strings
stringlengths 6
7.65k
|
|---|
Though I talk and you listen, let us experience and discover together what is meditation. I am not going to teach you how to meditate, but together let us find out what is meditation. So, listen and experience as we go along, for words have meaning only when we move, when we journey together. |
What is -meditation? Meditation is the understanding of the meditator; the meditator is the meditation. Meditation is not exclusion, concentration. What do you mean by concentration? I am going to explain. We are taking a journey together. You are discovering and I am discovering, and the important thing is to discover, not merely to copy, to follow. Most of us consider that concentration is meditation, but it is not, and I will show you why it is not. Concentration means exclusion - focusing on one interest to the exclusion of other interests. You concentrate and resist, so concentration is the focusing of resistance. You try to concentrate on a picture, on an image, on an idea, and your mind wanders to other interests; and the exclusive resistance of the various interests you call meditation. Surely, that concentration is not meditation, because in that effort there is conflict between that which resists and that which encroaches. That is, you spend your time in resisting, in battling, in disciplining against something. You spend days and years in this battle until at last you can focus your mind on the object of your desire. The object of your desire is self-projected, it is part of the thought process, it is of your own creation, and on that you try to focus; so, you are concentrating upon yourself, though you call it the ideal. Therefore it is an enclosing, exclusive process. |
Now, meditation is not exclusion. We are discovering what meditation is interrogatively; to say what it is, is merely to copy. Only when you say what it is not, you say what it is. So, concentration is not meditation. When a schoolboy is interested in a toy, he has concentration. Surely, that is not meditation. The toy is not God, and the pursuit of virtue is not meditation. Let us see then what that means. The cultivation of virtue - is that virtue? To cultivate goodness - is that virtue? To say "I am going to be brotherly" and meditate upon brotherliness - is that virtue? Such meditation upon virtue is merely self-calculation. Virtue implies freedom, and you are not free when you are plotting to become virtuous. So, the man who meditates daily to become virtuous is not virtuous. It is a cloak, which is mere respectability. Sir, when you talk of humility, are you really humble, or are you only taking the cloak of humility? Do you know what it is to be humble? You cannot cultivate it. You cannot cultivate non-greediness. Because you are greedy, you want to be nongreedy. How can stupidity become intelligence? Where there is stupidity, there is no intelligence. Stupidity is what it is under all circumstances. Only with the ending of stupidity is there intelligence; only with the ending of greed is there freedom from greed. Therefore, virtue is freedom, not becoming something, which is endless continuity. |
So, we see that concentration is not meditation, that pursuit of virtue is not meditation. Devotion obviously is not meditation, for the object of your devotion is self-projected. Your ideal is the outcome of your own thinking. Obviously, sir, your ideal is self-projected, is it not? You are this, and you want to become that. The that of your becoming is out of yourself, out of your own desire. You are violent, and you want to become nonviolent. The ideal is within yourself. Therefore, your ideal is homemade. Therefore, when you give your devotion to the ideal, you are giving devotion to the thing which you have created. So, your devotion is self-gratification. You are not devoted to something which you do not like, which is painful. You are devoted to something which gives you pleasure, which means, obviously, that it is self-created, and therefore that is not meditation. And it is not meditation to search for truth, because you cannot search for something which you do not know. You can only search for that which you know. If you know truth, it is no longer truth. What you know is the outcome of the past, of memory, therefore it is not truth. Therefore, when you say, "Through meditation I am seeking truth," you are merely burdening the mind with your own creation, which is not truth. So, concentration, devotion, the pursuit of virtue, the search for truth, is not meditation. Then, what is meditation? The things that we have been doing regularly, practicing, disciplining, forcing the mind - obviously all that is not meditation because in it there is no freedom, and only in freedom can truth come into being. Nor is prayer meditation, as we have discussed previously. When all that superstructure is removed from the mind - the pursuit of the ideal, the search for truth, the becoming virtuous, the concentration, the effort, the discipline, the condemning, the judging - when all that is gone, what is the mind? When that is not, the meditator is not; therefore, there is meditation. When the meditator is not, there is meditation, but the meditator can never meditate. He can only meditate upon himself, project himself, think about himself, but he knows no meditation. When the meditator understands himself and comes to an end, only then is there meditation, for the ending of the meditator is meditation. Concentration, seeking truth, becoming virtuous, condemning, judging, disciplining - all that is the process of the meditator, and without understanding the process of the meditator, there is no meditation. Therefore, without self-knowledge there is no meditation. There is no meditation without tranquillity of mind, but tranquillity does not