handling it, sensation, a feeling. Then thought

comes along, it is all done in a flash of a second, but thought comes

along and says, "How lovely that would be on my finger. How

lovely it would be if I owned that marvellous piece of jewelry." At

that moment desire is born. Right? I wonder if you understand? If

we could approach desire slowly, step by step, then we see how

desire is born - seeing, contact, sensation. Then thought sees that

car, touches it, goes round it, feels it, opens it up and then,

sensation. Then thought says, "I'd like to have that car, sit in it,

drive it." You understand? All this takes place instantly, now we

are separating it step by step.

So if you are aware of this whole process - seeing, contact,

sensation, thought imagining you in the car and driving it off. You

understand that? That moment is the birth of desire, when thought

interferes with sensation. Got it? Is this a fact? Not what you say, is

it true, is this a fact? This is a fact. You see a blouse, or a skirt, or a

nice shirt in the window and you know, you go through the whole

process in a flash of a second. But when you slow it down, like in a

film, step by step, you see the whole movement of it - seeing,

contact, sensation, thought with its image, then desire is born.

Right? Are we clear on this? Not I am saying this, don't say, "What

right have you to tell me that?" It is a fact. Then let's find out why

thought does this. Why thought captures the sensation and makes

an image of it. You understand what I am saying? Why? Now you

see, why does thought do this?

Q: Trapped in memory which likes to repeat itself.

K: Yes, no. This is the habit, isn't it? This is our unconscious,

unaware movement. Right? I see something, immediately - we

never separate thought from sensation. You understand what I am

saying? I wish you could. Am I talking sense or nonsense? You

judge - please, you question what I am saying. So thought is more

dominant than desire. Right? I wonder if you see that? Which is,

thought shapes sensation. Right? You have had sex last night and

thought is going on - the image, the picture, the wanting.

So desire and thought go together. Right? Are you following? Is

that so? Or is desire something totally different from thought? Or

they are always going together like two horses. And then like two

horses trotting along together, then thought says, "I must control". I

wonder if you understand?

So when one is aware of this movement of seeing, contact,

sensation and thought capturing the sensation, creating an image, at

that moment desire is born. Now can there be a hiatus, a gap, an

interval, between sensation and the moment when thought captures

sensation? You understand what I am saying? I see - one sees a car,

a very good model, beautifully polished, beautiful lines and

aerodynamic and all the rest of it. And you see it. The seeing,

going round it, touching it, sensation. Why don't you stop there?

Why does thought take over so quickly? If you are aware of this

whole movement then there can be observation very clearly when

thought begins to come in. Right? When you observe it so closely

then thought hesitates. You follow? I wonder if you follow all this?

So attention to all this denies totally any control. I wonder if

you understand all this? After all, when I control my desire, the

controller is another form of desire. Right? So one desire is in

conflict with another desire. But if we understand the whole

movement of desire then - you understand - there is a certain

quality of discipline, not control. But the awareness, or the

attention to this whole movement is its own discipline. Am I

talking to myself? No, you haven't done any of this. It is all totally

new.

Q: Can I ask you a question about thought? When we go now

from this tent, what do we do with our thoughts that they don't

start?

K: I explained this madam the other day. Thought is necessary

in certain areas otherwise you and I couldn't speak English.

Thought is necessary for you to go home, to do your job, your skill.

Thought has built the extraordinary things of the world, cathedrals,

atom bomb, the marvellous submarines. And also thought has

created all the things that are in the cathedrals, the vestments, the

robes - and all the rest of it, and also thought has created war - my

country, your country, my tribe and your tribe. So all that we are

saying is: thought is necessary in certain places, it is not necessary

in other areas. That requires a great deal of observation, attention,

care, to find out where thought is not necessary. Right? But we are

so impatient, we want to get at it quickly, like taking a pill for a

headache. But we never find out what is the cause of the headache.

You understand? And all the rest of it. So if this is very clear, the

origin and the beginning of desire, then that very clarity is its own

order, then there is no discipline, desire.

Right? Have I made this somewhat clear?

