strings
stringlengths 6
7.65k
|
|---|
Now the next step is - not analysis, observation only - is the mind capable of examining? You understand? Is my mind capable of examination, observation? Let's stick to observation, it is better than examination - examination has a different meaning and observation has another meaning. Is my mind capable, realising that as long as fear exists there must be darkness, and is my mind capable of observing what that fear is, and the depth of that fear? Observing. Now, wait a minute. What does it mean to observe? Right? Can I observe the whole movement of fear, or only partial? You understand my question? Can the mind observe the whole nature, structure, function and the movement of fear - the whole of it, not just bits of it? I mean by the whole, not wanting to go beyond fear, because then I have a direction, I have a motive, therefore where there is a motive, there is a direction, I cannot possibly see the whole. Right? And I cannot possibly see the whole, observe, if there is any kind of desire to go beyond, rationalise, can I observe without any movement of thought? Do listen to this. If I observe fear through the movement of thought, then it is partial, it is obscured, it is not clear. So can I observe this fear, all of it, without the movement of thought? Don't jump at anything. We are just observing, we are not analysing, we are just observing this extraordinarily complicated map of fear. When you look at the map of fear if you have any direction you are only looking at it partially. That's clear. When you want to go beyond fear you are not looking at the map. So can you look at the map of fear without any movement of thought? Don't answer, take time. |
That means, can thought end when I am observing? When the mind is observing can thought be silent? Then you will ask me: how is thought to be silent? Right? That's a wrong question. My concern now is to observe, and that observation is prevented when there is any movement, or flutter of thought, any wave of thought. So my attention - please listen to this - my attention is given totally to the map and therefore thought doesn't enter into it. When I am looking at you completely nothing outside exists. You understand? So can I look at this map of fear without the wave of thought? |
Now what is thought? What is thought, the direction of thought - you follow? - what is thought moving to create, to destroy, what is this thing called thought? And can the mind be without thought, and what happens if it is without thought? We have seen examples, doctors and others, when there is no thought, the mind becomes a vegetable. Right? Amnesia, doesn't know a thing. Now what am I to do? You understand my question now? Thought prevents the understanding of the whole of fear, and therefore there must be an understanding of thought, its structure, its nature, its activities, its limitations, its binding quality and so on. So what is thought? Why has man given such tremendous importance to thought? In India, for example, they have given importance to thought by saying, life can be divided into many temples - the devotional, the active mind, the devotional mind, the active mind, the silent mind, the mind that requires knowledge - which are called the four yogas, and all kinds of things, the four philosophies. So again the division. You follow? The Greeks, not that I am a specialist in Greeks, I have observed. I don't read history and therefore I've just observed - Greeks, the ancient Greeks, said, 'Thought is necessary', because thought is measure, without measurement you can't do anything, you can't build a Parthenon, you can't create a face without measurement. All their philosophy, their democracy and so on is based on measurement, to measure. And the Hindus said - on the other side - said, 'To measure is illusion'. They have a special word called 'ma' - 'ma' means to measure, maya means illusion. So India said, where there is measurement - please listen to this, very interesting - where there is measurement mind must create illusion. And the west, from Greece, said, measurement is necessary - and on that all our western world is founded, technology, everything is the movement of measurement. Right? Don't accept it, you can observe it as a fact. It is not my opinion. I have no opinions, thank god! So there it is. |
So what is thought? Why are all our actions based on thought? Love has become part of thought. You follow? I love you. I am attached to you. I love you, I want to sleep with you - pleasure. And the measurement of pleasure is thought. Right? Measurement of pleasure. So where there is measurement there is time. Right? I will have that pleasure tomorrow, which is time. The tomorrow is the measure of thought. Are you following all this? Does it interest you? For god's sake this is your life. |
Need I translate that? Somebody do it, please. All right sir, I'll do it for you. Don't make it difficult, be simple about it. The fear is the impermanency of ourselves, and the attachment - I'm translating generally - the attachment then becomes the cause of fear. Now just a minute, sir. You see how my investigation is going on. |
I see around me, in India, in Europe, and in Asia, in America, the movement of thought, the movement of thought in relationship, the movement of thought in religion, all the inventions of their gods are the product of thought, and all the philosophies are based on thought - the philosophy of devotion, the philosophy of knowledge, the philosophy of action, everything around me is based on thought - thought being measure and therefore time. Right? And we call progress the measurement of time. Right? The growth of national products - everything. So, what is wrong with thought? You understand? The Asiatics, and especially India, India exploded over Asia, as Greece exploded over Europe, India exploded much more vastly over the whole of Asia. There they said, 'Thought is measure, and to find the immeasurable, which is not measurable, thought must end'. Right? Because they said, 'To live in thought is to live in prison, and prison is a measurement'. See the beauty of their... You follow? I am thinking it aloud for you, they don't say all this, I'm saying. To live in prison is measurement, and to be free of that measurement is to come upon that which is Brahman, which is immeasurable. Right? Therefore they said, 'Control thought, suppress thought, thought is brought about through sensations, the senses, therefore don't look, don't go near a woman, don't touch, don't look, don't see anything, but close your eyes, suppress thought and work at it'. |
And the western world has said, 'Thought is absolutely necessary, there is no immeasurable'. You can invent the immeasurable, all your gods are inventions - the serious investigators - they are all just your emotional reactions, the wish for your father, as the Christ and so on, they won't even accept all that. |
So thought has become the foundation. Right? So what am I to do? I am investigating with you, I hope you are sharing and not just going off to sleep and polishing your nails. |
The moment I say, the mind says, 'Thought must end', who is it that says it? You are following this? In observation thought is interfering therefore there is an assertive action taking place - which is, thought shall end. You follow this? Why do you come to that conclusion? Because it interferes with your observation? Therefore there is a motive for your desire to observe, and that motive is measure. I don't know if you follow this. Therefore that motive is time. I wonder if you see the subtleness of it. |
So is your observation without a single motive? It is not, because thought says, I want to go beyond it. And thought has a cause, the cause being the desire to go beyond it, therefore it is measurable and therefore you are still caught in thought. So what is the mind to do? It is not interested in observation at all - observation of fear. Now it has turned its attention to the enquiry into the whole movement, structure, nature, function of thought. Not that it wants to stop it, not that it wants to control it, just to observe. Right? |
Why has man, right through the ages, given importance to thought? |
We have put several questions this morning: wanting to see the whole, war, education, thought, feeling, all that, what we have talked about. We said we'll take one question, which is, seeing the whole. To see the whole there must be no parts. And there is a part as long as thought interferes. Right? Seeing the whole means there must be no attachment, no root. Right? No cause. If there is a cause you can't see anything. If I say, 'I love you' because I have a cause which is because I want your money, or your body, it is not love. Right? So we see that thought divides, thought brings conflict, and all our work is that. Don't do anything but just look. Don't say, it's partial look, it's whole look, just look at this whole phenomenon of war, education, not seeing the whole, fear, security, and always the mind searching for the cause, as though finding the cause you think you will be out of it. |
I don't know how you listen to these talks, because what we are going to talk over together is quite serious. It is a grave matter and we ought to think over it together, go into it together, not interpreting according to our particular idiosyncrasies and fancies and likes and dislikes, but rather investigate together, examine together, so that we establish between ourselves a kind of communication in which there is sharing, in which there is journeying together into the human problems, and especially into this question of what is religion. Because religion is an action in which all our total energy is demanded. Every other action is fragmentary, it is only the religious mind, the religious activity, the religious comprehension or understanding or an insight, that can bring about, I feel, a total inward revolution which is so utterly necessary. I mean by religion not all that is going on in its name - the sects, the gurus, the drugs, the experiences, the circus that is going on in temples and churches and mosques and all the rest of it. I do not consider that religion at all; they are merely play-acting, fanciful, romantic, sentimental things that have no meaning at all. Really they are nonsense! And we mean by religion not belief, not rituals, not accepting authority, not trying to discover or experience something other than what we want, but rather a religion is the gathering of our total energy so that the mind can comprehend, be in it as it were, so that our actions are never fragmentary; our actions, our daily relationships, our whole way of life is whole, not broken up. To me that is religion, and to go beyond it, to go beyond the structure of thought. |
