Hindu Vedic Philosophy (The Paramardha Tattwam): Jiddu Krishnamurti

Jiddu Krishnamurti - THE WORLD OF PEACE" -2

4:28 PM | Posted in Jiddu Krishnamurti - THE WORLD OF PEACE" -2

THE WORLD OF PEACE"

Public Talk by

Jiddu Krishnamurti

"THE WORLD OF PEACE" BROCKWOOD

PARK 2ND PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER

MEETING 1ST SEPTEMBER 1983

There are several questions here and I hope this morning we can go

through them. These questions are really problems. And to resolve

problems a mind, or rather the brain, unless it is free from

problems in itself, it cannot possibly solve the problems without

raising other problems. Right? That is what politicians throughout

the world are doing. They have got innumerable problems, war,

atomic bombs and all the rest of it, their own position, their

ambition, they represent the voter and so on and so on, their brains

are full of their problems. And such a brain, as our brains also, are

cluttered with so many problems, to resolve other problems, how

can you solve them unless your brain is free from problems? I hope

I am making this clear. If my brain is clouded with several

problems, scientific, medical, health, sexual - so many problems

human beings have, and other problems arise, how can I meet

them? I only meet them with a brain that is not only trained to

resolve problems but also heavy with problems. So shouldn't one

enquire whether it is possible to be free of problems? And then any

problem that arises we can meet freely. Is that possible? You

understand my question?

Suppose I have several personal problems, and my brain is

worried and concerned and thinking about it all the time, and I

meet other problems - problems being something thrown at me - I

can only meet them according to my brain which is already heavy

with problems. Right? Isn't it important - I am just asking - to have

a mind, a brain which is really free from problems. Then life has

problems, you can meet them freely. Am I making my position

clear? This, as we said the other day, this is a dialogue between us,

not a monologue by me but a dialogue where two of us are talking

things over. Neither is trying to impress the other, or convince the

other, or subtly persuading the other, but two friends talking over

together. And I hope we are doing this, together look at these

problems. If our brain is not free, then whatever problems arise we

will meet them with the problems that we already have. So we are

asking: is it possible for a brain to be free of problems? Is this all

right? Am I putting a wrong question? Now how is a brain to be

free of problems so that it can meet problems? How do you meet

it? How do you meet problems with a free mind, a free brain? Do

please let's talk it over together.

From childhood we are trained to have problems, the whole of

education is a series of problems, mathematical, relationship,

teacher and the student, examinations - you know, the whole

educational system becomes a problem. And we are trained to

resolve problems. So our brain is trained, educated. Now can one

uncondition the brain which has been trained to solve problems and

is therefore never free? Am I making my question clear so that we

are both understanding each other? Right? Is that possible? Please.

Q: Is it not necessary first to free ourselves from very strong

attachments.

K: Sir, it is not a question of attachment for the moment. But I

am just asking my brain from childhood, and your brain, is trained

to have problems and to resolve problems. That is a fact. Such a

brain meeting problems will always meet them with a brain that is

cluttered. Right? Shouldn't it be free to meet problems? No? Now

how do you propose to be free? What will you do?

Q: Could it be that first we should recognize that by asking that

question we are making it another problem.

K: Not asking that person, yourself. Is it possible for me, for my

brain, not to have a single problem so that it can meet the problems

of life freely? This is really a very, very serious question.

Q: Yes.

K: Yes? It is so easy as that?

Q: You have to look.

K: Is your brain free from problems? Are you free from

problems - health problems, mathematical, if you are a technician,

you know, the whole world of technology with their problems,

personal problems, problems of relationship, political problems,

whether it should be a democratic or republican, a communist or a

socialist, whether you believe in god or don't believe in god,

whether you - you follow, our brain is so loaded. The more serious

you are the more the burden becomes.

So in what manner can the brain be entirely free from

problems? You see we haven't thought about this at all. Does one

demand the brain to be free from problems so that it can meet

problems?

Q: I have thought about it but that seems to create another

problem.

K: Yes, that is just it. You have thought about it and the very

thinking about it creates another problem.

Q: One has to ask whether thought can solve problems.

K: Whether thought solves the problem and so on. Does this

mean anything to each one of us? Or is it something that you

haven't really given your mind to it?

Q: A great many people enjoy their problems and they would

find life very boring if they didn't have problems.

K: Oh well that is a different matter. If you enjoy your problems

good luck! That is a kind of neuroticism.

Shall we go into this matter before answering all the questions -

there are here about eight questions? Problems have conditioned

our brain. Right? Have limited the brain. And do we see the

importance that a brain that has been working on problems,

problem after problem, is incapable of meeting any problem at all?

Are we clear on that point, verbally even, intellectually?

Q: I am not sure about that one. The brain has a stack of

problems, you are saying it is incapable of meeting another

problem freshly, coming to that problem.

K: If the brain has problems and meets another problem, what

happens?

Q: It copes with it as it does cope with it - more or less badly, or

better or worse.

K: That is what is happening in the world.

Q: That is the case. You cannot therefore say the brain cannot

deal with problems just because it has problems.

K: No, it can only deal with problems partially, limited.

Q: Yes, I agree.

K: And therefore more problems.

Q: Yes, all right.

K: That's all we are saying. Look at all the politicians in the

world, that is a perfect example. They are creating one problem

after another and merely never solving any problems. You have

perfect examples here.

Q: Yes, but what is it that we are demanding when we want

some sort of absolute kind of solution?

K: We are going to find out sir if there is, or there is not.

Q: Oh, all right, fair enough.

K: Or must we always live with increasing problems,

multiplying problems? So can the brain be aware of itself - this is a

very serious question if you want to go into it - can the brain be

aware? - it has problems, personal, health, scientific, and so on and

so on, multiple problems, many, many problems. And can we put

aside and look at those problems first objectively, unemotionally,

not taking sides and so on, without bias? Can we do that?

Q: I don't know about the old mind, there is something

happening which you can't cope with and making it into a problem

of thought.

K: Sir, you are not meeting my question - forgive me for

pointing out.

Q: The problem is only for our ego.

K: Problems exist for the sustenance of our ego. All right. But

what will you do about it? Oh, I see you can't deal with this. All

right, let's go to our questions.

Q: No, no.

K: We will come back to it perhaps at the end of it. May we?

Come back?

Q: Is it possible that our problem is that we always want

answers to the questions? As we sit here you are putting a question

into this whole gathering and immediately many people are

creating a duality by wanting an answer to the question, which is

the way we always live?

K: All right. You are going to get them.

1st QUESTION: What is the relationship between

consciousness, mind, brain, thought, intellect, meditation and

intelligence? Is awareness, attention still there when thought is not?

Is awareness beyond time?

Now how do you meet this problem? This is a problem. Right?

This is a question - how do you meet that? Because this is a

question that all of us put, if you are at all serious, if you have gone

into all this, you say, what is the relationship of intellect, brain,

mind, intelligence, consciousness and so on? How do you meet this

problem? What is your approach to this problem, to these

questions? Right? What is your approach? Either you say there is

no relationship, each is something separate. Or, there is a

relationship between them all. That remains a mere verbal

statement. But to find out actually what is your answer? How do

you respond to that question?

Q: To observe your own conditioning.

K: Yes, which means what? One has to ask who is the observer,

is the observer different from the observed? So let's begin.

Is awareness beyond time? That is the question. Is one aware of

the relationship between consciousness, intellect, intelligence,

brain and so on? What is awareness? Are we aware when we are

sitting here of the tent - of the marquee - the number of poles there

are holding up the marquee, aware of the person sitting next to us,

the colour of the shirt, the skirt, whatever it is? Are we aware of all

this? Or, not aware of it at the same time? You are aware of it

partially, from time to time. Is that awareness? Or do you take the

whole thing, observe the whole marquee, see the number of poles

there are and so on, all together, and observe the various colours?

So isn't awareness - begin very near. Right? I am aware of the

room I live in, or the flat I live in, the single room, aware of the

trees, the sky, the birds, the flowers, the beauty of the land and so

on. Are we aware of all this? Or we are aware very, very rarely? If

we are aware is it a partial awareness, see one thing only? Or being

aware you see the causation and the consequences and the ending

of the cause? You follow all this? Isn't all that implied in being

aware? I am aware of my wife or husband. I'd better come back

down back to that. There we begin to understand much more. I am

aware of my wife. Is this awareness the memory of my wife?

Please answer. You understand? I am aware of my wife - which

means all the images I have built about my wife. Right? The

various incidents, flatteries, sex, companionship and so on, all that

is a continuous memory, adding all the time. Am I aware of these

memories? Or those memories are so strong, so embedded, that

there is no awareness of it objectively? You understand my

question? Are we going along with each other? Is this too

complex? No. All right.