Q: What is the difference between clarity of desire of buying

something or to look for truth?

K: The desire for a blue suit, blue shirt, blue blouse, whatever it

is, and desire for truth are exactly the same, because they are both

desire. I might desire a beautiful car, and you might desire for

heaven, what is the difference? We are trying to understand desire,

not the objects of desire. Your object may be to sit next to god, my

object of desire may be to have a nice garden. But desire is

common to both of us and we are trying to understand desire, not

your heaven and my garden. If I understand desire then whether

you have heaven - you follow?

3rd QUESTION: Jealousy and mistrust are poisoning my

relationship with someone. Is there any solution other than

isolating myself from every other human being except him?

I wonder why you laughed. This is a common everyday human

life. Right? How do you answer this question? If I put this question

to you, how would you deal with it? What would be your reaction,

your response to this question? Would you laugh? Would you say,

"I am not jealous"? So let's go together into this very complex

question, which is a human question. It is not something about

heaven, or nirvana, or illumination. You know, sir, unless we keep

our house in order, meditation and other things have no value.

Right? If my house, which is me, is not in complete order, without

any conflict, what is the point of meditation? It is another escape,

another illusion. But when my house is in order, completely,

without any shadow in my house, then meditation is something

entirely different. But we think by meditating, god knows what,

then your house will be in order. See how deceptive we are. So let's

go into this.

Jealousy and distrust, poisoning one's life, have I to isolate

myself to be with her, or him? Why do we possess people? Right?

Why? We are having a dialogue please. Why do I possess my

wife? And my wife delights in possessing me. Why?

Q: I need the status and there is a fear of being alone.

K: Which means what? Sir, look: we are asking this question, to

end jealousy, not just to go on and on and on for the rest of our life.

Like desire, to understand it so fully, it becomes very simple. So I

want to find out why I am jealous. Why I am jealous of my wife, or

she is jealous of me. Is it that we want to possess each other? What

does that mean? What am I possessing? The body? Please enquire

with me sirs. The body, the organism and what is implied in

possession? To dominate. Right? Doesn't it? Oh, come on sirs. I

want to possess her - go into it: why do I want to possess? Because

I am lonely, she gives me comfort, she is mine, legally, morally,

the church has blessed it, or the Registrar has blessed it, and I hold

her - why? Is it because I am lonely? If I am lonely I want to

escape from that tremendous void of the word which I use, 'lonely',

to escape from it - to which I escape too becomes all important.

You understand? I escape from life by inventing god and I hold to

that god because that is the only thing I have.

So, I possess her, and what does that mean, in possessing

somebody? Dominating, identifying myself with her - go slowly,

enquire slowly. And it gives me a sense of power. Right? And at

the end of all this I say she is mine. People like to be possessed -

don't you? No? Can you say to your wife, "I don't possess you"?

Oh, you people have never done anything. And I am jealous, which

is, she is depriving me of my stability, my security when she goes

away and talks to somebody else, or looks at somebody else, or

does something or other with somebody else - I am at a loss. She

has deprived me of my identity, driven me to my loneliness. And I

hate all that. So I am jealous of her. Which means, jealousy implies

hate, anger, violence, beating - god, don't you know all this? And I

can't let her go and she can't let me go, and we live like that.

Jealousy, distrust, feeling lonely deeply inside but trying to escape

from it, that's my life, and that is what we call relationship, and that

is what we call love. You understand sirs?

So one asks a much deeper question: is love desire? Go on sirs.

Is love pleasure? You have to answer that question, not I. It is your

life not my life. And can each of us see this fact, what possession,

domination, power, does to each of us? You - the man may see it

first, or the woman may, then will she help him to see all this? And

is he willing to listen to all this? You are following all this, or is

this all strange to you? Will he, or she listen to each other, the basis

of it, being afraid to lose - you understand? Afraid of losing one's

security in relationship. And when that security is shaken I am

jealous. Will my wife listen to me? And I say to her, "Look, old

girl, I love you but I don't possess you" - could you say that? My

golly! "I am free of you and you are free of me." Which doesn't

mean free love and going off, you know, changing every year a

new man or a new woman. But seeing the whole problem, not just

jealousy, how to get rid of jealousy, or distrust, but seeing the

whole problem of relationship, which is very complex, which

demands subtlety, sensitivity.