That is what we are going to talk over together during this week. And to talk this thing over together I think it becomes necessary to observe, not the description which the speaker is giving, but to observe what is going on. And to observe there is no need for interpretation, to observe there is no need for another to tell us how to observe, or what to observe. There is no need to interpret what we observe because the interpreter is the observed. We will go into all this as we go along. |
So we have to observe obviously, not only our lives but also what is going on around us - the misery, the conflict, the violence, the extraordinary sense of despair, the sorrow, the meaningless existence that one leads. And to escape from that we resort to all kinds of fanciful, sectarian beliefs. The gurus are multiplying like mushrooms in the winter - or in the autumn - all over the world. They are bringing their own particular fancy, their traditions and imposing it on others; that is not religion. That is sheer nonsense, traditional acceptance of what has been, what is dead and put into different words and different circumstances. So it becomes very important, it seems to me, not only that we must bring about a change in the world outside us, but also a total revolution psychologically, inwardly. That seems to me the most urgent and necessary thing. That change will bring about naturally and inevitably, a change in the social structure, in our relationship, in our whole activity of life. |
So the first thing, it seems to me, is the act of observation, to observe, to observe without the observer. We will go into this because it is quite a difficult problem. To observe, not as an Englishman, or a Hindu or a Buddhist, or a Catholic or a Protestant, or an American, or a Communist, or a Socialist, what you will, but to observe without these conditioning attitudes, to observe without the traditional acceptance, to observe without the 'me' interfering with the observation. The 'me' that is the result of the past, the result of all our traditions, the result of our education, the result of our social, environmental, economic influence and so on - this 'me' that interferes with the observation. Now is it possible to totally eliminate in this observation this activity of the 'me'? Because it is the 'me' that separates and brings about conflict. The 'me' that separates in our relationships with each other and thereby brings conflict in our relationships. So is it possible to observe this whole phenomenon of existence without the traditional 'me', with its prejudices, opinions, judgements, its desires and pleasures and fears? Is that at all possible? If it is not possible then we are caught in the same old trap of slight reformation in the same field, in the same area, with a little more experience, a little more expansive knowledge and so on, but we always remain in the same area unless there is a radical understanding of the whole structure of the 'me'. It seems to me that is so obvious and most of us are apt to forget that. Most of us are so burdened with our own opinions, with our own judgements, with our own individualistic attitudes that we are incapable of perceiving the whole. And in the perception of the whole lies our salvation. I mean by the word salvation, in the sense a different way of living, a different way of acting, a different way of thinking so that we can live totally at peace within ourselves without conflict, without a problem. |
That is what we are going to talk over together during this week: whether the human mind, so conditioned, through time, through evolution, through all the experiences, through a great deal of knowledge, whether such a mind, your mind, our mind, our consciousness can go beyond itself, not in theory, not in a fancy, not in romantic experiences but actually without any sense of illusion. Because our consciousness is the consciousness of the world. I think this is important to understand. Our consciousness with its content is the consciousness of every human being in the world. His content may vary a little bit here and there, different colour, different shape, different form, but it is essentially the content of our consciousness is the consciousness of the world. And if the content can be changed then the consciousness of the world can also be changed. Are we meeting each other in this thing? Are we talking the same language? |
If I can change the content of my consciousness it will obviously affect the consciousness of others. And the content of my consciousness makes up my consciousness. The content is the consciousness; the content is not separate from consciousness. So is it possible for me, for a human being, living in this world, with all the travail, with all the misery, confusion, suffering, violence, with the separate nationalities with their conflicts, with their wars, with their brutalities, with all the calamities that are going on in the world, which is part of my consciousness, which is part of your consciousness - the consciousness that has been trained to accept saviours, teachers, gurus, authority - all that consciousness, can that be transformed? And if it can be transformed, what is the way to do it? Obviously not a method. Method implies a preconceived plan or a system invented by somebody whom you respect or whom you think has got the final answer, and according to that method conform. Which we have done, and therefore it is still within the same pattern. So if one rejects the conformity to any pattern, to any method, to any end, that is, to deny not through resistance but through understanding, having an insight into the foolishness of conformity, then the mind comes across a much more difficult problem which is fear. Please this is not mere talk to which you are listening to a few words and ideas and a few instructive sentences, but rather we are together, and I keep on repeating it, together, sharing this thing. Sharing implies attention, sharing implies the necessity, the urgency of understanding, not intellectually, not verbally, but understanding with our minds, with our hearts, with our whole being. |
So, as we said, our consciousness with its content is the consciousness of the world, because wherever you go people are suffering, there is poverty, there is misery, there is brutality, which is part of our daily life. There is social injustice, the tremendously wealthy and the poor and so on and on and on. Wherever one goes this is an absolute fact. And each one of us is suffering, is caught in all kinds of problems: sexual, personal, collective and so on. This conflict goes on right through the world in every human being. And our consciousness is theirs; and therein lies compassion - not intellectual compassion but the actual passion for this whole human being, who is caught in this extraordinary travail. And when one looks at this consciousness without interpreting it as good or bad, or noble or ignoble, or beautiful or ugly, just to observe it, without any interpretation, then you will see for yourself that there is a tremendous sense of fear, insecurity, lack of certainty. And because of that sense of insecurity we escape into every form of neurotic security. Please do observe it in yourselves, not merely accept what the speaker is saying. And when you observe it, who is the observer? Right? Who is the observer that is observing this whole phenomenon? Is the observer different from the thing observed? Is the thinker different from the thought? Is the experiencer different from the thing he experiences? It seems to me that is one of the basic things that we have to understand. To us there is a division between the observer and the observed, and this division brings about conflict. Wherever there is division there must be conflict, the Arab, the Jew and the whole business. |
So one must be very clear, it seems to me, about this question: who is the observer and is the observer different from the thing observed? I look at my consciousness - I don't know if you have ever tried to look at your consciousness. Look at it as though you were looking at yourself in the mirror. To look at all the activities, conscious as well as unconscious, activities of this consciousness, which is within the field of time, which is within the area of thought. Now can one observe it? Or does one observe it as though it was something outside of oneself? And if you do observe it, is the observer who is observing different from the thing observed, and what makes him different? Are we all meeting each other? We are taking a journey together, don't let me walk by myself please, we are all together in this. What is the observer? And what is the structure and the nature of the observer? Is the observer the past, with his experiences, with his knowledge, with his accumulated hurts, with his sorrows and so on - is the observer the past? Is the observer the 'me'? And is the observer, being the past, is he capable of looking at what is going on around him now? That is, if I am living in the past, the remembrances, the hurts, the sorrows, all the knowledge the mind has accumulated - and all knowledge is always in the past - and with that mind observe. And when I do observe with that mind I am always looking through the eyes that have been wounded, through the eyes that have remembered things of the past. So I am always looking through the past, through the accumulated tradition, and so I am never looking at the present. There is a division between the observer who is the past, and the active, moving, living present. So there is a conflict between the observer and the observed. May I go on? Is this clear? |
And can the mind observe without the observer? This is not a conundrum, this is not a trick, this is not something to speculate about. You can see it for yourself, you have an insight into the reality. That is, the observer can never observe. He can observe what he wants to observe, he observes according to his desires, to his fears, to his inclinations, romantic demands and so on and so on. And is not the observer the observed? The observed becomes totally different when the observer is himself totally different. If I have been brought up as a Catholic or a Buddhist, or a Hindu, or god knows what else, and I observe life, this extraordinary movement of life, with my conditioned mind, with my beliefs, with my fears, with my saviours, I am observing not 'what is', but I am observing my own conditioning and therefore I never observe 'what is'. Right? And when I observe, is the observer different from me? Or the observer is the observed. You understand this? Which eliminates altogether conflict. Because you see, our life, our education, our way of living is based on conflict - in all our relationships, in all our activities, the way we live, the way we think springs from this everlasting conflict between you and me, between each other, outwardly as well as inwardly. And the religious life, so far, has been heightened conflict. A life of torture - you must come to God, or whatever that thing is, through torture, through conformity, through acceptance of a belief - which are all forms of conflict. And a mind that is in conflict is obviously not a religious mind. |