come about through the seeking or the directing of the meditator. When the whole, total process of the meditator is not, then there is a silence that is not brought about by the mind as an idea, as an ideal, which is self-projected gratification. But when the projector, the meditator, the self, is completely absent, wholly ended, then there is silence which is not the product of the mind. Meditation is that silence which comes into being when the meditator and his processes are understood. That silence is inexhaustible; it is not of time, therefore it is immeasurable. Only the meditator compares, judges, measures; but when the measurement is not, the immeasurable is. Therefore, only when the mind is completely silent, completely still, tranquil, not projecting, not thinking - only then does the measureless come into being. But that measureless is not to be thought of. What you think about is the known, and the known cannot understand the unknown. Therefore, only when the known ends does the unknown come into being. Then only is there bliss. |
As this is the last talk here I think we ought to consider the question of religion, its relationship to daily life and whether there is something, or not, an unnameable, a timeless state of mind. One can call it enlightenment, a realisation of the absolute truth and so on. And we will this morning, if we may, go into this question, not only of meditation but also whether the mind, the human mind, can ever find, come upon, or discover, something that is incorruptible, that is not put together by the human mind with its thought, something that must exist, which will give a perfume, a beauty, a loveliness to life. Man, if you observe throughout history, has been seeking in so many different ways, something beyond this ordinary life, beyond this world. He has done everything possible - fasted, tortured himself, every form of neurotic behaviour, worshipped legends and their heroes, accepted authority of another who said, 'I know the way, follow me'. Man, whether he is in the West or in the East, has always enquired into this question. Of course the intellectuals, specially the modern intellectuals spit upon the word 'religion'. To them it is some neurotic enquiry which has no value whatsoever. To them it is some form of hysteria, some form of make-belief; and religion, to them, is something to be totally avoided. Because they see around them such absurdities in the name of religion, such incredible behaviour, without reason, without any substance behind their activity. And the intellectuals, the philosophers, the psychologists, and the analysts prefer to deal with human beings who will conform to the pattern, or to the pattern that is already established, or the pattern which they think is right. You must have observed all this in different ways. |
But the intellect is only part of life, it has its normal place, but apparently human beings right throughout the world have given such extraordinary importance to the intellect - the intellect being the capacity to reason, to logically pursue, establish an activity based on reason and logic. But I am afraid human beings are not merely intellectual entities. They are a whole complex, confused human beings. |
So religion has become something to be avoided, something of superstition, destructive of logic and sanity. But man, if you have observed, and we must have observed, wants to find something that is both rational, and has depth, a full meaning, not invented by the intellect. And he has always from the ancient of days sought out, enquired, and perhaps this morning, and it is a lovely morning, clear blue sky, the hills, the waters, and the light of California. When you see all this beauty, what has beauty to do with religion? And what is religion? What is a religious mind? And it is important, it seems to me, to enquire into this. We are asking what is religion, not the organised religion. Religion which is organised is a business affair, with a central figure and a priest in between you and the reality. It is a vast machinery, not only in this country and in Europe, and also in Asia, it is a vast machinery to condition the human mind according to certain belief, dogma, ritual and superstition. It is a very profitable business, and we accept it, because we want in our life which is so empty, which lacks beauty, we want romantic, mystical legend. And we worship legends, the myths. But the myth, the legend, all the edifices man has built, both physically as well as psychologically, has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. |
And in enquiring, if you are at all serious, what is a religious mind, what is its place in the modern world, has it any relationship to daily life, which is so ugly, so empty, so brutal. If you are - and I hope some of you are - really, deeply serious in your enquiry, not through books, not through argument, not through comparing what one teacher has said or another, and if you are at all deeply concerned, then one must obviously put away all the legends, however pleasant, however satisfying, however comforting; actually put them away totally. And when you do that you do not belong to any organised religion, which doesn't mean that you become a non-believer; a believer and a non-believer are the same. But when one sees what legends have done to the human mind, whether the Christian legend or the Hindu legend, or the Buddhist and so on, they have broken up the human mind, they have separated, though they talk of unity, love and beauty and all the rest of it, they have actually put man against man - how many religious wars there have been! Probably, if you observe, the Christians have killed more human beings than anybody else. It is rather surprising, isn't it? Not only killed animals but human beings. And religions, as organised business propagandist affair have nothing whatsoever to do with reality. |