So am I aware of the memories which interfere, block, the

awareness of my wife? So I ask naturally: can this block be put

aside, wiped away so that I can be aware of my wife sensitively?

So that the memories don't interfere all the time. If one sees the fact

that in awareness if memory is functioning, then I am not aware at

all? Memory is acting all the time. If I am aware that the memories

are operating all the time, then I see how they block my

relationship with my wife and therefore if I like the block, if I like

it because it is much better, it is easier to live that way, then I keep

it, but if one sees it is not necessary, it is dangerous in relationship,

then the very fact of the danger puts away the block, the barrier. Is

this clear?

Now let's proceed from there. What is the relationship between

consciousness, mind, brain, thought and so on, intelligence,

intellect? What is relationship - to be related to something? Is it

identification? I am related to my husband. Is that identification, or

relationship? Please. If it is identification then it is not relationship.

If I am identified as a Hindu there is no relationship in that

identification. If I am identified with a particular island called

Britain I have no relationship. So we have to distinguish, or

separate, identification and relationship. Right?

Now, are you doing it? So to find out what is relationship,

without identification, that is very serious. You understand? Is that

possible? I have identified with my wife, or with certain ideas and

conclusions, and it is almost impossible to break that identification.

I am that idea, I am that concept, therefore to ask such a question:

what is the relationship between consciousness, mind, brain and so

on, one has to go into this question, what is relationship? If it is not

identification, then what is the relationship between consciousness,

yours, mine or someone else's, what is the relationship between

consciousness, the mind and so on? Now, first of all we have to

enquire what is consciousness? To be conscious, not only to what

is taking place around me but also to be consciousness inwardly,

what are my reactions, the beliefs, the fears, the faiths, the hopes,

the various forms of identification. Right? Suffering, pain, health,

ill health, and so on. All that is my consciousness. Right sirs?

Would you agree to that? Not agree, do we move together? Your

consciousness, my consciousness, or someone else's consciousness,

is all its content. Without its content consciousness, as we know it

now, cannot be. Right? Agreed? We go along with that?

Then we ask: what is the content? If I am a Hindu, or a

Christian, or British, my consciousness is made up of British

tradition, the Empire, the Queens and the Kings. Right? There are

various traditions, culture, linguistic control, and I believe, I have

faith, and so on. Right? That is the content of my consciousness if I

am British, a Frenchman and so on. If I am not of the Western

world then my consciousness also is faith, belief, suffering, pain,

anxiety, like the rest of the world. So the question is: is my

consciousness different from yours? If I suffer, if I have anxiety, if

I believe in something - I may believe in something else, and you

may believe, being Christian, in something else - but belief is

common to both of us. Right? Suffering we all share. It is not my

suffering only but you also suffer and so on. So consciousness

apart from the physical environmental impressions, which are also

part of consciousness, you may be tall, I may be short, I may be

lighter skinned than you, or you may be lighter skinned than me,

that is a superficial coating, but inwardly we are similar. Right? I

know you will not like this but that is a fact. Right? Do we go as

far as that? No.

Q: Yes, yes.

K: Verbally we will go.

Q: No, beyond verbally.

K: Intellectually you see the reason, the logic of it, but to feel it,

to see the truth of it.

Q: You have to trust us more.

K: It is not a question of I trusting you, or you trusting me, it is

a question - you see how we...

Q: You are saying we don't see it. Maybe we are seeing it. I

don't see how you can say that we are only seeing it intellectually.

K: I don't know. I am asking sir.

Q: Well I feel it is not only intellectual.

K: Then sir, that means the idea of individual separation,

psychologically, is non-existent. That means you have tremendous

responsibility for the whole. If I feel tremendous responsibility I

will not kill a Brazilian, an Arab, because he is part of me. I don't

know if you go as far as that. And that is not pacifism - that is

another conclusion. The fact is our consciousness is shared by all

humanity.

Now what is the relationship between consciousness, mind,

brain and all the rest of it - meditation included, all right, include

everything - what is the relationship between them all? Is the cord

of relationship thought? As the pearls are held together by a thin

nylon thread, are all these, consciousness, mind, brain and so on,

held together by thought? Thought is the thin line, thin fibre that

holds all this together? Please. So one has to go into the very

question: why has thought become so extraordinary vibrant, alive,

and full of activity? Right? Why? Is thought feeling? Is thought

emotion? Of course it is. If I do not recognize an emotion, which is

the activity of thought to recognize, then that emotion is not. You

understand all this? So thought apparently is the main thread that

holds the whole thing together? Is that so?

Then what is the mind - this is really a very, very serious

question - what is the mind? Is it part of the brain? Or is it outside

of the brain?

Q: Is it both?

K: No. Sir don't be quick. Please this is much to serious a

question to say yes, both, it is, it is not. How am I to find out?

Q: Well, when you drive a motor car the actual passage of the

motor car going across a road, along a road, the actual miles

covered, do you say "Is that in the engine"?

K: Yes sir. When you are driving a car you have to be aware of

not only the approaching car but also you have to be aware of the

side roads, you are aware or see three hundred or four hundred feet

ahead.

Q: Sir, I am not saying that at all. What I am saying is - it is

getting a bit slack now I have made you lose your point, I am sorry.

But what I interrupted by saying was, that when you are driving a

car along the road the actual passage of the car going along the

road, the actual miles covered, we don't normally talk about that as

being inside the engine. Yet when we are discussing as we are

now, talking about different functions of the mind, body, brain,

organism, that sort of thing, we try to vitalize them, yet normally

they proceed in sort of almost automatic sense as if the car is going

along...

K: Yes sir, I know they are automatic, they all work together.

Now I want to understand when we use the word mind, when we

use the brain, when we use the word consciousness, like an engine

they are all working together.

Q: Yes, with more or less degrees of functioning. Sometimes

they are functioning very badly, other times in the same life time

they are functioning very well.

K: I would like to, if I may most respectfully point out, first of

all are we aware that there is no separation between all this? Like

driving a car the engine is working, taking you along.

Q: Is it possible to be aware of no separation?

K: Yes sir, that is what I am asking sir, is it all a single

movement, a unitary movement in which there is no separation?

You see you can't answer these questions.

Q: The separation is only in thought. It isn't real.

K: I would like to find out for myself, what is the mind? Is it

part of the brain? How do I find out? Unless my brain is

unconditioned I can't find out. Right? I can't find out anything

unless there is freedom to look. But I am not free. My brain is

conditioned as a Catholic, Protestant, Communist, Socialist,

Democrat, or religiously and so on and so on, environmentally. As

long as that is conditioned I can never find out what the mind is. I

can say the mind is part of the brain or it is separate from the brain.

This matter we have discussed with several so-called scientists.

Some of them agree that it is outside the brain. Do you understand

all this?

Q: Yes.

K: No, sir. Please sir, please sir, don't verbally, say yes. But the

implication that it is something outside the brain and that the brain

can only understand that when it is itself totally free. So I am not

concerned whether it is outside, inside, far away or near, my chief

concern is whether the brain can be free from its conditioning.

Then there will be discovery of that which is true, not just

invention.

So I am asking - we are asking: what is the connection between

them all? Is it all one single movement? To find that out one must

begin very near, which is what I am. Right? What my thoughts are.

What are you? May I ask that simple question, which is very

complex, but we will start very simply - what are you?

Q: Slaves.

K: That is understood. No, sir. Seriously what are you? You are

your name. Right? You are your tradition, you are your memories.

Right? And so on. So you are all that. Right? Which is, you are

consciousness. Right? You believe in, you don't believe, you have

faith, your gods, your fears, pleasures, suffering, pain, and

emotionalism and so on and so on, you are all that. Right? We

agree to that? Or do we think we are something totally different?

Q: That is what we are. It is a fact.

K: That is a fact. Now what does that mean? When I say my

name is K, I belong to India, or Britain, or this or that, I have faith

and so on, what does all that mean? Does it all mean memory?

Q: Consciousness.

K: Which means, if you see that, or if you don't see it, we are

the past. Right? Would you go along with that, even verbally? We

are the past. The past is knowledge. Right? The past is memory.

Right?

Q: Yes.

K: You are not learning anything from me please. I am just

pointing out. So we are the series of movements in memory. Right?

Q: Yes.

K: See the implications of it. That we are not actively living

human beings. You may go to the office every day for the next ten

years, fifty years, or a factory, or do something or other. You are

all that too. If I am a scientist I have accumulated knowledge

through books, through experiments, through discussions, through

various forms of hypothesis and conclusions, all those are the past.