So one comes to the point: can the mind, your mind, observe without the observer? And that becomes extremely arduous because in that there is this whole question of fear. Right? There is not only the conscious fears but the deep-rooted fears. Now can the mind be free of fear? Not a few fears, or the fears that one is conscious of, but the entire structure of fear, conscious as well as unconscious. Perhaps you would say that is not possible, no human being can live in this world without fear. Now we are asking whether a mind that lives in fear - fear of tomorrow, fear of what has been, fear of what might be, fear of what is, fear in relationship, fear of loneliness, fear, a dozen forms of fears, the most absurd fears and the most tragic fears - can the mind be free of all that? |
Now how do you investigate fear? I am afraid, suppose I am afraid, of a dozen things. How do I investigate and be free of that fear, bearing in mind that the observer is the observed. Right? Fear is not different from the observer. The observer is part of that fear, obviously. So how is the mind to be free of that fear. Go on sir, let's talk it over together. Because with the burden of fear one lives in darkness; from that fear arises aggression, violence, all the neurotic activities that go on, not only in the religious field but in daily relationship. So for a healthy, sane mind that is whole there must be freedom from fear. Not partial freedom but total freedom. There is no such thing as partial freedom. So how is one, bearing in mind that the observer is the observed, the observer is fear himself and when he observes fear as something separate from him then there is conflict, then he tries to overcome it, suppress it, escape from it, and so on. But when one has this insight, this truth that the observer is the observed, then what takes place? You are following all this? No? I am so sorry. |
All right, let me put it differently: I am angry, is that anger different from me? Me, the observer, who says 'I am angry'. Or that anger is part of me. It seems so simple. No? And when I realise that, that the observer is the observed, that the anger which I recognise is part of me, not something apart, then what am I to do with that anger? I am not separate from that anger. I am anger. I am not separate from violence. I am that violence. That violence has come about through my fear, that fear has brought about aggression. So I am all that. Then what takes place? |
Let us look at it a little more: when I am angry, each response which I call anger, is recognised, recognised because I have been angry before. So next time I am angry I recognise it and that makes that anger still stronger. Right? I wonder if you see this. Because I am looking at this new response with the recognition of a previous anger. Right? So I am merely recognising anger. I am not going beyond it, I am merely recognising it each time. So can I, can the mind observe that anger without recognition, without using the word anger, which is a form of recognition? Look: we are violent human beings, in so many ways. We may have a gentle face and quiet voice but deeply we are violent people. And there are violent activities, violent speech and all the rest of it. Now is that violence different from me, from the observer? I see that the observer is part of that violence, it is not the observer is non-violent, therefore he looks at violence, but the observer himself is part of that. Then what shall he do? You understand my question? If I am part of that violence, which I am, and before I have separated myself from that violence saying, 'I must suppress it, I must conquer it, I must go beyond it' and therefore there is a conflict between that and myself. Now I have eliminated that absurdity. I see the fact that I am violent, the very structure of me is violent. Then what takes place? Obviously there is no desire to overcome it because I am part of that. Please see this. There is no question of my trying to overcome it, suppress it. And suppression, overcoming, escaping is a form of wastage of energy - isn't it? Now when the observer is the observed I have all the energy. Are we meeting? I have all that energy, which has been dissipated before by escapes, by suppression, by overcoming it. Now I have that tremendous energy which comes about when the observer is the observed, and that energy can go beyond itself, which is violence. I wonder if I am making myself clear. |
We need energy, don't we, to do anything. I need energy to go beyond violence, and I have wasted that energy through suppression, through conformity, through escape, through rationalisation, through all kinds of forms of escapes and justifications. And when I see the observer is the observed and all that energy is concentrated, and when there is that total energy there is no violence. It is only fragments that create violence. Have you got it? |
Questioner: There is interaction. |
Krishnamurti: Not only interaction sir, this is much more... No, let's stick to one thing, don't bring in interaction yet, we will come to that. |
That is sir, look, we have tried, human beings have tried right through the world, tried in the old traditional way of overcoming violence, overcoming anger, through rationalisation, justification, through escape, through all kinds of neurotic activity and we have not gone beyond violence, we have not gone beyond the anger, the brutality and all the rest of it. Now can the mind go beyond it? Once and for all finish with violence. And it is possible only when we realise the observer is the observed, because then in that observation there is no escape, no interpretation, no rationalisation, just the thing is, and therefore you have the energy to go beyond. Right? You do this, you will see it. But you must first understand the reason, the logic, the truth that the observer is the observed. |
That is, when you look at another - wife, husband, girl-friend, boy and so on - are you different from the thing you observe, from the person you observe? Maybe a man or a woman, the form may be different, the sex may be different, but psychologically is your consciousness different from hers or his? Do investigate this as we go along. And when you observe, you are observing your own image, you are not observing another. The image which you have built through various interactions, the image you have built about her or him, and that image is looking. This is so obvious, isn't this? So when one really understands, not verbally, not intellectually, but as an actuality, as something true, then you will see that when the observer is the observed all conflict comes to an end, and therefore our whole relationship with each other undergoes a radical transformation. Right? |
So can the mind observe fear? We are going back to that. Your fear - fear of death, fear of life, fear of loneliness, fear of darkness, fear of being nobody, fear of not becoming a great howling success, fear of not being a leader, a writer, this or that, ten different things. First of all, is one aware of it? Or one leads such a superficial life, everlastingly talking about something else, and so one is never aware of oneself, of one's own fears. Then if one becomes aware of those fears, at what level do you become aware? Is it an intellectual awareness of your fears, or are you actually aware of your fears - aware in the sense that you are aware of the colour of the jersey that is next to you? And aware at the deeper levels of your mind of fear, at the deep corners, hidden, and if they are hidden how are they to be exposed? Must you go to an analyst? And the analyst is yourself, he needs to be analysed too, otherwise he wouldn't be an analyst! |
So how do you uncover this whole structure, the intricacies of fear? You know this is a tremendous problem, not just to be listened to for two or three minutes and then forget about it. To find out for oneself whether it is possible to expose all the fears, or there is only one central fear which has many branches, and when one sees the central fear the branches begin to wither away. Is there one central fear - like the trunk of a tree, though it has many branches, and if you could understand that one root of fear you have understood the whole network of fear? Now how do you approach this? From the periphery, or from the centre? You understand my question? If the mind can understand the root of fear then the branches, the various aspects of fear have no meaning, they wither away. So what is the root of fear? Go on sirs! Can you look at your fear - please look at it now - invite it - naturally you are not afraid now, sitting here, but you know what your fears are: loneliness, not being loved, not being beautiful, frightened of losing your position, your job, your this, or that, ten different things. Now by looking at one fear, at your particular fear, you can then see the root of that fear, not only the root of that fear but the root of all fear. You understand? Through one fear, by observing it, by observing it in the sense the observer is the observed, then you will see for yourself that through one fear you discover the very root of all fear. |
Suppose one is afraid - of what? |
Loneliness. |
Loneliness. Yes. One is afraid of loneliness. Now first of all have you looked at loneliness, or is that an idea of which you are frightened? Not the fact of loneliness but the idea of loneliness - you see the difference? Which is it? The idea frightens you, or the actuality frightens you. |
Not separate, is it? |
No sir, look. I have an idea of loneliness. The idea being the rationalisation of thought which says, 'I don't know what it is but I am frightened of it'. Or I know what loneliness is, which is not an idea, but an actuality. I know it when I am in with a crowd I suddenly feel that I am not related to anything, that I am absolutely disassociated, lost, cannot rely on anybody. All my moorings have been cut away and I feel tremendously lonely, frightened. That is an actuality. But the idea about it is not an actuality, and most of us, I am afraid, have an idea about it. |