So a mind that is really serious, with all the intensity of a mind that is eager to find out, must obviously put away all belief, all belief in God, put aside all the myths, the legends, the saviours, the gurus, so that the mind is not dependent, so that it can seek, or find out, be capable to observe without any delusion. Can you do this? Because we like to be deceived, we are very gullible people, specially in this country. Though you may be highly sophisticated in one direction, you are extraordinarily, if I may point out, gullible, eager to accept some exotic, new oriental mysticism. And you are caught in your enquiry by somebody who is very assertive, who explains beautifully. And can you, if you are serious, put away all this? Because if the mind can be deceived, if the mind can create its own illusions, be deceptive, and live in deception, thinking that it is real, then such a mind is incapable of coming upon something, if there is something, beyond time. |
So, what makes for illusion? Why do human beings accept so eagerly every kind of false, stupid - I don't know what word to use - make-belief? You have in this country, I do not know, how many gurus, both the native kind and the foreign kind. (Laughter) They go off to India, shave their head, put on a robe and become a guru. It is a very profitable thing - and they have come from India. And these people should know better, for there, religion used to be something very, very real, not something to be played with; something that was never used for money. And being gullible, wanting to find something new, because you are tired of the old - the old rituals, the old gods, the old legends, in this country you try to find something new, a new entertainment. And when you are seeking to be entertained, whether physically or psychologically or religiously, then you are bound to be deceived. |
So deception exists, or the power of being deceived comes into being when you desire to achieve something, when you want something. So that is the first thing to realise, that when you are seeking, enquiring into this mind which is religious, which man has sought from time immemorial, there must be no deception whatsoever. And that means no desire to achieve, to become, to grasp, to attain. And that is very difficult because we see what is happening around the world, we see how life is transient, so meaningless and we want something that endures, that has beauty, that has substance which is not the substance of thought. And so wanting that we are caught in illusion. So that is the first thing to realise: that the mind in its enquiry must be totally free from all desire to achieve, to attain, to become. |
And naturally one must be free of all belief and organised structural enquiry, and you have done that. Then what is the mind that is free from all the human endeavour, what is the mind which has really put aside everything that man has created in his search for this thing called a reality? You know this is one of the most difficult things to put into words. But words must be used and also communication is not only verbal but non-verbal. That is, both you and the speaker must, at the same time, at the same level, with the same intensity enquire, then communion is possible between you and the speaker. And we are trying to commune not only non-verbally but also verbally into this question, which is extraordinarily complex, needs clear, objective thinking, and also to go beyond all thought. |
Our consciousness is its content, its content is consciousness. The content of your consciousness is what you think daily, how you behave, what you do with regard to your daily labour, and so on. The content of you, your consciousness is consciousness. The content is not separate from consciousness. It is one. And that content has been cultivated, put there, for centuries. It has evolved, always within the field of time. |
I hope you don't mind if we become rather serious because you see we are going to talk about meditation, and meditation is not for the immature. The immature can play with it, and they do now, sit cross-legged, breathe in a certain way, stand on your head, you know all the tricks that one plays. Take drugs in order to experience something original, and all such activity is utterly immature because through drugs, through fasting, through any system you can never find, or come upon that which is eternal, timeless. But in this country it is becoming more and more apparent that you are craving for experience because you are bored with daily life, with the daily experience and you want something much more, and you think there is a short cut to all this. There isn't. One has to work hard, one has to become aware enormously of what one is doing, what one is thinking without any distortion. And all that requires great maturity - maturity not of age but the maturity of a mind, that is capable of observation, seeing the false as the false, and the true in the false, and truth as truth. That is maturity, whether in the political field, or in the business world, or in your relationship. |
And we are going to talk over together, and share perhaps, this enquiry into not only what is the religious mind, but also into what is meditation. Probably most of you have heard that word, or have read something about it, or follow some guru who tells you what to do. And I wish that you had never heard that word. Then your mind would be fresh to enquire. But now that you have been contaminated, now that some of you have been to India, and I don't know why you go to India (laughter), truth isn't there, there is romance, but romance is not truth, truth is where you are, not in some foreign country - where you are. Truth is what you are doing, how you are behaving, it is there, not in shaving your head and oh, good lord, all those stupid things that man has done. |