So I am the past. Right sir? I am memories. I am a dead entity

psychologically. I wonder if you see that?

Q: The moment I see that...

K: Wait. Do we just see it, or is it just an idea? Sir this requires

a great deal of work, a great deal of observation, patience, looking

at things very, very carefully, impartially, objectively, without any

sense of subjective reactions to it. That when once I realize that I

am the whole movement of the past, not only it is a sudden shock

to me but also the realization that there is nothing new in me.

Q: You haven't proved it yet.

K: I seem to be probing, you are not probing.

Q: Sir, if you saw this a long time ago, how come it is a sudden

shock to you?

K: I said sir, suppose - sorry. Right?

Q: Isn't the arc narrowed down very much whenever you do

anything? When you talk about being aware of all the tent and

everything, if I have to start vacuuming the carpet I have to narrow

it all down, and gradually as I do that I get wrapped up in

everything I am doing so that it is continually narrowing down.

K: So we are narrowing down - the gentleman asks why do you,

K, narrow down all this? It is the same thing sir, never mind. Sir,

putting light, a strong electric light on a small thing you see very

clearly - right - and from there move. But if you stay only there

then it remains very, very small.

Question: We can learn more from each other than by listening

to K. Why don't you encourage people to hold group discussions

on particular topics and have organized activities to facilitate

dialogue and relationship?

Q: Excuse me, we didn't quite finish the last question, I thought.

Because you were saying we are the past and we are all these

things, but what is that? It is like a lot of stuff on a table. What is

the basis of that? That is what we should really get to. Not all that

memory, that dead stuff.

K: Sir, if I acknowledge that I am memory - right - then I

remain with that memory - right - not just one particular memory

but the whole movement of memory - right - then in that

observation there is a perception that one asks: is it possible to live

a life without memories except where it is necessary?

Q: It is, yes. I was aware of that even as a child.

K: What?

Q: That it is possible just to be without memories. I have been

aware of this.

K: Is that so?

Q: Yes, it is a fact.

K: All right sir, then we have solved the problem.

Q: Good, good. Go on to the next question.

K: Then we have solved the problem that the brain, which has

been conditioned by memory for a million, or forty or fifty

thousand years, can live, function, act, in all relationship of life

without bringing in this terrible past. If you can live that way, it is a

most extraordinary thing to live that way. Right?

2nd QUESTION: We can learn more from each other than by

listening to K. Why don't you encourage people to hold group

discussions on particular topics and have organized activities to

facilitate dialogues and discussions?

Are you listening to K? Or are you listening to yourself? K is

pointing out: listen to yourself, see how conditioned you are, not, I

am telling you that you are conditioned but by listening to yourself

you learn infinitely more than by listening to a lot of other people,

including K. But when you listen to K he is not instructing you. He

is putting up a mirror in front of you to see yourself. Right? And

when you see yourself very clearly you can break the mirror, and

the man who holds up the mirror. Right? So do we clearly see

ourselves? If we depend on relationship, depend, or on dialogue or

on associations and institutions to teach us, to help us, to make

things clear - what we are - then we depend. And when we depend

on others, whether it is on institutions, encounter groups, small

groups and so on, what are you learning? And what do you mean

by learning? Please this is again a very serious question. Learning,

as we know, is accumulating knowledge. I have learned about

myself - that I am all this, all the pain, the misery, the confusion,

the extraordinary travail of life - I am all that. I have learnt it. That

is, somebody has told me, or I have learnt about myself. So

learning, as far as we know now, learning at school, learning about

ourselves, is accumulating knowledge about ourselves. Right? And

K says knowledge is the very root of disorder. Go slowly.

Knowledge is necessary in the field of technology, in daily life,

but psychologically knowledge is the very root of disorder, because

knowledge is the past. Right? Knowledge is always, whether in the

future or in the past, or in the infinite future, is always limited,

always. Right? Because it is based on experience, hypothesis,

conclusions, a chain - it is a constant addition instead of taking

away therefore it is very limited. So can I look at myself without

the previous knowledge or conclusion when I looked at myself?

You understand my question? I have looked at myself all

yesterday, or a few hours of yesterday and I find that I am this,

that, the other thing; I am depressed by it or I am elated by it. All

that is going on. That becomes yesterday's knowledge. And with

that knowledge I observe myself again. Right? We do this. Right?

So knowledge is bringing about constant repetition - mechanical,

psychologically. And also if you go into the matter very carefully

among the scientists and so on, they are also beginning to discover

knowledge is a hindrance in certain areas of discovery. Right?

So you are not learning or discovering anything from K. You

are the storehouse of past history. That is a fact. You are the

history of mankind. Right? And if you know how to read that book,

you don't have to depend on anybody, on discussions, on

relationship, or organized groups and all that kind of thing. Right?

I am not saying you should not discuss, you should not have

relationship, you should not have this or that. All that one is

pointing out is that as long as you depend for your understanding

yourself on others then you are lost. You have had leaders, haven't

you? Religious leaders, political leaders, every kind of specialist

who will tell you what to do, how to raise your children, how to

have sex, you have had every kind of leader for the last hundred

thousand years or more. And where are you at the end of it? Do ask

these questions please. We are what we are because we have

depended on others - somebody to tell us what to do, what to think,

which means we are being programmed all the time. And to

understand ourselves there is every opportunity through

relationship, through discussions, but if you depend on them you

are lost. Is this clear, this question? Not that you must agree with

the speaker. But see the consequences of depending on others -

depending on governments to bring order in this chaotic world,

depending on a guru, depending on the priest, whether it is the

pope or the local priest. You understand?

So the question is really: one is the storehouse of all mankind.

Right? One is the rest of mankind and if one looks at that very

closely, with a great deal of hesitation, affection, then you begin to

read what you are, which then is a flowering. But if you depend

then you live with pain and anxiety and fear.

3rd QUESTION: While understanding what is being said and

wanting to live differently, how is one to approach the problem of

livelihood in this world of unemployment and limited

opportunities?

K: Have different governments, which means a government

which is not limited to a particular group. Right? French

government, English government, each concerned with is own

limited area. So there it is. Sir, what is preventing us all working

together - you understand - as one human being? We are divided

by nationalities, religion, by the tradition and we hold on to that.

There is no world economy. You understand, sir. I wonder if you

have thought about all this. There is no world economy. Each

country is concerned with its own economy - right - with its own

laws, with its own individual identity to a particular piece of land.

There can never be united Europe. Right? Because each nation will

suffer something or other. Therefore unless we have a government

which is not local, not insular - right - there will be unemployment,

lack of opportunities and so on. But also another factor is coming

into being, which is the computer. Computer is beyond all

nationalities, all governments. It can outthink us. It can create its

own god which we shall worship. There is a good joke about it, but

it is not worth it. Shall I repeat it?

Q: Yes.

K: A man says to the computer there is no god, I have never

believed in god. The computer says, "You have it now".

So as long as we are Americans, British, French, Italians,

Hindus, Communists and Socialists, we will never have peace in

the world. There will always be unemployment, there will always

be wars. For god's sake see all this. When you see the truth of it

you are no longer identified with any country, with any group, with

any religion. But one must have passion behind it, not just

intellectual concepts. So as things are, problems of livelihood

become more and more difficult. As things are, you will have more

wars. I don't know if you have heard - I was only told about it the

other day - in Russia a certain atomic bomb blew up and for twenty

five thousand years an area of several hundred miles can never be

cultivated, you can never approach it. You understand what I am

saying? This is humanity. And nobody cares. You may have

demonstrations, but the politicians know how to use those

demonstrations. But unless each one of us who is listening really

sees the danger of separation, like the Jew, the Arab, the Hindu, the

Muslim, the British, we are going to live in perpetual insecurity,

perpetual wars.

Q: What is the difference between a university and a lunatic

asylum?

K: I don't know, you had better find out. Professors will object

to that.

Q: A professor is someone who professes to know.

K: Sir, don't let's go off to universities and all that. Here is a

serious problem.

Q: They are the ones who make the atom bomb.

Q: Will you shut up talking about nonsense.

Q: Atom bombs are nonsense?

Q: He is talking about it, we are coming there with him. I turn

myself sick because I really do care sometimes. Shut up. Find out

where we are going to put them.

K: Again may I remind you, if you don't mind, may I remind

one that we are talking about division, separation, between nations,

between groups, between religions, between individuals. As long

as this separation exists there is going to be more and more

unemployment, not less. More wars. As long as we hold on to our

ideologies, separate and so on. So if you want to live that way, live

that way.

Q: But even if we have no separate identity we have got to have

some form of government surely?