So if it is not an idea but an actuality, what is loneliness? Aren't we breeding it all the time - by our self-centred activity, by this tremendous concern about ourselves: our looks, our attitudes, our opinions, our judgements, our position, our status, our importance, all that, all that is a form of isolation. Throughout the day, for years we have done this, and suddenly we find we are utterly isolated. Our beliefs and god and everything goes away. There is this sense of tremendous isolation, which cannot be penetrated, and that naturally brings great fear. Now I observe it, in my life, in my daily life, that my activities, my thoughts, my desires, my pleasures, my experiences are more and more and more isolating. And the ultimate sense is death. That is a different point. And I observe it. I observe it in my daily movements, in my daily activities. And in the observation of this loneliness, the observer is part of that loneliness, is essentially that loneliness. So the observer is the observed. Right? And therefore he cannot possibly escape from it, he cannot cover it up, try to fill it with good activity or whatever it is, going off to churches and meditation and all the rest of it. So the observer is the observed, and therefore what happens then? You have eliminated altogether conflict, haven't you? Try to escape from it, try to cover it up, try to rationalise it, you are faced with it, you are that. And when you are confronted with it completely and there is no escape and you are that, then there is no problem, is there? You understand? There is no problem because then there is no sense of loneliness at all. I wonder if you see this? |
Surely it is a problem seeing... |
We are coming to that presently. |
So can you observe your fear? Through one fear trace the very root of all fear. That is, through this sense of loneliness haven't you traced the root of fear? I am lonely. I know what that means not as an idea but as an actuality. I know what hunger is, as an actuality, not somebody has told me what hunger is. There is this extraordinary sense of loneliness, isolation. Isolation is a form of resistance, is a form of exclusion. And I am fully aware of it. And I am also aware that the observer is the observed. And there is fear there, deep rooted fear; through one factor of fear, of loneliness, I have been able to find out, look at the central fact of fear, which is the non-existence of the observer. I wonder if you see this. You understand? Am I making this clear, or not at all? If the observer is not - the observer being the past, the observer being his opinions, judgements, evaluations, rationalisations, interpretations, all the tradition - if that is not, where is fear? You understand? If the 'me' is not, where is the fear? But we are educated, religiously, in colleges, schools and universities, we are educated to the assertion, the cultivation of the 'me' as the observer. No? I am a Catholic, I am a Protestant, I am a British, I am this, I am that, all the rest of it. And by looking at one fear I have been able to trace, the mind has been able to look and trace the central fact of fear, which is the non-existence of the observer, the 'me'. And can I live in this world without that 'me'? You understand? When everything around me is the assertion of the 'me': their culture, their works of art, their business, politics, religion, everything around me says, asserts, 'be you, me' - cultivate the 'me'. In that culture, in that civilisation can one live without the 'me'? You understand all this, sir? Therefore the monks say you can't, escape from the world, go into a monastery, change your name, devote your life to this and that, but the 'me' is still there because that 'me' has identified itself with the image it has projected itself as the Christ, this and that and the other. But that 'me' is still there, in a different form. |
So can one live - please, this is a tremendously important and a very, very serious question, it is not just something to play around with - can one live without that 'me' in this monstrous world? That means can one live sanely in a world of insanity? And the world is insane, with all the make-believe of religions. You know all that is happening, I don't have to tell you. Can you live in a world which is insane and yourself be totally sane? |
Now who will answer you that question, except yourself obviously. So that means you have to see that your consciousness, with all its content, is the consciousness of the world. That is not a statement, that is a reality, that is something tremendously real. The content of your consciousness makes up your consciousness. Without the content there is no consciousness. Your content now is fear, pleasure, all the things that are going on in the world, the culture which is so exalted, which is so praised, which is such a marvellous culture with its wars, with its brutality, with its injustice, with its starvation, hunger, you know what is happening in the world - of that consciousness we are. And your consciousness undergoes radical change, that change affects the consciousness of the world, actually it does. Take any of the people who have so-called brought about physical revolution, Lenin, the French Revolution people; you may not approve of what they did but they affected the consciousness of the world, like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and all that gang. |
Like Christ. |
Oh! Take your Christ, all right. You see how you escape? That's what I'm... You escape into your old traditions. You don't say, 'Look I have got to change, my consciousness must undergo a radical transformation' - not somebody else has done this, I was giving you an example. One hasn't got to expand the examples. |
So one comes to the central issue: can your consciousness undergo a radical change? And it can only undergo a radical change when this central fact is understood or seen, or the truth of it is seen that is, the observer is the observed. And when you see that all conflict inwardly comes to an end - bound to, because where there is division between the observer and the observed, anger and not anger, then there is conflict. When the Arab and the Jew see that they are the same human beings, there is no need for conflict. So can you observe your conflict, and that conflict is not separate from you, you are that conflict. |
Look, this leads to something extraordinary if you go into it. The experiencer is the experience. You understand? Therefore when you meditate your meditation is part of yourself, therefore you are not going away from yourself. I wonder if you see all this. When we talk about meditation - that is a different thing - that is, meditation is not something to be invited, you cannot practise it, you cannot sit down and breathe and do all those tricks. Meditation is something totally outside the field of thought. We will go into it some other time. Right. |
Would you like to ask questions about all this? |
What about the unconscious fears? |
I explained that sir. What about the unconscious fears? Now, all right. Can the conscious mind investigate the unconscious fears? The conscious mind can only investigate itself at its own level, it can't investigate something it doesn't know. Right? Science can only explain what it knows, not what it does not know. So we are asking: is it possible for the unconscious content to be uncovered, exposed without the consciousness interfering with it? You understand my question? Look sir: I can investigate my own fears consciously, superficial fears. That is fairly simple. By observing in my relationship with others, in interaction, watching, when I am walking, talking, looking, I can observe the fears very easily. But I have all the deep hidden fears, the racial fears, the family fears, the fears that have been imposed upon me, the fears that I have accumulated through hurt, and we are hurt from childhood. All along our life we are being hurt, hurt, hurt; the more sensitive you are the more hurt you are and the deeper the hurts are, and they are all there, hidden somewhere. Now how is the mind to expose all that? You have understood my question? I realise deliberate enquiry won't reveal it. Right? A deliberate action saying, I must investigate to find out - you can't: therefore what am I to do? Will analysis open the door? Will group therapy open the door? Will talking to somebody open the door? Please, these are all the questions we are all putting all the time. Or is there a way of opening the door without the least effort on the part of the mind? You understand? The more I make effort to enquire into the unconscious, the more it becomes impossible because I don't know what there is. Through analysis I cannot expose it. I can reveal a few layers of it, but analysis has its own problems, which we won't go into now. So what shall I do? I can't analyse because I don't know what there is to be analysed. I can't say to myself I must deliberately sit down, talk about it to others, or talk to myself and see if I can't break the door open, I can't do it. So I say to myself perhaps if I leave it completely alone, but be aware of it, leave it completely alone and watch what comes. That means the mind, the superficial mind, has become quiet. Right? It is not interfering, it is not asking, it is not demanding, it is not investigating, it is not translating, it is absolutely quiet in observing. Are you following all this? |
So I can observe, the mind can observe without the least effort, because effort will not solve the problem. So when the superficial mind is quiet, really quiet, not saying, I will wait till... but absolutely quiet, then this other thing comes up. I don't know if you see the truth of it. It is like watching a child, if you've watched a child, it reveals all its movements. So in the same way to investigate, to understand, to look into the deep layers of the unconscious, analysis is not the way, group therapy is not the way, talking to others is not the way. The only way is for the mind, the superficial mind, not to interfere. That means to be absolutely quiet and watch. |
Now if you have ever attended, if you give your attention to something, there is no question of time, is there? Have you ever done this? When you give complete attention to something, are you listening now with complete attention to what is being said? If you are, at that moment of attention there is no time, is there? Oh, come on sirs! At that moment there is no question of thought is there? Your whole energy, both nervous, psychological, mental, every kind of energy is completely attentive. Now being so attentive, is there an unconscious or conscious? You understand? There is only attention. And therefore in that state of attention you will see there is no remnant of the unconscious with its content. Right? |
I think we are confused because there are two different kinds of conflict that can exist. If we argue with ourselves and say 'should I do this?', and then we say, 'no, I won't do this, or I will do it' - we argue back and forth. That is one form of conflict. That is a cover-up. That is our means of avoidance. And that is different from real conflict which works towards a solution. There are two different kinds of conflict, and that is why people here are confused, because one conflict is a method of avoidance, and the other conflict is not a means of avoidance but a means of peeling away avoidance to its resolution. |
I understand. You are saying, are you, if I understand it rightly, conflict exists where there is choice. |