Q: I can see it.

K: But will you do something about it? One can intellectually

understand all this, verbally, which you call intellectually. What

value has it when I carry on with jealousy for the rest of my life

and that jealousy creates wounds in me psychologically? I am hurt

inwardly and I carry on with that hurt, with that jealousy, with that

distrust - is this the way to live? So merely to see it all

intellectually has very little meaning. But if you say, "Look, I am

jealous. Let's go into it. Let's find out whether it can end" - which

means do I possess anything at all? Am I attached to anything?

Attached to my wife, husband, attached to ideals, my future

success - you know, attachment. When you are attached then there

is jealousy, there is anxiety, there is pain. If you see that very

clearly then the thing becomes very simple. But you don't want to

see it clearly because we want to live the way we have lived for a

million years. Right?

Can we go on to the next question? Or do you want to escape

from these questions?

Q: Can I ask a question? How does one break free of habits?

Once one has intellectually reached an understanding from such as

one has just discussed, how does one break free of habit then?

K: When one understands something verbally, so-called

intellectually, how does one break that habit. That is the question

the gentleman asked.

What is habit? It is a repetition, isn't it? Cleaning one's teeth

every morning, afternoon and evening, it becomes a routine, you

don't pay attention, you just do it very quickly and get off. So the

brain establishes a pattern, drinking, sex, whatever it is, it

establishes a pattern, then repeats it, then it becomes mechanical.

Right? Are you following all this? So the brain through constant

habits has become what it is now - not active, alive. So the

gentleman asks: how do you break a habit, whatever the habit? A

habit to search for god, to go to some exotic guru who promises

you everything and lets you do what you like - you know all the

crazy things that are going on in the world. Now how do you break

a habit? Without conflict - right? You understand? Let's say I have

a habit, of what - give me a habit, would you please.

Q: Smoking.

K: Smoking is such an easy affair, that is an easy affair to stop.

Q: Always giving the same answer.

K: I hope I am not giving the same answer. It doesn't matter. I

have a habit, smoking, scratching my head, keeping my mouth

open, habit of thinking the same thing over and over and over

again, or the habit of chattering. Let's take chattering.

I am not only chattering with myself but I am always endlessly

talking with others. Right? The other day somebody came to see

me, it was an interview. I don't give interviews anymore but she

insisted, she came. The moment she entered - please, it is none of

you here - she began to talk, talk, talk, and when she left, "I am

glad to have met you." We all chatter endlessly; not only some go

back and forth but also chatter inwardly. That has become an

extraordinary habit for most people, they can never be quiet, never

be silent. Silence in the sense the brain completely still, but that is

a different matter, we can go into it later. So this habit of

chattering. How do I stop it? First of all, who is to stop it? Another

chatterer who says, "I must stop this chattering but I will have my

own chattering" - you understand? So who is to stop chattering?

Fear? Seeing that it is a wastage of energy, chattering, chattering,

then will you stop that?

So we have to ask a question which is more serious: is there an

entity outside of you, or inside of you, that will act as a brake upon

chattering, that will say, "No I will not chatter"? Is it - please listen

carefully - is it will, the decision not to chatter? And if it is will,

what is will? The quintessence of desire - right? Right? Are you all

tired?

Q: No.

K: All right. How quickly you answered.

So, how do you stop a habit of chattering? First of all, if you

stop it through will, through desire, that creates another conflict,

doesn't it? And to stop chattering without conflict - you understand

my question? - is that possible? I chatter. First of all I am not aware

I am chattering. You point it out to me and say, "Old chap do stop

chattering so much." And I get rather hurt by it but if I go beyond

that and I say, "Now, in what manner am I to stop it?" Then I have

got the orthodox means of will, or taking a drug that will quieten

me down, and having been quietened I take another drug to keep

me awake - and I keep on that routine. So I want to find out how to

stop a habit, like chattering, keeping your mouth open, scratching

yourself, all kinds of things, without any kind of effort. You

understand my question? This is an important question. To do

something without effort. Does it amuse you, it's fun. Will you do

this? Find out your particular habit, aware of it, and say, now, can

it be ended without any action of will, decision, compulsion,

reward - you understand - reward and punishment they are the two

elements we live on. So can I break that habit without any side

effects. Right? Can we go into this? I will go into it.