K: Of course sir. I said Sir some form of government which is

not based on separative governments.

Q: Who are going to be the politicians?

K: Oh sir, first have, you see we want to organize it right away.

You know there is a story - I think probably the speaker invented

this story. I'll repeat it. Two people were walking along the road,

they were friends. They had been talking about the world and so on

and how dismal everything was, how boring, how tiresome, how

vicious everything had become. They were talking about things

and as they go along one of them sees something on the pavement

and picks it up. And the very looking at it transforms him. He

becomes extraordinarily vital, happy, a sense of tremendous

energy. And the other fellow says, "What have you found? What

was it that made you so extraordinarily beautiful suddenly". He

said, "I have picked up truth." And the other fellow says,

"Marvellous. Let's go and organize it."

First sir, begin with ourselves, not what kind of governments

will be, who the prime minister and who the chief treasurer will be,

how many parliamentary governments. You follow? First let's

begin with ourselves. If all of us who are here in this marquee

really felt this in their heart, in their blood, we would have different

governments in the world. We would put an end to wars, we

wouldn't work for wars.

Look, I am not saying anything, we are only pointing out one

thing - our brains are conditioned. Whatever is conditioned is

limited. Whatever is conditioned is separated, and this separation,

this conditioning, is causing havoc in the world, which is a fact.

And to stop that havoc in the world one must begin with oneself,

not how to organize a new government. Am I conditioned? Am I

thinking about myself endlessly from morning until night? In

meditation - you follow? - in exercise, in doing all kinds of things.

Right? I am more important then anybody else. I want all my

desires fulfilled. I want to be somebody, recognized, so I am

occupied with myself. The scientist may be occupied with his

experiments but he is occupied with himself. Right? He is also

ambitious, wants a marvellous position, recognized by the world,

Nobel Prize. I know some of them, I have met them. One didn't get

the Nobel Prize and the other got it - you ought to see the other

fellow who didn't get it. How upset he was. Bitter, angry. You

know, just like you and me, everybody else. Right?

So sirs and ladies if you really want to live on this peaceful

earth one has to begin very near which is yourself.

4th QUESTION: You talk about violence and freedom. But you

say very little about law. Why is that? No civilized society can

exist without laws. And laws sometimes have to be backed by

force which means violence. What do you do when terrorists hold

hostages? Do you let them be killed, or storm the building? Where

does freedom come into all this.

Laws. What is law? Law, doesn't it mean order basically? Either

a society establishes certain laws, which are to bring about order,

those very laws are broken by cunning people, by criminals, by

criminals who employ excellent lawyers. You know all this, don't

you? Now where does law, order begin? In the courts, with the

police, with the superintendents and the intelligence group? Where

does order begin? Please ask. Society is in disorder. Right? It is a

fact. Corrupt, immoral and almost chaotic. And governments are

trying to bring order in all that. We, you and another - we live in

disorder - right - confused, uncertain, seeking our own security, not

only one's own security but the security of one's own family and so

on. Each one is creating through isolation, disorder - no? And

where is law? With the police officer? With the lawyers? I have

met several of them. They will protect the murderer, it is their job.

A criminal pays them enormous sums. You understand all this sirs,

don't you? Where is order, law in all this? So shouldn't we first

face disorder? That is a fact, that we live in disorder and society is

in disorder, governments are in disorder - no? If you have talked to

some of the politicians, prime ministers, high up in the hierarchy of

government, each one is after power - right sir - and position, hold

on to certain concepts, identify with those concepts, ideologies and

all the rest of it. All of us are working separately for oneself. We

will come together in a great crisis like war. But the moment the

crisis is over we are back to our old pattern. Right? So wouldn't

you - I am just suggesting this - wouldn't you begin to find out if

law which means complete order, whether you can live in complete

order without any confusion. Sirs, put this question to yourself. So

there is no contradiction, say one thing, do another, think one thing

and act in another way. As long as we live in disorder, the society,

the governments will be in disorder.

Law implies justice. Right? Is there justice in the world? You

are rich, I am poor. You have got bright minds, you can travel, you

go abroad. You can do all kinds of things and I can't. Right? You

are born to riches, you become the Prince of a country and for the

rest of your life you are safe. And the poor chap down in the East

End or the West End, he is poor - you know. So where is justice? Is

there justice in the world? Examine all this. Justice implies

equality. We all say equality before law. But that equality is denied

by employing the highest paid lawyer and I can't afford the highest

paid lawyer, so there is immediately inequality. So where do you

find justice, law and order?

There arises a very complex question, which is: admitting

factually that there is no justice in the world - you are well placed,

good reputation, cars, houses, mistresses and all the rest of it,

marvellous furniture, and I live in a small hut. There is no equality.

So one asks after facing the fact, one asks where does it exist at

all? You are asking that question. I am not asking you to ask that

question, you are asking that question. Where there is compassion

there is equality, there is justice. Compassion implies intelligence.

When there is that marvellous flame then there is no difference

between the poor and the rich, between the well placed and those

people who have nothing on god's earth.

Q: As I asked the question may I ask another part of it? If one

has this compassion, you say, then one also must accept the fact

that for this compassion you will be killed.

K: I will be killed. All right. I will be killed. What is wrong with

being killed?

Q: But most people would say that when you are dead you are

not in a position to do something.

K: Are we in a position to do something now?

Q: Yes.

K: What? To stop this threat of war; the neutron bombs

exploding in a part of the country and you can never come near it

for the next twenty five thousand years?

Q: The peace groups, and people who have this compassion

appear to be the first victims to be wiped out.

K: I am not sure. The speaker has been threatened many times.

Q: But you are not living in Central America.

K: I am not. I have been there many years ago. But I am not

there, neither in Honduras, Nicaragua or San Salvador. I can't do

anything there. But I can do something here. Sir you are going off.

I said compassion implies great intelligence. Compassion cannot

possibly exist if you are identified with a group, with a particular

form of worship or religious organization, if you go out to India

and do some kind of social work, being attached to some church.

That is not compassion. That is pity, sympathy. This is happening

sirs.

So first let's find out if we can be compassionate. To come to

that point one must be extraordinarily alert to all the human

frailties, to all the human limitations, which is one's own limitation

because you are not separate from the rest of mankind. If once you

see the truth of that then your whole attitude toward life and action

and employment changes completely.

"THE WORLD OF PEACE" BROCKWOOD

PARK 3RD PUBLIC TALK 3RD SEPTEMBER

1983

May we continue where we left off last Sunday. First of all, if one

may remind oneself, this is not a lecture on a particular subject

with the intention of being informed, instructed. It's not a lecture.

We are talking over together our human problems, not only the

daily problems of our life, with all the travail of existence, but also

we should go very much deeper, perhaps go together in the

enquiry, what is beyond all time; what is the source, the origin, of

all creation? And to enter into all that area one must begin, surely,

with all the contents of our consciousness, with what we are - our

reactions, our anxieties, loneliness, depression, elation, fears, the

continuity of pleasure. And enquire also if it is possible to end all

sorrow.

And also we should enquire this morning, and perhaps

tomorrow morning, the nature of dying, what is religion,

meditation, and the whole limitation of time. We've got to cover a

great deal in these two talks. So we must go very deeply into this

matter, because we can always scratch on the surface as we

generally do and find very little. But if we could go very, very

deeply into the whole question of whether the content of our

consciousness can ever come to an end; that is, the ending of all

our wounds, psychological hurts, fears, beyond all the memories to

which we cling, and the pain, the pleasure, the great deal of grief

and sorrow - all that makes up our consciousness which is what we

are.

As most of us are concerned with ourselves, with our own

achievements, with our own successes, failures and giving

ourselves great importance in doing little things - whether all that

can end and discover something totally new. Not only discover, but

experience. One must be very careful in the usage of that word

'experience'. There is really nothing to experience. If you go

beyond time, if that is possible, and beyond fear and so on, is there

anything to experience? We are going to go into all this this

morning and tomorrow morning, together. You are not merely

listening to the speaker, to a lot of words, a lot of words put

together into a sentence and ideas, but together we are going to

enquire into all this and see if our brains which have been so

heavily conditioned, programmed, whether those programmes can

come to an end and no longer be programmed any more.

All this requires a great deal of serious intention and

considerable attention. And if we are willing, this morning and

tomorrow, to give our interest, not only superficially but deeply

give our attention to it, perhaps we can go together into all this and

see if there is something infinite beyond all time. Can we do that

this morning and tomorrow?

First of all, do we realize that thought is a material process and

therefore is limited? And any action based on that limitation must

inevitably create conflict. And so thought is a material process.

Matter is limited energy. And the whole content of our

consciousness is the result of the material process of thought.