No, no. Where there is avoidance there are two different kinds of conflict. Do you understand what I am saying? |
Yes, yes, I understand, I think I understand. Which is, you are saying: there are two different kinds of conflict. But all conflicts are the same, there are not two different kinds. |
No. One is used to avoid the real conflict as a solution. |
Oh, I see. Through conflict you will find a solution. That is what the Arabs and the Jews are saying! (Laughter) |
No. Because they are using the kind of conflict which is a method of avoidance. |
No, please madame, you are not... If I may suggest you are repeating the same thing. You are not listening, if I may say so. We are saying all conflicts are the same, there are not different kinds of conflicts. Conflict is conflict, whether it is between a husband and a wife, or a girl and a boy, or between nations and nations. The war is the extreme expression of that division - conflict we are talking about. We are talking of ending conflict, whether it is possible to end conflict in ourselves, in a human mind. If that conflict is not ended we will always live in misery, we will always live what we are living now. |
We have been talking over together whether it is possible to awaken the intelligence. That is our chief concern. And those who are serious will have followed the past four talks - or rather talking over things together. And morning I would like to go into something that I think is equally important. |
This awakening of intelligence implies having an insight into all our problems - psychological problems, crises, blockages and so on. The word 'intelligence', according to a good dictionary, means reading between the lines, partly. And also really, deeply, the significance of intelligence is to have deep true insight - not an intellectual comprehension, not resolving the problem through conflict, but having an insight into a human issue. That very insight awakens this intelligence. Or, having this intelligence there is the insight - both ways. And having an insight involves no conflict, because when you see something very, very, very clearly, the truth of the matter, there is the end of it, you don't fight against it, you don't try to control, you don't make all these calculated, motivated efforts. From that insight, which is intelligence, there is action - not a postponed action but immediate action. That is what I would like to talk over together, if we may, this morning, a little bit, and then we will go on to some other problems if we have time. |
We are educated from childhood to exercise as deeply as possible every form of effort. If you observe yourself you will see what tremendous efforts we make to control ourselves, to suppress, to adjust, to modify ourselves to certain conclusions, pattern ourselves according to some patterns, or according to an objective that you or another has established, and so there is this constant struggle. You must have noticed it. One lives with it, and one dies with it. And we are asking if it is possible to live daily life, without a single conflict? And as most of us are somewhat awakened to all the problems: political, religious, economic, social, ideological and so on, when you are a little bit aware of all that there must be discontent, as most of us are dissatisfied. When you are young this dissatisfaction becomes like a flame, and you have passion to do something: so you join some political party, the extreme left, the extreme revolutionary, the extreme forms of Jesus freaks and so on, so on, so on. And by joining, adopting certain attitudes, certain ideologies, that flame of discontent fades away, because you are then satisfied. You say, 'This is what I want to do' and you pour your heart into it. And gradually you find, if you are at all awake to all the problems involved, that doesn't satisfy. But it is too late: you have already given half your life to something which you thought will be completely worthwhile, but when you find a little bit later on that it is not, then I am afraid one's energy, capacity, drive has withered away. One must have noticed that our discontent with regard to politics, why we are governed, by whom we are governed, for what purpose are we governed, the discontent that questions the religious attitudes, the religious dogmas, the orthodoxy of the priest, the gurus - the discontent questions it, doubts it. And gradually you like somebody, or some idea, or your girlfriend says 'That is the right thing to do, old boy, go after it'. And you want to please her and so you adjust yourself to that pattern. So gradually this real flame of discontent withers away. You must have noticed it in yourself, in your children, in the young people, and the neighbours - this is the pattern that's followed all the time, generation after generation. |
Is it possible - we are talking over together, I am not laying down the law, we are investigating, exploring into something that is really worthwhile if you go into it very, very deeply. Most of us fortunately, if you are at all alive to things, are discontented, and not to allow that discontent to be squashed, destroyed by the desire to be satisfied, by the desire to adjust oneself to the environment, to the establishment, or to a new ideal, to a new utopia. But to allow this flame to keep on burning, not be satisfied with anything, then the superficial satisfactions have no place. This very dissatisfaction is demanding something much greater than the ideals, the gurus, the religions, the establishment, all, ecology and so on, they've become totally superficial. And that very flame of discontent, because it has no outlet, because it has no object in which it can fulfil itself, that flame becomes a great passion. And that passion is this intelligence. You are following what I am... Am I making this clear - not verbally? Is it clear to you, who must be dissatisfied - with your husband, with your wife, with your girl, or boy, with the society, with the environment, with all the ugly things that are going on in the name of politics, government. If you are not caught in some of these superficial things, reactionary, essentially reactionary, all of them, then that extraordinary flame is intensified. And that intensity brings about a quality of mind that has a deep insight instantly into things, and therefore from that there is action. |
So as most of us here, and I hope it is a fact, that you who are here are dissatisfied. Right? Why are you governed? By whom are you governed, for what purpose are you governed? That is one question. Why do we accept religious patterns of any kind? - whether the religious patterns of the ancient Hindus, their tradition, their superstition, their authority, their worship of tradition, or the Zen Buddhism, Zen meditation, or the transcendental meditation, everything - not to be satisfied. It doesn't make you nervous. It doesn't bring about imbalance. There is imbalance only when this dissatisfaction is translated, or caught in a trap of some kind or another, then there is distortion, then there are all kinds of fights, inwardly. |
So since you are here, and you must obviously, if I may point out, you must be dissatisfied, including with what we are saying - (laughs) right? And to be aware of this flame and not allow superficial temptations and be caught by them. Right? Are we doing this now as we are talking over together? Or having been caught in these various traps, can you put them aside, wipe them out, destroy them - do what you like but have this tremendous flame of discontent now? It doesn't mean you go and throw bombs at people, destroy, physical revolution, violence, but when you put aside all the traps that man has created around you, and you have created for yourself, then this flame becomes a supreme intelligence. And that intelligence gives you insight. And when you have an insight, from that there is immediate action. Right? Are we following something? Right sir? Because (laughs) I am very keen on this because to me action is not tomorrow. An action - it has been a great problem with a great many people, with deep thinkers - action without cause, action without motive, action not dependent on some ideology, which is, the ideology is in the future and there is constant adjustment to that ideology, therefore there is conflict. So it has been one of the demands of serious people to find out if there is an action which is per se, for itself, which is without cause and motive. I don't know if you have ever asked this question of yourself - and I hope you are asking it now. Is there an action in life, in daily life, in which there is no motive, there is no cause, and therefore, see what is implied in it: no regrets, no retention of those regrets and all the sequence that follows from that regret; it doesn't depend on some past or future. |
So one is asking: is there an action, in daily life - the daily life which we know, what it means, what is involved in it - where action is always free? And this action is possible only when there is insight born of intelligence. Right? I wonder if you get it! Am I making it clear? Verbally perhaps, but dig deeply, have insight into it, into what the speaker is saying. |
So our question then is: is it possible to live a daily life without any conflict whatsoever? Most people would say you must have conflict otherwise there is no growth. Part of life is conflict. A tree in a forest fights, struggles to reach the sun. That is a form of conflict. Every animal and so on makes conflict, but we are human beings, supposed to be intelligent, supposed to be educated, supposed to have sufficient knowledge, historical, and yet we are constantly in conflict. Now discontent says, 'Why should I be in conflict? ' You understand? Are you doing this now? |
We are educated to conflict - conflict implies comparison, imitation, conformity, adjustment to a pattern, modified continuity of what has been through the present to the future. Right? All this is a process of conflict. The deeper the conflict the more neurotic one becomes. And therefore not to have conflict at all. One believes in something most deeply, you believe in god most deeply and say 'His will be done' - and we create a monstrous world. Right? - which is his will being done! And conflict implies, as I said, comparison. To live without comparison - you understand? Please do it now. Which means no ideal, no authority of a pattern, no conformity to a particular idea or ideology, and therefore freedom from the prison of ideas. Right? Are you following? Are you doing it? So that there is no comparison, no imitation, no conformity. Therefore you are stuck with 'what is'. Right? Actually 'what is'. Because comparison comes only when you compare 'what is' with 'what should be', or 'what might be' or try to transform 'what is' into something that which is not. All this implies conflict. Right? |