First of all am I aware of my habit, not that you point it out to

me and then I realize it, but am I aware of my habits without

somebody telling me of my habits. You understand? See the

difference. If you tell me my habit then I either resist it, or say, yes,

I must stop it. But if I see it for myself I am a step ahead, if I can so

put it. Right? Now are we aware of our particular habit, chattering,

we took that? Now what does that awareness mean? Awareness

means to look at something without any reaction, without any

choice. I am aware that I am chattering, that is first. Then to be

aware, to watch it without any condemnation, justification or

explanation, just to watch it. Will you do that? So that the old

reactions don't come in, the old tradition doesn't come in and say,

"I must stop it", I must do this, I must do that. So to watch the

chattering very carefully. To watch it means without any reaction

of past memories. This becomes very difficult. You understand? If

I watch that tree in movement in the wind, it is a beautiful thing,

And I don't like wind therefore I won't watch it. Similarly in a

certain way, I can watch my chattering. The watcher is not

different from chattering. So the watcher is not the structure of

words, memories, he is just watching. You understand? Please this

is rather complex and requires a great deal of enquiry.

We watch things with our prejudices, with our opinions, with

our memories, the whole structure of words. Right? We watch

everything that way. Now can you watch without all that memory,

structure? That is where the art comes in, the art of watching. Now

I watch - there is a watching of my chattering. I am aware and in

that awareness I am not seeking any reward or punishment, I am

just watching. Which means what? I am giving complete attention

at that moment. Right sirs? At that second all my energy, all my

capacity and attention is there. Which means when there is

complete attention, complete, not attention brought about by any

form of desire, through any form of reward or punishment, just

complete attention, then that habit has no place. You understand?

Do it please, try it once. Now, you will say, yes, for the moment it

is possible, I can see that can end, if I give complete attention to

something there is an ending to it, but it comes back. Right? Are

you following? It comes back, the chattering comes back. Then

what is your reaction? I did it once, gave complete attention, and it

seems to subside for the second, now if I give the same attention it

will subside again. So you have become mechanical. I wonder if

you see this? Do you understand this? I gave attention, complete

attention, to my chattering. That flame of attention wiped away for

a few minutes chattering. I have seen the thing works. Then the

next moment, or next hour, whatever period of time, you begin to

chatter and suddenly catch yourself and say, "I must pay attention."

So again you repeat, again it disappears. So gradually what you are

learning is paying attention, which means you are not attending.

Have you understood what I am saying? If you are constantly

reminding yourself to attend, it is not attention. But attention has

no time - oh, I won't go into all this.

If you give your complete attention, which means there is no

wastage of energy, then the thing goes away. So your concern is

not attention but wasting energy - you follow? We waste energy in

a thousand ways, chattering is one of the ways. So, all right, I don't

pay attention any more about chattering, but I am going to see how

I waste my energy - right? I am going to pursue that. I am going to

watch, learn, see where I am wasting energy. Oh, there are so many

ways. Right? So my mind now is not becoming mechanical by the

repetition that I must attend but it is moving. Right? All the time

picking up new things. I wonder if you see all this? So that the

brain becomes extraordinarily alert, and when it is so alert habits

have no place.

(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 - THE WORLD OF PEACE" -1

��

Comments

0 responses to "Jiddu Krishnamurti - THE WORLD OF PEACE" -1"

Hindu Vedic Philosophy (The Paramardha Tattwam)

Jiddu Krishnamurti - THE WORLD OF PEACE" -1

Comments

Post a Comment

About Me

Followers

map

Blog Archive

visitors

visitors

About Me

Labels

Blog Archive