Right? We have said over and over again for the last umpteen years

that thought is a material process. And the content of our

consciousness, with all the reactions and responses, and so on, are

put together by the material process of thought which is limited. So

our consciousness, which is what we are - whatever we think we

are - is always limited.

When one is concerned with oneself, with one's problems, with

one's relationships, with one's status in society, and so on, this

concern with oneself is a very small affair, a limited affair. Right?

Do we actually see this or is it just an idea to be pursued, enquired

into and then come to a conclusion, and accept that conclusion and

say: "I am that". Or do we see immediately, instantly, that all the

self-centred activity is very, very limited - whether it be in the

name of religion, in the name of peace, in the name of leading a

good life, and so on - this self-centred activity is always limited

and therefore the cause of conflict. Do we actually realize that? Or

is it merely an idea? Do we see the difference between the actuality

and the idea?

If one pursues the idea, then you are following some kind of

illusion. But if one actually realizes the self-centred, egotistic

activity is very, very, very small and separate and therefore the

basic cause of conflict is the self. I wonder how many of us hear

this and actually realize it. And the self, the psyche, the persona, is

the whole content of our consciousness - which is our conditioning,

which is our being programmed for millenia upon millenia, which

is the whole structure of knowledge.

Are we together in all of this? Or am I speaking Russian or

Chinese? If the speaker is not indulging in Chinese or in a peculiar

language and therefore there is no communication between us, but

there should be clarity and communication when we are both

looking at these enormous, complex problems of existence of our

daily life - monotonous, boring, exciting, indulging, pursuing

various forms of pleasure - and ultimately, whether one has a jolly

good life or a miserable life, ultimately ending in death. Right?

So our life generally is rather shallow. We try to give meaning

to that shallowness, but that meaning too, that significance, is still

shallow. So could we this morning, realizing all this, go and find

out for ourselves, not be informed by the speaker, not be instructed

by the speaker, but together explore what we are actually, and

break down this limitation and go, if possible, further? Is this clear

- what we are doing this morning and tomorrow - together?

The content of our consciousness - one of the factors - is fear.

And most of us know what fear is - whether it is superficial or

deeply embedded in one's own recesses of our brain. We are all

afraid of something. Right? So can that fear end psychologically?

Begin with that. Then we can ask whether there are physical fears

also and their relation to the psyche, psychological fears. So we are

enquiring together into the nature of fear - not the various forms of

fear. One may be afraid of death, one may be afraid of one's wife

or husband, one may be afraid of various things. But we are

concerned with fear itself, not fear of something or fear of the past

or the future, but the actual reaction which is called fear.

Are we together?

So what is the cause, the root of fear? Is it thought and is it

time? We must cover a great deal so we must be brief. Is it thought

- thinking about the future or thinking about the past? And so, is

thought one of the causes of fear? And is time also the cause -

time, as growing old, as most of us are. The moment we are born

we are already growing old. And time as future - not by the watch,

by the day or by the year - but time as a movement from 'what is' to

'what should be', 'what might be', 'what has been', we said the

whole movement of time, the psychological process of time - is

that one of the causes of fear? The memory of some pain, both

physical and psychological, which might have happened a couple

of weeks ago; and remembering that and being afraid that it might

happen again - which is the movement of time and thought.

So time and thought - are they the causes of fear? Right? And

this time which is thought, because thought as we said is the

response of memory which is knowledge and experience, so

knowledge is of time, and knowledge may be one of the causes of

fear. I wonder if you are following - right?

So we are saying, time, thought, knowledge, which are not

separate, which is an actual unitary movement, that may be the

cause of fear. And it is the cause of fear. Right? Then, when one

realizes that, even intellectually, verbally, is it possible to end that

fear? Right? What's your answer? You're waiting for me to instruct

you. Therefore we are not working, thinking, investigating

together. Right? You are waiting for the speaker to answer that

question. And that means our brains have been conditioned,

trained, educated to learn from somebody else, be instructed by

another. And here we refuse to instruct you or to tell you what to

do. We have no authority to tell you what to do, not like these ugly,

beastly gurus.

So we are together. Please, this is important to understand what

it means, 'together.' Not you and I separately working - together

look at it. Together see the whole movement of fear, what is

involved in it. Why humanity has borne this fear for thousands of

years and they have not solved it. They have transmitted it and

accepted it as the norm of life, as a way of living. But if you begin

to question, as we are doing now, question whether fear can ever

end at all psychologically. Therefore we must understand the

cause. And where there is a cause, there is an end. If one has some

kind of disease and if, after diagnosis you find the cause, it can be

ended. Similarly, if we can find the cause, the basic cause, the

fundamental cause, then fear can end. Right?

So together we are saying that time-thought, not two separate

things, is the root of fear. Right?

Q: Is not fear always preceded by desire?

K: Desire is also part of fear. We went into that very carefully

the other day - the nature of desire. Do you want me to go into it

again?

Q: No.

K: Why do you say no? Have we understood the nature and the

whole movement of desire? You see, please, we don't listen, not to

the speaker, to ourselves. We never say, "What is desire? Why are

we slaves to desire?" We said desire is sensation. That sensation -

seeing, contact, sensation - then desire comes in. Which is, thought

creates the image out of that sensation, then at that moment,

second, desire is born. Clear? No, and I won't go into all of that

because we went into it the other day very, very carefully and

deeply - into the whole nature of desire. And desire also is one of

the factors of fear.

Desire is thought with its image. If you have a desire without

any image, there is no desire. The seeing of a blue shirt or a skirt or

whatever it is in the window, and entering into the window and

touching it, sensation. Then thought creates the image of you

having that shirt, then desire at that moment is born. So thought is

essentially the movement of desire, and time-thought is the root of

fear.

Now, does one realize this actual fact? Then how do you

observe that fact? I realize - suppose, I realize that thought, with all

its complexity, and time also, is the root of fear. Then how do I

realize it, feel it, be aware of it? You understand my question? Do I

see it as something separate from me, time-thought, something

separate from me or I am that? Is it all becoming rather complex?

I am anger, am I not? Anger is not something separate from me.

I am greed, envy, anxiety. Right? I like to think that is something

separate over which I have control. But the actual fact is I am all

that - even the controller is me. Right? So there is no division

between greed, anger, jealousy, and so on - that is me, that is the

observer. Right? Now, so how do I observe, how does one observe

this fact that time-thought is fear? How do you observe it? You

understand? How do you look at it - as something separate from

you, or you are that? If you are that, and it's not separate from you -

right - all action ceases, doesn't it? Before, I controlled, I

suppressed, I tried to rationalize fear. Right? Now one sees that one

is all that and therefore the whole movement of time and thought

stops.

Are we together, one of us or two of us? You see we are all so

eager to act. One must act, but here you have to watch the whole

thing without any sense of doing something. Right? Just to observe

without any reaction or response to what you observe. Right?

Then also we should go into the question why man has suffered.

And whether there is an ending to suffering, not only the personal

sorrow, but the sorrow of vast humanity. Right? Don't let's get

sentimental about this, but actually all of us suffer in one way or

another. The dull man suffers, the most intellectual, learned man,

every human being on earth, including the leaders in Russia - every

human being suffers. And we are asking a very serious question,

whether that suffering can end. Or some of us enjoy suffering

which becomes neurotic. So don't let's bother about the people who

enjoy suffering, thinking that suffering in some way will help us to

understand this universe, to understand life, and so on. Right?

So, one suffers. My son is dead, gone. But the memory of it

remains, the memory of his companionship, of my affection, love

for him, and so on. Memory remains. And is that memory sorrow?

Please, enquire together. I have lost my wife, or I am not as clever

as you are, I am not as alert, sensitive, as you are and I suffer

through that. Or I suffer in ten different ways. And is suffering, the

shedding of tears, is that the loss, the actual loss, or the loss that

brings about various memories, remembrances. You follow all

this?

Is that one, or perhaps the major cause of suffering? Man,

including woman, man from the beginning of man, has had wars,

has killed people. That has been our pattern of existence - war after

war, killing thousands of people. Humanity has suffered. And we

are still pursuing that path of war that has brought about

tremendous sorrow for mankind. Right? And we have our own

personal sorrow. Sorrow is the same whether it is yours or mine. I

like to identify myself with my sorrow, and you like to identify

yourself with your sorrow. But sorrow of yours and sorrow of mine

is the same. The objects of sorrow may vary, but sorrow is sorrow -

therefore it is not personal. I wonder if you realize this? Right? No,

it is very difficult for one to see the truth of this.