Thousands go to India, from America and from Europe, to find enlightenment, to find the real guru, because they realise their religion, their outlook is very limited, materialistic, and India is supposed to be tremendously spiritual - which it is not - and there people go and try to find out. And the guru, the pattern, the tradition says, 'Do this, then that' - conformity. And they try every way - which is to bring about greater conflict in themselves. Right? This is what is happening right throughout the world. And so we are asking: is it possible to live without conflict? Now, it is possible when you have an insight into what is being said; to find out actually, in daily life, to live without comparison. Right? Therefore you remove a tremendous burden. Right? I wonder if you see that? And if you remove the burden of comparison, imitation, conformity, adjustment, modification, then you are left with 'what is'. Right? |
Conflict exists only when you try to do something with 'what is'. Right? May I go on? When you try to transform it, modify it, change it, or suppress it, run away from it, then conflict arises. But if you have an insight into 'what is' then conflict ceases. You understand my point? Are you doing it? When there is no comparison and so on, then you are left with 'what is'. Conflict arises only when you are moving away from 'what is'. Right? And what happens with the thing 'what is'? Now I'll show you. |
One is greedy, or envious, or violent. The fact is that you are violent, greedy, envious - that is a fact. The non-fact is non-violence, you must not be greedy, you must be noble, etc., etc. So there is a movement away from 'what is' and therefore that is conflict. Come on, sirs! So when you do not move away from 'what is', when thought does not move away then there is only 'what is'. Right? I am violent - one is violent. That is a fact. There is no escape from it whatsoever, suppression of all the violence, which is another form of violence. So you are left with violence, or with greed, or with envy. Can you have an insight into violence? Violence implies conflict, violence implies running away from 'what is', violence implies having an ideal of non-violence. So when you put away all that, you are left with 'what is' - and to have an insight into that. That is, that can only happen - please follow this, give your heart to this! - that can only happen when you are completely free of any form of having a desire to change 'what is'. Right? You understand this? Are we all together in this? Or am I just talking to myself? You know, please, life is very short. And to find out a way of living which is righteous, and righteousness is only when there is no conflict; and how do you have an insight into 'what is'? You understand my question? We are governed - why are we governed? What is government? You follow? Everything. And that is 'what is'. And how do you have an insight into 'what is'? Which is - I am taking the example of violence - all forms of government are violent - the extreme right, and the extreme left or even the centre. And there is violence. Human beings are violent. They say it is part of his nature, and therefore you must accept it. Being aware one doesn't accept anything, we question. We said the day before yesterday there is the art of doubt. The art of doubt is to let doubt express itself and also to learn when not to. |
So how does one have an insight into this, into violence? Without analysis - you understand, you see the problem? Because if you analyse, as we went into it, if you escape from it, and so on, they are all forms of the activity of thought which avoids the solution of 'what is'. Right? You understand? For god's sake, come on! And how do I, or you, have an insight into this question of violence? What is the state of the mind - please listen - what is the state of your mind when you are looking at 'what is'? You understand what I am saying? I am asking you: what is the state of your mind when you are not escaping, not trying to transform, or deform 'what is'? What is the state of that mind that is looking? I may say something which may be shocking, but please go into it with me. The state of the mind that has an insight is completely empty. Right? Because it is free from escapes, free from suppression, analysis and so on. So when all these burdens are taken away - right? - because you see the absurdity of them, it is like taking away a heavy burden, so there is freedom. Freedom implies an emptiness to observe. Right? And that emptiness gives you insight into violence - not the various forms of violence, the whole nature of violence and the structure of violence, and therefore there is immediate action about violence, which means you are free completely from all violence. You get it? For god's sake, get it! Have you understood? Is your mind, when you look at 'what is', greed, envy, jealousy, whatever it is, is it empty to observe so that there is instant insight and action, and therefore freedom from 'what is' - get it? |
We are not playing intellectual games, (laughs) or analytical games. We are concerned with the awakening of intelligence. As I said, intelligence means, according to the dictionary, reading between the lines. See what is implied in reading between the lines. That you must be so awakened so as not to be caught by words, but to see clearly, see the clarity in which there is no print. You get it? I wonder. Because in between the lines there is no printing, and there is only white space, which is clarity. And that clarity if you have, gives you insight into what is being said on the page. And insight implies observing 'what is' with a mind that is completely free and therefore empty to observe 'what is' - and therefore you have an insight. That is, when you are violent - please follow this - when you are violent and you do not escape from violence, avoid it, try to transform it into some nonsensical non-violence and so on, so on, then you are free of all that burden. Being free the mind is empty, that emptiness gives you insight. And when you have insight into violence you are no longer violent. You see without effort - that is what I want to get at. Are you all too old to follow this? |
So we are pointing out it is possible to live, a daily life, in which there is not a shadow of conflict. You know what it means, to live a life without conflict? See for yourself what it means. Because conflict is the strengthening of the self, the 'me', and therefore there is separation - the 'me' and the 'you', we and they. You understand? So it is possible to live a life without conflict - not because the speaker says so but because you, you have discovered it, it is the truth, not mine or yours. |
So from discontent not to allow that flame to be smothered in any trap, and to understand the nature and the structure of insight. And that can only happen when you are not caught in any trap. Right? |
Now we can move to something else. Quelle heure est-il? Ten past. Is this very clear? Can I go on to something else? Next week we are going to discuss, have a dialogue about all these questions - dialogue, a conversation between two friendly people. I hope you are friends. So we are going to have a dialogue. So if there is anything that is not clear let's discuss it, talk about it. |
The other thing that I would like to go into this morning is sorrow. We have talked about authority; we have talked over together about the desire for security, the nature and the structure of authority; we have talked about fear, pleasure, love. And if we may, we also should talk over together this enormous problem of suffering. I hope you are not tired - are you? We are going to have an insight into suffering. |
There is not only a particular human being with his suffering, there is the suffering of the world. Right? There is suffering through poverty, ignorance; there is suffering brought about through death; there is suffering out of great pity; there is suffering when you see animals tortured, killed, maimed; there is suffering when there is war, thousands of mothers and sisters and wives, girls crying their heart out because we have accepted war - I don't know why we have accepted it, but you have. So wars have brought about immense suffering. The totalitarian, the authoritarian dictators have brought immense suffering. Concentration camps - one may not have been in them but you see it, you know it is happening and you suffer. |
So there are these various kinds of suffering, not only personal but the suffering of the whole of humanity. You are aware of it, aren't you? And we have accepted it. We say love is part of suffering. When you love somebody it brings about suffering. Right? So we are going to question together whether it is possible to be free of all suffering; and when there is this freedom from suffering in the consciousness of each human being who is listening here, then that freedom from suffering brings about a transformation in consciousness and therefore that consciousness, that radical change in consciousness, affects the whole of mankind's suffering. You understand? That is part of compassion - not saying, 'I suffer, my god, my god, my god, why do I suffer? Why should I suffer'? - and from that suffering act neurotically and try to escape from that suffering through various forms of religious, intellectual, social work and so on - escape from it. So we are saying: is it possible for every human being here to be free of this enormous burden of suffering? Where there is suffering you cannot possibly love. That is a truth, a law. When you love somebody and he does something which you - or she does something which you totally disapprove, and you suffer, it shows that you don't love. Right? You understand? I am not laying down the law, (laughs) but see the truth of it. How can I suffer when my wife - if I have a wife, or a girl - who throws me away and goes after somebody else? You understand? And we suffer from that. We get angry, jealous, envious, hateful; and at the same time we say, 'I love my wife' - or my girl. I say such love is not love. Right? So is it possible not to suffer, and yet have immense love, the flowering of it? |
So we are going to find out what suffering is. There is physical suffering. Right? Headaches, operations, malformed bodies, accidents that bring about amputation, or some form of ugly deformity. There is suffering from the various unfulfilled desires - I hope you are following all this. There is suffering from the loss of a person whom you think you love. After all what is the structure and the nature and the essence of suffering? You understand? The essence of it, not the various forms of it. What is the essence of suffering? I am asking myself for the first time. I am going to find out, together we are going to find out. Is it not the total expression at that moment of complete self-centred existence? What do you say? It is the essence of the 'me', the essence of the ego, the person, the limited, enclosed, resisting existence which you call the 'me' - the form, the name, all that. When there is an incident that demands investigation and understanding, and insight, that very incident brings about the awakening of the 'me', the essence, and that I call suffering. What do you say? If there was no me, would you suffer? You would help, you would do all kinds of things, but you wouldn't suffer. |