So we are going to enquire together into this question of meditation. Why should you meditate? The meaning of that word is to ponder, to think over, to look, to perceive, to see clearly. To see clearly, to observe without distortion there must be an awareness of your background, of your conditioning. Just to be aware of it, not to change it, not to alter it, not to transform it or be free of it, but just to observe. And in that observation to see clearly without distortion the whole content of consciousness, and that is the beginning and the ending of meditation. The first step is the last step. |
Why should one meditate and what is meditation? You know if you saw this morning, out of your window, the extraordinary beauty of the morning light, the distant mountains, and the light on that water, if you observed without the word, without saying to yourself, 'How beautiful that is', if you observed completely, were totally attentive in that observation, your mind must have been completely quiet, otherwise you cannot observe, otherwise you cannot listen. So meditation is the quality of mind that is completely attentive and silent. It is only then that you can see the flower, the beauty of it, the colour of it, the shape of it, and it is only then the distance between you and the flower ceases. Not that you identify yourself with the flower, but the time element that exists between you and that, the distance disappears. And you can only observe very clearly when there is non-verbal, non-personal, but an attentive, observation in which there is no centre as the 'me'. That is meditation. |
Now this requires a great enquiry, whether you can observe non-verbally, without distortion, without 'me' as memory interfering. You know that implies thought must not interfere in observation. That is, to observe without the image in your relationship with another, to observe another without the image which you have built about the other. I do not know if you have tried it, we have talked about it. When you observe another without the image, the image is you, the you which have accumulated various impressions, various reactions about another, that forms the image and so divides you from the other. And this division brings conflict. But when there is no image you can observe the other with a total sense of attention, in which there is love, compassion and therefore no conflict. That is the observation without the observer. In the same way to observe a flower, everything about one, without division, for division implies conflict, and this division exists as long as thought becomes all important. And for most of us thought and the movement of thought, the activity of thought, is important. |
And so the question arises: can thought be controlled? You have to control thought so as not to allow it to interfere, but allow thought to function in its proper place. Control implies suppression, direction, following a pattern, imitation, conformity. All that is implied in control. And from childhood you have been trained to control, and in reaction to that, the modern world says, 'I won't control, I'll do anything I want' - we are not talking about doing what one wants, that is absurd. And it is also absurd, this whole system of control. Control exists only when there is no understanding. When you see something very clearly there is no need for control. If I see very clearly, my mind sees very clearly how thought interferes, how thought always separates, when I see very clearly the function of thought, which is always in the field of the known, then that very observation prevents all control of thought. |
And the word 'discipline' means to learn, discipline means to learn, not as it is accepted now, which becomes mechanical. Again in discipline there is conformity - as it is accepted now. We are talking about a mind that is free from control and is capable of learning. Where there is learning there is no necessity at all for any kind of control. That is, as you are learning you are acting. So a mind that is enquiring into this nature of meditation must be always learning, and therefore learning brings its own order. You know order is necessary in life. Order is virtue. Order in behaviour is righteousness. Order is not the order which is imposed by society, by a culture, by environment, by compulsion or obedience. Order is not a blueprint but order comes into being when you understand not only in yourself but about you, disorder. Through the negation of disorder is order. Therefore we must look at disorder, the disorder of our life, the contradictions in ourselves, the opposing desires, say one thing, do another, think another. |
So in understanding, in looking at disorder, being aware, attentive, choicelessly of disorder, order comes naturally, easily, without any effort. And order, such order is necessary. |
So meditation is a process of life in which relationship with each other is clear, without any conflict. Meditation is the understanding of fear, of pleasure. Meditation is that thing called love, and the freedom from death, which we talked about yesterday morning; and the freedom to stand completely alone, and that is one of the greatest things in life, because if you cannot stand alone you are not free. I mean stand alone inwardly, psychologically. That aloneness is not isolation, a withdrawal from the world. That aloneness comes into being when you totally negate, actually, not verbally but do it actually with your life, all the things that man has put together in his fear, in his pleasure, in his search for something that is beyond this daily routine of life. |