If you suffer and I suffer - you suffer for one reason and I suffer

for another, and we identify ourselves with my particular one and

you with yours, we divide ourselves and then find ways and means

to suppress it, rationalize, and so on. But if we realize that sorrow

is sorrow of all mankind, all humanity - and we are the rest of

humanity because we have fears, sorrow, pleasure, anxiety, like the

rest of mankind - if we realize sorrow is not my sorrow, that

becomes such a small affair. Which is, we are the whole of

mankind, we are the rest of mankind, and when there is suffering,

suffering is man's suffering. Then you have a totally different

approach to the problem. You understand? Not my suffering -

'Please god help me how to get over it, how to understand it,' - I

pray, and it all becomes so personal, a shoddy little affair. Right?

But when it is the rest of mankind that has suffered, then suffering

becomes an extraordinary thing that one has to look at very

carefully. And if one human being understands the nature of

suffering and goes beyond it, he then helps the rest of mankind.

Right?

Now is suffering a remembrance? The mother or the father

whose son has been killed in your particular little war, recent war,

Falklands - killed there. And the mother and the father remember

all the things that he did - the death, the birth, the pictures, the

photographs, all the incidents and accidents, and laughter, tears,

scolding - you follow? So we are asking, please find out for

yourselves whether sorrow is part of this continuity of memory.

And if it is memory, don't reduce memory just to a few words. It is

a tremendous content. And if it is memory, can that memory, not

only of my particular son, but the memory of mankind's sorrow -

memory which is sorrow - can that memory come to an end? You

understand?

Therefore one has to enquire, not into a particular memory, but

the whole movement of memory. Right? We live on memories - we

are memories. We are the word, the reaction to that word, the

pleasure derived from the word, the remembrance of all the things

that were. that symbol, that incident, accident has awakened, has

stored up in the brain which is awakened when an incident takes

place. Right? And memory is the past. Right? So we are the past.

Can this whole movement of the past, which is time, which is

thought, end? Not thought in our daily life, we're not talking of

that, we're not talking when thought is used to drive a car, to write

a letter, to write a poem, write this or that. There thought,

knowledge is absolutely necessary. We are talking of this whole

psychological movement which is based on memory.

So we are asking a much deeper question which is: can the self,

the 'me', the ego, all this self-centred activity which is the

movement of memory, can that self end? Not by discipline, by

control, by suppression or identification with something greater,

which is still the movement of the self. Can that self end? You

might then ask - if the self ends, what place is there, for me in

society? What shall I do? Right? Right sir? First end it and then

find out - not the other way around.

This is a very, very serious question. Nobody can tell you in the

world or beyond the world - perhaps most of us try to get

instructions beyond the world. Nobody on earth can tell you how to

end it. But if one observes all these facts without any reactions - I

observe the fact that I am hurt psychologically because my

daughter, my son, my father has done something which hurts me -

if I can observe that hurt without a single resistance, without any

action that I should not be hurt, or keep the hurt - most people do,

all through their life they carry their hurt. But to observe this hurt,

psychological wound, without any reaction to it, then one sees that

hurts disappear altogether. Right? So in the same way, just to

observe, to observe memory as it arises, see the nature of it, the

evolution of it. The whole nature of activity of our daily life is

based on this. And memory is very, very limited. Thought may

invent the infinite, but thought being itself limited, its infinity is

also limited, finite, but may pretend that it is infinite.

So, all this implies complete freedom. Right? Not only freedom

from something, but the quality of freedom that is not based on any

reaction, any reward or punishment. To enquire into that also, one

must understand the nature of death, dying. Are you interested in

all this? Does it even amuse you? You see one must enquire very

quietly, not hysterically, into this very complex problem. Dying or

coming to an end is what we are concerned about, talking about,

because it is part of our life. Not only are we born and all the

education and all the troubles and all anxieties, and so on, but also

death is part of our life - it is there, whether you like it or not;

whether you are British or French - it is there; whether you are

young, middle aged or old, disease, accident - it is there. And one

must understand what it is, as one must understand life before

death. We have been trying to understand together what is before

death - fear, wounds, sorrow, pain, anxiety, labour, going to the

office from morning till night. All that is part of our life, living,

and also the ending of all that.

One may have had a very good life, pleasant, successful, been

somebody in the world, power, position, money, but the thing is

there at the end. We like to postpone it as long and as far away as

possible, put it away.

So we are together going to enquire. The organism dies,

naturally. It will live as long as possible if we treat it properly. We

won't go into the question of health. I know you are all interested in

health but we won't go into it now.

What is it to die? Not jump over the bridge, not do something to

kill yourself, but living as we are now, sitting here in the marquee,

what is death - apart from the whole physical organism, the brain

lacking oxygen withers away and there is death? But we are

asking, is death an ending? Right? An ending to everything that

I've had - my wife, my children, my books, my status, my power,

my position - you know - all that is going to come to an end. And

also, we must enquire into the question, which is the question of

the East, which is reincarnation, to be reborn next time. So a series

of lives till you reach whatever you reach - you know, the highest

principle, and so on. They believe in that very strongly, but they

don't deeply enquire what it is that continues. Right?

Is it the 'me' that is going to continue or is there something

beyond the 'me' that is going to continue? Right? And if there is

something beyond 'me', my ideas, my opinions, my conclusions,

and so on, which we talked about earlier. If that 'me' is the word,

the name, the remembrances - is that going to continue? Right? Or

there is a spiritual entity, the soul in the Christian world and the

Buddhist world, the Hindu world have different words - will that

continue? Then that thing which is beyond me or which is in me

but the 'me' covers it up. Then if that is a spiritual entity, it must be

beyond time and beyond death. Right? Therefore that cannot

reincarnate. Right? So people like to believe all that because it is a

great comfort. I shall be born next life. I've had a poor life - next

life I'll have a better house. In another life I'll live in a bigger house

or I'll be a king - or some rot or other.

So if we put aside all that kind of illusory pursuits and face the

fact that psychologically there is an ending, a complete ending. The

'me', with all its memories, has come to an end - that is dying. And

we don't like that. And so we seek various forms of comfort,

beliefs faith, resurrection and - you know, all that. Now, while

living, can we end something without any cause, without any

future - end something? You understand my question? Take for

example: will you end all attachment - attachment to your name,

attachment to your furniture, attachment to your wife, to your

husband, to your garden, attachment to your ideas, prejudices, end

all attachments while living? That is what is going to happen when

you actually die. Right? So do it now and see what it means. That

ending is tremendous, has tremendous quality behind it. There is

no attachment to anything. That is freedom, and when there is that

kind of freedom death has no fear. You understand? Because you

are already living with death. The two are going together, living

and dying. Do you see? No you don't. Do you understand the

beauty of that? The quality of complete freedom from all fear.

Because where there is attachment there is jealousy, anxiety, hate.

And the more you are attached the more pain there is. You know

all this. If you went and told your wife or husband, 'I am no longer

attached to you,' what would happen? Does it deny love? Does it

deny relationship? Is attachment love? Go on, enquire into all this

and the deeper you enquire, the more vitality and security and

strength one has. It hasn't derived from any drugs, any stimulation.

We'll have to stop now and continue tomorrow morning. Please

we are going to discuss tomorrow morning, very carefully what is

the origin of all this, the beginning of all this. Why man has to go

through all this misery, confusion, occasional pleasure and joy.

Unless one understands creation from the very beginning, and in

the understanding of that is tremendous sense of no time and no

beginning and no end.

"THE WORLD OF PEACE" BROCKWOOD

PARK 4TH PUBLIC TALK 4TH SEPTEMBER

1983

This is the last dialogue together. We began this series of talks by

asking why human beings living on this earth, such a beautiful

earth, except on a rainy day like this - why we cannot live at peace

with each other, why must we have wars, the economic, social,

racial differences, and why we cannot live with each other -

intimately or otherwise, with tranquility, a certain quality of

serenity? And apparently that is not possible, because the vast

majority of people throughout the world are very violent. They

don't want peace - neither do the governments. They talk a great

deal about it, but they are all preparing for everlasting war. And

religions too have not given man peace. The tribal divisions, local

gods and saviours, the religious hierarchy, all that has prevented -

or we have created all this and therefore there is no peace on earth.

Pacem in terris.