So suffering then is the expression of the 'me', which includes self-pity, loneliness, trying to escape, trying to be with the other who is gone - all that is implied which is the very me, which is the past. The image of the past which is me, the knowledge, the remembrance of the past, which is me. So what relationship has suffering, the essence of the 'me', to love? Please think it out, let's think it out together. We are asking: is there any relationship between love and suffering? Is love put together by thought, whereas the 'me' is put together by thought. Oh, come on! I see something. Are we following? |
Is love put together by thought? - the experience, the memories, the remembrances, the pain, the delight, the pleasures, and the pursuit of pleasure, sexual or otherwise, the pleasures of possession, possessing somebody and the somebody liking being possessed - all that is the structure of thought, which we have gone into. And the 'me' with its name, with its form, the essence of me is the nature and structure put together by thought. Obviously. So what is the relationship between love and suffering? If love is not put together by thought - please go into this, put your heart into this - if love is not put together by thought then suffering has no relationship to it, therefore action from love is different from action from suffering - get it? Why am I so intense about all this? Why aren't you so intense? |
So to have an insight - please follow this - to have an insight into suffering, which means what place has thought in relationship to love, and in relationship to suffering? Right? To have an insight into it, which means you are neither escaping, wanting comfort, frightened to be lonely, isolated, therefore your mind is free; therefore that which is free is empty. And therefore if you have that emptiness, which means freedom, you have an insight into suffering. Therefore suffering as the 'me' disappears. There is immediate action because that is so. So your action then is from love, not from suffering. You get what I am talking about? Gee Whillikins... Bene signora? |
Then one discovers that action from suffering is a continued action of the 'me' modified, and therefore constant conflict. Right? You can see the logic of it all, the reason for it. So it is possible to love without a shadow of suffering. And what is the action of compassion? You understand? If love is not the result of thought, thought which is the response of memory stored up in the brain as knowledge and experience, that thought is not love - right? - and our action is based on thought. Now. I must do this, this is my motive, I will - you follow? - it is based on the movement and the modification of thought. When thought is not love, then what is the action of compassion, love? We can say then, from there, what is the action of an insight out of which there is intelligence? We are saying compassion is intelligence. What is the action of intelligence - which is not the outcome of thought? Right? What is the action of intelligence? Can you ask such a question? If you have intelligence it is operating, it is functioning, it is acting. But to say, what is the action of intelligence, you want thought to be satisfied. Right? You see what I mean? Look, when you say what is the action of compassion - who is asking it? Is it not thought? Is it not the 'me' that is saying, if I could have this compassion I will act differently? Therefore when you put that question you are still thinking in terms of thought. But if you have an insight into thought then thought has its right place and intelligence then acts. Have you got it for this morning? |
Is that enough for this morning? It is enough for me, (laughter) for the speaker. So see sirs, what is implied in all this: how important it is that there should be a radical revolution, psychological revolution, because no politics, no government, no Lenin, Marx, nobody is going to solve any of our problems - the human problems from which every misery comes, from a human being who is functioning, living, operating, acting on thought. And when you have an insight into thought then you also have an insight into the nature and the beauty of love; and from there, action from that. |
So. There is a nice story of a preacher, a teacher - perhaps some of you have heard it from me, if you have heard it please forgive me for repeating it - there was a teacher and his disciples. Every morning he used to talk to the disciples, give a sermon. And one morning he gets on the rostrum, on the pedestal, and as he was just about to begin a bird comes in and sits on the window sill and begins to sing. And the preacher stops talking and listens to the bird, the beauty of the sound, the blue sky and the quietness of that song. And the bird flies away. So he turns to his disciples and says, 'The morning sermon is over'. Right? |
I would like to, if I may, this evening talk about many things. Perhaps they are interrelated. The speaker doesn't know where to begin. Most of us, the average person, is wasting his life. This awful climate. Most of us waste our lives. We have got a great deal of energy and we are wasting it. We spend our days in the office, in the kitchen, or in digging in a garden, a lawyer's life, or the life of a sannyasi, or the life of an average person seems, at the end of one's life, utterly meaningless - please don't take photographs - without much significance. When one looks back, when one is fifty, or eighty, or ninety, what has one done with one's life? Life has a most extraordinary significance, of great beauty, great suffering, anxiety, accumulating money, working from eight or nine to five for the rest of one's life. At the end of it all, what have we got out of life? Money, sex, the constant conflict of existence, the weariness, the travail, unhappiness, frustrations - that is all we have. Perhaps occasional joy, or you love someone completely, wholly, without any sense of the self, the 'me' and you. |
And there seems to be so little justice in the world. Philosophers have talked a great deal about justice. The social workers are talking about justice. The average man wants justice. But is there justice in life at all? You are clever, well placed, good mind, nice looking, you have everything you want. And another has nothing. You are well educated, sophisticated, free to do what you want. Another is a cripple, poor in mind and in heart. You are capable of writing, speaking, a good human being. The other is not. This has been a problem of thinkers, of philosophers. The word 'philosophy' means the love of truth, love of life. And perhaps truth is in life, not away from life, not in books, not in some ideas, but truth is where we are, and how we live that life. And when you look around, life seems so empty, meaningless to most people. And can man ever have justice? Here the speaker is sitting on a platform and you are just listening, that is not just. He has been all over the world, talked, televised and you will never have a chance like that. It is most unfair, it is degrading. And so we are asking if there is any justice in the world at all. You are fair, I am dark. You are bright, aware, sensitive, full of feelings, you love a beautiful sunset, the glory of a moon, the astonishing light on the water, you see all that and I don't. You are reasonable, sane, healthy, another is not. So one asks seriously if there is justice in the world at all. |
And before law you are all equal, but some are more equal than others. Others have not sufficient money to employ good lawyers. So there is, apparently observing all this in the world, there is very little justice. Some are born high, others lowly, and where is justice then? It appears there is justice only when there is compassion. And as we pointed out the other day when we met here, compassion is the ending of suffering and that compassion in not born out of any religion or belonging to any cult. You can't be a Hindu with all your superstitions and invented gods and yet be compassionate, you cannot. Compassion, to have compassion there must be freedom, complete, total freedom from all conditioning. Is that possible? The human brain is conditioned after millions of years. That is a fact. And the more we acquire knowledge about all the things of the earth and heaven, it seems we get more and more bogged down. And if there is compassion, with it there is that intelligence, and that intelligence has the vision of justice. You see we have invented the word 'Karma', next life. We are going to go into that question presently. And we think by inventing a word, a system, a something that is to happen in the future, we have solved the problem of justice. Justice begins only when the mind is very clear, when there is compassion. And our brain, which is a very complex instrument, is not yours or the speaker's brain, it is the brain of humanity. Your brain has not developed from when you are born till now. That brain has evolved through endless time. So our consciousness which the brain holds is not personal. This consciousness, as we pointed out earlier, is the ground of all human beings, on which they stand. |
And when you observe this consciousness with its content - the beliefs, the dogmas, the theories, the concepts, the fears, the pleasures, the agonies, the loneliness, the depression and despairs, all that is our consciousness. It is not your consciousness, it is not the individual that holds this consciousness. Please, it is logical, look at it sanely, rationally. We are so conditioned to think that it is our brain, mine and yours, that we are separate individuals. We are not. We have been talking about it a great deal. Our brains are so conditioned through education, through religion, that we think we are a separate entity, with separate souls, separate this and that. We are not individuals at all. We are the result of thousands of years of human experience, human endeavour, human struggle. And is it possible for the brain to uncondition itself? We are conditioned, therefore we are never free. As long as I live in a concept, in a conclusion, with certain ideas or ideals, the brain is not free and therefore there is no compassion. Where there is freedom from all conditioning, which is, not being a Hindu, a Christian, a Muslim or a Buddhist, not being caught in any specialization though specialization is necessary, not give one's life entirely to money, as long as the brain is conditioned, which it is now, there is no freedom for man. You cannot ascend as some philosophers and biologists are saying, there is no ascent of man through knowledge. Knowledge is necessary, to drive a car, to do business, to go from here to your home, the accumulation of technological knowledge and all that is necessary. But the psychological knowledge, the knowledge that one has gathered about oneself, through experience, culminating in memory, memory which is the result of external pressures and inward demands. |