And we have been talking over together if we can in our daily

life, end conflict within ourselves, be free of any shadow of fear,

end suffering, move away entirely from the self-centred activity

which is one of the, perhaps, or the major causes of conflict - not

only outwardly but also inwardly. And very, very few seem to be

serious enough to go into this deeply and perhaps realize that there

is a totally different way of living. And this morning, if we will,

together, go into this question, not only of peace, but as we said,

what is the origin, the beginning of all existence? Why man has

become what he is - why we are, after millenia upon millenia, very,

very primitive psychologically, barbarous. And technologically we

are advanced tremendously. And that very technology is going

perhaps to destroy us too. And we ought to go together this

morning and enquire seriously: is it man's lot inevitably that he

lives this way? Or has something gone wrong with the whole

human evolution? Or is there something outside, beyond human

measure, that if one can understand, go into it deeply, may perhaps

open the door, open our eyes and perhaps our hearts, too, so that

we may naturally, easily live a happy, serene life? That is what we

are going to enquire into together this morning.

First of all, we must understand the word 'experience'.

Experience is a process of acquiring knowledge, becoming familiar

with something. And this knowledge may be one of the

fundamental reasons of our conflict, of our ignorance. Not the

knowledge of outside, technological knowledge, scientific

knowledge, medical knowledge, and so on, but the accumulated

knowledge of humanity which is the whole burden of the past. That

may be one of the basic causes of conflict. We have talked a bit

about it and we'll go further into it.

We ought to enquire together whether there is an outside agency

beyond the measure of man - beyond man himself as a measure -

an outside agency that we can appeal to, pray to, ask guidance. Or

be with that so basically that we are that so that there is no outside

agency. I hope we are together in this. This is, as we said the other

day, and we have been repeating this many, many times - this is

not a lecture, nor a sermon on Sunday morning - god forbid! Nor

try to instruct, convince you, or do some kind of silly propaganda.

If we could, both of us travel together, walk along together and see

things as they are, and go beyond. Is man the measure of all

things? Man being his consciousness, reactions, his memories - is

he the measure? Or there is something outside of him that, if we

can come into contact, may help us? Right? This has been the

activity of religion. Throughout the world, from ancient of days,

man sought something outside of himself, or has said: there is

something divine in me, in the human, but it is covered over with

his greed, with his envy, with his ambitions and cruelty, bestiality,

and that can be stripped away, then that will be the abiding factor

of righteous behaviour. Right? Are we together in this, following

each other? And to strip away all the layers of our ugly, brutal,

anxious, ambitious, aggressive life, there have been many, many

systems, many incantations, many forms of rituals, magic. They

have tried every form of physical torture - fasting, denying every

sensory response, to come to this point where man can understand

and live a different way of life.

Scientists are also trying, through genetic engineering, through

chemistry, other forms of drugs, to change man. And man has

looked in every direction outwardly, and perhaps never inwardly.

He may have superficially scratched the surface of his existence.

But man has perhaps never, except for a few, deeply concerned and

gone into himself for he is both matter and the movement of

thought, which is also matter. And the instrument of investigation

has been thought - to go in himself. And thought is not the right

instrument, because thought itself is limited. Right? So religions

throughout the world, organized and not organized, individual,

separate groups and every form of attempt has been made to

become enlightened - if I may use that word which has been so

corrupted by the gurus. If we can put aside all the religious

dogmas, faiths, systems, symbols, figures, rituals and all those

incantations which have very little meaning now - perhaps they

never had it - if we could put aside completely all of that and not

belong to any group, to any spiritual authority - those two words

'spiritual authority' is the denial of spirituality. So if we could

shove off all that, which means, be able to stand completely free,

unafraid, so that we can enquire into the actual, if there is a

dimension that is not the invention of thought. And then, what is

religion? Right? We are going to go into all of this.

What is the origin and the beginning of all existence, from the

minutest cell to the most complex brain? Whether there was a

beginning at all, and is there an end to all this? And also we are

going to enquire together: what is creation? Now, to find out all

this, to uncover all this, what kind of brain does one need? You

understand? What kind of capacity, what kind of energy, what kind

of passion is needed to really probe into all of this? You

understand? To probe into something totally unknown, not

preconceived, not caught in any sentimental, romantic illusion,

there must be a quality of brain that's completely free. Right? Free

from all its conditioning, from all its programming, from every

kind of influence, and therefore highly sensitive and tremendously

active. Right? Is that possible? Do you, taking part in a dialogue,

do you have such a brain? Or is it very sluggish, lazy and living in

its own self-conceit? Which is it? Because we are going to enquire

into something that demands a mind, a brain that is extraordinarily

alive, not caught in any form of routine, mechanical. Is that

possible? Have we such a brain in which there is no fear, no selfinterest,

no self-centred activity? Otherwise it is living in its own

shadow all the time. Right? It's living in its own tribal, limited

environment, field. It's like an animal tied to a stake - the tether

may be very long or very short, but it is tied to a post therefore its

movement is limited. You may give it a very, very, very long rope,

but the very length is an indication of limitation.

A brain must have space. So what is space? Not only the space

between here and there - space indicates 'without a centre'. Right?

If you have a centre, and you move away from the centre to the

periphery, however long, wide the periphery is, it is still limited.

Right? Are we following each other? So, space indicates, does it

not, where there is no centre and there is no periphery, there is no

boundary. Have we such a brain that one doesn't belong to any

thing, attached to anything - attached to one's experience,

conclusions, hopes, ideals, and so on, so that the brain is really,

completely free? Right? If it is burdened, you can't walk very far,

you can't go very far. If it is crude, vulgar, self-centred, it cannot

have measureless space. And space indicates - one is using the

word very, very carefully - emptiness. Are you following? Does it

interest you at all this? Are you sure, coming here in spite of the

awful rain and wind, we are communicating with each other?

We are trying to find out, aren't we, if it is possible to live in

this world without any fear, without any conflict, with a

tremendous sense of compassion which demands a great deal of

intelligence. You cannot have compassion without intelligence.

And that intelligence is not the activity of thought. One cannot be

compassionate if one is attached to a particular ideology, to a

particular narrow tribalism, or to any religious concept, for that

limits. And compassion can only come, or be there, when there is

the ending of sorrow, which is the ending of self-centred

movement. Right?

So space indicates emptiness, nothingness. And that space,

because there is not a thing put by thought, that space has

tremendous energy. This is what the scientists too are saying, only

it is their conclusion, it is not the actual living of the scientist,

because the scientist, like everybody else, every other human

being, is greedy, out for himself, or he represents a government, or

he is ambitious, and so on. He is just like anybody else, but he has

got an extraordinary capacity for accumulating knowledge in a

certain area.

So the brain must have the quality of complete freedom and

space. That is, one must be nothing. Whereas we are all something

- analysts, psychotherapists, doctors - that's all right. But when we

are therapists, when we are biologists, technicians, that very

identification limits the wholeness of the brain. Right? Can we

proceed from there?

And then we can ask, only then can we ask really, what is

meditation? Because if you ask what is meditation or try to

meditate and follow all the systems whether it is Zen, a Buddhist

form of meditation, Tibetan form of meditation, the Hindu, the

Christian form which is rather limited, and all the latest gurus with

their peculiar invitations to mysterious meditations, only on a

condition you pay a lot of money for it. And there are all these

forms of meditation. They are all based on making thought silent,

making thought quiet, not rampant thought. Right? That is, there is

a controller who is going to control through systems, through

practice, through daily allotted time for quietness, and so on, and

so on. There is always the controller watching. And the controller

himself is the activity of thought. Right? So they are going round

and round in a circle like a cat chasing its own tail. And that's

called meditation.

Now, meditation is something entirely different. Unless one has

laid the foundation of order in our life - you understand, order,

there cannot be order if there is fear, there cannot be order if there

is any kind of conflict, unless our house, not the outer house,

unless our inward house is in complete order, so there is great

stability, no waffling around, great strength in that very stability,

therefore in that order - then only one can ask what is true

meditation.

If the house is not in order, your meditation has very little

meaning. Right? You can invent any kind of illusion, any kind of

enlightenment, any kind of daily discipline - it will be still limited,

illusory, because it is born out of disorder. Right? This is all

logical, please, sane, rational. It is not something the speaker has

invented for you to accept. Unless there is this kind of - may I use

the word - 'undisciplined order' (that's a good word, I'm glad I

thought of it just now!) - unless there is undisciplined order,

meditation becomes very shallow and meaningless.

So then, what is order? Thought cannot create order, because

thought itself is disorder. Would you accept that? Do you see that?

Because thought, based on knowledge, which is based on

experience, all knowledge is limited, and so thought is also limited.

And when thought tries to create order, it brings about disorder.

Right? Do we see this actual fact? - not as a theory.