Please, as we said the other day, and if we may again repeat: this is not a lecture, where you are told what to do, what to think, how to think and so on. This, we are observing together. Not resisting each other, not clinging to our own particular opinions, knowledge and concepts but together looking at the world and ourselves in the world. So it is not a lecture. We are thinking together, not along any particular direction, or coming to any conclusion. But when one observes purely without any barrier, without any impediment, without any prejudice, then that observation itself finds the answer to all our problems. So please bear in mind that we are walking along the same path, looking at the same thing, like two friends talking over their problems amicably, in a friendly spirit, where there is no division between the two of them. Then we can communicate deeply, not merely verbally but non-verbally also, which is much more important. So please, if one may point out, bear that in mind when we are talking over together this evening. |
And as we began, our life is broken up, fragmented, divided, it is never whole, we never have holistic observation. We observe from a particular point of view. We are, in ourselves we are broken up. Our life is a contradiction in itself, and therefore there is constant conflict. And we never look at life as a whole, complete, indivisible. The word 'whole' means healthy - to be healthy. And also the word means sanity, and also it means holy - H-O-L-Y. That word has great significance. It is not the various parts getting integrated in our human consciousness. We are always trying to integrate various contradictions but is it possible - we are conversing with each other, we are asking each other: is it possible to look at life as a whole? The suffering, the pleasure, the pain, the tremendous anxiety, loneliness, suffering, going to the office, having a house, babies, sex, not as though they were separate activities, but a holistic movement, a unitary action - is that possible at all? Or must we everlastingly live in fragmentation and therefore ever in conflict? |
Is it possible to observe the fragmentation and the identification with those fragments? To observe, not correct, not transcend, not run away from it or suppress it, to observe. Our life is so fragmented, broken up, divided - to look at it, not what to do about it because if you attempt to do 'what to do about it' you are really then acting from a fragment and therefore you are cultivating fragments, divisions. Whereas if one can observe holistically, observe the whole movement of life as one, then conflict not only ceases with its destructive energy but also out of that observation a totally new approach to life comes. We are talking about our daily life, not some philosophy, not some ideas, not some conclusions. We are talking as two people about our lives. Our lives are broken up. I wonder if one is aware of it at all. And if one is aware then one asks: how am I to bring all this together to make a whole? And who is the entity that's to bring all these various parts and integrate them? You are following all this? Who is the entity that is trying to bring all the various, divided fragments together? The entity, is he not also a fragment? Thought is a fragment. Please understand - shall we go into that? Do you see that? Thought itself is a fragment because knowledge is never complete about anything. And knowledge is the result of accumulated memory and thought is the response of that memory and therefore it is limited. And thought can never bring about a holistic observation of life. |
So can one observe the fragment, the many fragments that we have, which is our daily life, look at it? You are a professor, or you are a teacher, or you are merely a householder, a sannyasi who renounces the world and goes off - these are fragments of our daily life. And to observe the whole movement of these fragments, their separative ends, separative motives, to observe them all. And we said, also, during these talks, to observe without the observer. The observer is the past, the accumulated memories, remembrances, incidents. He is all that past. That is time. The past is looking at this fragmentation and the past is also the result of other fragmentations. Are you following all this? Are we talking together in all this? So can one observe without time, without the remembrances of the past and without the word? Because the word is the past, the word is not the thing and so we are always looking through words, through explanations, which are a movement of words. So we never have a direct perception. And that direct perception is insight. And that insight transforms the brain cells themselves. Our brain is conditioned through time and functions in knowledge. And it is caught in that cycle. And to bring about a transformation in the very structure of the cells, which scientists are asking, discussing - we have talked with some of the scientists and it is possible to bring about a mutation in the brain cells themselves when there is pure observation of any problem. |
And, as we also said the other day, we are masters of time. We have created time. Not the time of the sun and the sunset, not the rising and the waning of the moon, but the psychological time, the inward time that man, that thought has put together. We are masters of that time. Please this is important to understand because we are going to deal with something much more, very complex, which is death. We are going to talk about it presently. And that is why we must understand the nature of time which man has created. Time as hope, time as achievement, psychologically. You need time to learn a skill, you need time to learn a language, you need time to learn certain technological, complex problems, there you need time, there you need knowledge, there you need application. But we are asking why human beings psychologically, inwardly, have created time. Time when I will be good, time when I will be free of violence, time as achieving enlightenment, time as achieving some exalted state of mind, time as meditation. We have invented that time, therefore we are masters of that time. And when we function within the realm of that time we are bringing about a contradiction and hence conflict. Time is conflict. I wonder if you understand all this. |
So we are the masters of time - that is really a great discovery if one realises the truth of that: that we are the past, the present and the future, which is time. Time as psychological knowledge. And we have divided life, the living and the dying. We have created a distance between life, that is, our living, the living in our consciousness and the distance as time, which is death. That is, I am living with all my problems and death is something that is to be avoided, postponed, put at a great distance, which is another fragmentation of our life. Right? |
We are saying: to observe holistically, as a whole movement of life, which is to live, the living and the dying, the whole of it, that is our life. And we cling to life and avoid, run away, don't even talk about it. So we have fragmented our life, not only superficially, physically, but also we have separated ourselves from death. And what is death? We are going to enquire together into that because that's part of our life. |
One may be frightened, one may want to avoid it, one may want to prolong living, and they are doing it, perhaps another fifty years or hundred years you may add to your life but always at the end of it there is that, called death. So we must enquire together: what is living? What is living, which is our consciousness? The consciousness is made up of its content. The content is not different from consciousness. Our consciousness is what you believe, your superstition, your ambition, your greed, your competition, your attachment, your suffering, the depth of loneliness, your gods, the rituals, all that is your consciousness, which is you. And that consciousness is not yours, it is the consciousness of humanity. That is, you are the world and the world is you. Your neighbour suffers, you suffer. Your neighbour goes through most difficult times and you may not, but you also go through difficult times. Your neighbour may fail, be anxious, lonely, and you will go through that too. So you are your consciousness with its content. That content is the ground upon which all humanity stands. Therefore psychologically, inwardly, you are not an individual. Outwardly you may have a different form, you may be pink, yellow, brown, black, purple, whatever it be, tall, short, woman, man, but inwardly, deeply, we are similar. Perhaps with some variations but the similarity is like a string that holds the pearls together. |
And in examining our living, which we must, to comprehend what is living, we are asking what is living? Then we can ask what is dying? What is before is more important rather than what happens after death. What happens before, not the last minute. It may be an accident, a disease, old age and the end. Before the end, long before the end, what is living? Is this living travail, conflict, without any relationship with each other? That relationship like two parallel lines running, never meeting except perhaps sexually. This sense of deep inward loneliness and that is what we call living - the conflict, the pain, the anxiety, the agony, the loneliness, and the immense suffering. Going to the office from eight o'clock, nine o'clock, until five o'clock day after day, day after day, month after month, what happens to your brain? And this is what we call living. And to escape from that living, so-called living, you go off to churches, temples, mosques, pray, worship, which is utterly meaningless. Or, if you have money you indulge in extravagance, the extravagance of this country in marriage. You know all the tricks you play to escape from your own consciousness, from your own state of mind. And this is what is called living. And death is the ending, the ending of everything that you know: every attachment, all the money you have accumulated, you can't take it with you, therefore you are frightened. Fear is part of our life. We went into that very deeply the other day. And so whatever you are, however rich, however poor, however highly placed, whatever power you have, whatever kind of politician you are, from the highest politician down to the lowest crook in politics, this is the end, which is called death. |
Subsets and Splits