Thought has created disorder, that is, it has created disorder

through conflict of 'what is,' and 'what should be'. Right? The

actual and the theoretical; yet there is only the actual and not the

theoretical. And thought looks at the actual from a limited point of

view. Right? And therefore its action must inevitably create

disorder. Do we see this as a truth, as a law - or just an idea? You

understand? I am greedy, suppose I am greedy, envious - that's

'what is; the opposite is not. But the opposite has been created by

human beings, by thought as a means of understanding 'what is',

and also as a means of escaping from 'what is'. Right? Are we

walking together, communicating with each other? So there is only

'what is'. And when you perceive 'what is' without its opposite,

then that very perception brings order. Are we together?

As we were saying - our house must be in order. And this order

cannot be brought about by thought. Thought creates its own

discipline - do this, don't do that, follow this, don't follow that, be

traditional or not traditional, and so on. Thought is the guide. One

hopes to bring about order, but thought itself is limited, therefore it

is bound to create disorder. If I keep on repeating for the rest of my

life - I'm a British, British, or French, French, or would you like

any other nationality, or a Hindu or Buddhist, whatever it is - that

tribalism is very limited. And that tribalism is causing great havoc

in the world. We don't go to the root of it, that is, to end tribalism,

not how to create better wars.

So similarly, we are saying, order can only come into being

when thought, which is necessary in certain areas, has no place in

the psychological world. And therefore in that world, that world

itself is in order when thought is absent. Are we meeting each

other?

So meditation - the very word meditation means to measure -

measure between 'what is' and 'what should be,' between 'what I

am,' and, through meditation, 'what I will be'. So meditation, both

in Sanskrit and Latin, and so on, is the quality of measurement,

right - which is comparison. And comparison is disorder. Right?

Do you need explanation of that? When I am comparing myself

with you, which is, I am competing with you, I am trying to be

better than you, then this is a constant conflict, isn't it? So is it

possible to live without any comparison, not only biologically,

physically, but much more psychologically, inwardly - never to

compare oneself with anything, with anybody, so that the mind, the

brain is free from this conflict of arrogance. Right?

So then we can ask, what is meditation? Because it is necessary

to have a brain that is absolutely quiet. The brain has its own

rhythm - please, I am not a scientist, brain specialist but one has

watched all this in oneself - which doesn't mean that the speaker is

extraordinary. Don't let's become sentimental and personal.

The brain is endlessly active, chattering from one subject to

another, from one thought to another, from one association to

another, from one state to another - it's constantly occupied. One is

not aware of it generally. But when one is aware without any

choice, choiceless awareness of this movement, then that very

awareness, that very attention ends that chattering. Please do it, and

you will see how simple it all is.

So the quality of the brain is that it must be free - space and

silence, silence psychologically. One is talking now. You and I are

hearing each other, talking to each other. There, thought is being

employed because we are all speaking English. But to speak out of

this silence - do you understand what I am saying? Don't, please go

off into some kind of fanciful imagination.

This brings the question of language. Does language condition

the brain? Have you ever thought about all this? Or is it all

something totally new? Does English or French or whatever,

Russian or Chinese, does the very usage of those words, does it

shape the brain so that it becomes conditioned? Language does

condition the brain. Right? If you talk to a Russian or to a

Frenchman - of course if you talk to a British or an American

speaking English - if you watch, their whole outlook is limited by

the language they use. Right? Have you noticed all this? So to be

free of the network of words! Right, sir? To use a language like

English and not allow it to shape our outlook on the whole of

existence. Right?

I see you haven't done any of these things, so it's all something

fanciful. So, not to be caught in the network of words, that's quite

complex too. When you say, "I am a Communist", your whole

reaction is different. As you have had a recent war in the Falklands,

when you talk about Argentina, the label is more important than

the person. So there must be freedom from the word. Then the

brain is utterly quiet though it has its own rhythm. Right?

Now what is, then, creation, what is the beginning of all this?

Right? We are enquiring into that - the origin of the beginning of

all life - not only our life, but the life of every living thing; the deep

down whales, the dolphins, the little fish, the minute cells, the vast

nature, the beauty of a tiger. Have you ever seen a tiger in a forest?

No, of course you haven't seen it. It's really the most extraordinary

animal. I won't go into it, that is, not this time. I nearly touched it,

wild. And the living of man, from the minutest cell to the most

complex man, with all his inventions, with all his illusions, with his

superstitions, with his quarrels, with his wars, with his arrogance,

vulgarity, with his tremendous aspirations and his great

depressions - what is the origin of all this? Right?

Now, meditation is to come upon this - not you come upon it -

in that silence, in that quietness, in that absolute tranquility. The

beginning - is there a beginning? And if there is a beginning, there

must be an ending. Right? That which has a cause must end. If I

have cancer, the cause is the disease, I must be operated on, then

that would be the end of it or it would kill me. Right? Wherever

there is a cause there must be an end. That's a law, that's natural. So

is there a causation at all for the creation of man, the creation of all

the way of life? You understand my question? Is there a beginning

of all this? How are we going to find out?

Religions have said there is god - god is the beginning and the

end of all things. That's a very easy way of solving the problem.

The Hindus have said it in one way, perhaps the Buddhists too, and

Christianity said, god. Only the fundamental belief - man has been

created four thousand, five hundred years ago. Right? It seems

rather absurd because four thousand, five hundred years ago, the

Egyptians invented the calendar, which means they must have been

extraordinarily advanced, and so on. And if you are a

fundamentalist, then you'll get angry with what is being said. And I

hope none of us are any kind of fundamentalist.

So what is creation - not the painter who creates the picture, not

the poet, not the man who makes something out of marble? Those

are all things manifested. Right? Is there something which is not

manifest? Is there something, because it is not manifested, that

thing has no beginning and no end? That which is manifested has a

beginning, has an end. Right? We are the manifestations, aren't

we? Not of divine something or other, we are the result. We are the

result of thousands of years of so-called evolution, growth,

development, and we also come to an end. That which is

manifested can always be destroyed. But that which is not, has no

time. Right?

Now we are asking is there such a thing as something beyond

all time? This has been the enquiry of philosophers, scientists, and

religious people - to find out that which is beyond the measure of

man, which is beyond time. Because if one can find, come,

discover that, or see that, that is immortality. Right? That's beyond

death. I wonder if you understand all this? Are you following all

this? A little bit at least? Try to encourage me, please. I don't want

your encouragement but you see this man has really sought, in

various ways, in different parts of the world, through different

beliefs. Because when one discovered that, or realized that, life

then has no beginning and no end. Therefore it is beyond all

concepts, beyond all hope. Do you follow? It is something

immense.

Now to come back to earth - you see we never look at life as a

tremendous movement, our own life as a tremendous wide - with a

great depth, a vastness. We have reduced our life to such a shoddy

little affair. And life is really the most sacred thing in existence. To

kill somebody is the most irreligious horror. To get angry, to be

violent with somebody - the speaker has been angry only once and

the person with whom he was angry has been reminding him, so he

still carries on with the anger. You understand? Really?

You see we never see the world as a whole because we are so

fragmented, we are so terribly limited, so petty. And we never have

this feeling of wholeness, you follow, where the things of the sea,

things of the earth, the nature and the sky, is the universe, is part of

us. Not imagined - you can go off in some kind of fanciful

imagination and imagine that we are the universe, then you become

cuckoo! But, to break down this small self-centred interest, to have

nothing of that, then from there you can move infinitely.

And meditation is this. Not just sitting cross-legged, or standing

on your head, or doing whatever one does, but to have this feeling

of complete wholeness and unity of life. And that can only come

when there is love and compassion.

You know, one of our difficulties is we have associated love

with pleasure, with sex. And love also, for most of us, means

jealousy, anxiety, possessiveness, attachment. That is what we call

love. So is love attachment? Is love pleasure? Is love desire? Is

love the opposite of hate? If it is the opposite of hate, then it is not

love. Right? Do you see this? All opposites contain its own

opposite. Right? When I try to become courageous, that courage is

born out of fear. Right? I wonder if you understand this? No? So

love cannot have its opposite. Love cannot be where there is

jealousy, ambition, aggressiveness.

And where there is that quality, then from that arises

compassion; where there is that compassion there is intelligence.

Not the intelligence of self-interest, not the intelligence of thought,

not the intelligence of a great deal of knowledge, but compassion

has nothing to do with knowledge. Then only is that intelligence

which gives humanity security, stability, vast sense of strength.

So we have come to the end of our dialogue and one hopes we

shall meet again next year.

End

(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" -2

��

Comments

0 responses to "Jiddu Krishnamurti - THE WORLD OF PEACE" -2"

Hindu Vedic Philosophy (The Paramardha Tattwam)

Jiddu Krishnamurti - THE WORLD OF PEACE" -2

Comments

Post a Comment

About Me

Followers

map

Blog Archive

visitors

visitors

About Me

Labels

Blog Archive