Then you will see, if you have gone that far, that the mind, not having any illusion, not following anybody, and therefore is free of all sense of authority. It is only such a mind can open the door. It is only such a mind that can see if there is, or if there is not a timeless quality. |
Therefore it is important to understand the question of time. Obviously there is the daily chronological time. We are not talking about that, that is fairly simple and clear. But is there psychological time, the time of tomorrow, that is, I will be something, or I will attain, I will succeed; the idea of time being from here to there. Or is it an invention of thought, this whole idea of progress? There is obviously progress, which unfortunately the business world has turned into profit. There is progress from the bullock cart, the wheel to the jet, but is there psychological progress - the 'me' becoming better, nobler, wiser? The 'me' which is the past - please follow this a little bit, if you are interested - the 'me' which is the past, the 'me' which has accumulated so many things, the insults, flatteries, pain, knowledge, suffering - the 'me', can that progress to a better state? And to advance from here to the better, time is necessary. To become something time is necessary, but is there such a thing as becoming something? Will you become something better? Better in the sense, better 'me', the 'me' more noble, the 'me' less conflict. But the 'me' is the entity that separates. The 'me' and the 'not me', the 'we' and 'they', the 'me' as the American and the 'me' as the Hindu, or the Russian or whatever it is. So can the 'me' ever become better? Or the 'me' has to cease completely and never think in terms of the better or becoming something more. When you admit the more, the better, you are denying the good. |
So meditation is the total negation of the 'me', so that the mind is never in conflict. And a mind when it is not in conflict is not in that state of peace which is the interval between two conflicts, but a peace - I don't like to use that word 'peace' - but a quality of mind that is free from total conflict. And that is part of meditation. And when you have understood the psychological time then the mind has space. Have you noticed how little space we have, both physically and inwardly? Living in large cities, in cupboards, in narrow space we become more violent because we need space physically. Psychologically also, have you noticed how little space we have inwardly? Because our minds are crowded with imagination, with all the things that we have learnt, with the various forms of conditioning, the influence, the propaganda. We are full of all the things that man has thought about, invented, our own desires, pursuits, ambitions, fears and so on, it is full, and therefore very little space. And meditation, if you go into it very deeply, is the negation of all this, so that there is in that state of attention there is vast space without boundary. Then the mind is silent. You know probably you have learnt from others that you must go through a system of meditation so that the mind becomes silent, that is, practise in order to achieve silence, to attain silence, practise in order to become enlightened, which is called meditation, and such kind of meditation is sheer nonsense. Because when you practise, you see what happens, don't you, that there is the entity that practises over and over and over again, becoming mechanical, more and more and more mechanical, therefore limited, insensitive, dull. And why should you practise? Why should you allow another to come between you and your enquiry? Why should the priest, or your guru, or your book come between you and what you want to find out? Is it fear? Is it that you want somebody to encourage you? Is it that you lean on somebody when you are yourself uncertain? And when you are uncertain and when you lean on somebody for certainty you may be quite sure that you are choosing somebody who is equally uncertain. And therefore the person on whom you lean maintains that he is very certain. He says, 'I know, I have achieved, I am the way, follow me.' So be very careful, beware of a man who says he knows. |
Enlightenment is not a fixed place; there is no fixed place. All that one has to do is to understand the chaos, the disorder in which we live. In the understanding of that we have order, there comes clarity, there comes certainty. And that certainty is not the invention of thought. That certainty is intelligence. And when you have all this, when the mind sees all this very clearly then the door opens. What lies beyond is not nameable. It cannot be described, and anyone who describes it has never seen it, because it cannot be put into words because the word is not the thing, the description is not the described. All that one can do is to be totally attentive in our relationship, and that attention is not possible when there is image; to understand the whole nature of pleasure and fear, and to see that pleasure is not love, and desire is not love. And you have to find out for yourself everything, nobody can tell you. Every religion has said, 'Don't kill'. To you that is just a word - 'Don't kill', but if you are serious you have to find out what it means for yourself. What has been said in the past may be true, but that truth is not yours, you have to find it out, what it means never to kill. You have to find out, you have to learn what it means not to kill, then it is your truth and it is a living truth. In the same way you have to find out for yourself, not through another, not through practice of a system invented by another, nor the acceptance of a guru, of a teacher, of a saviour, but you yourself in your freedom have to see what is truth, what is false, and find out for yourself completely how to live a life in which there is no strife whatsoever. The whole of this is meditation. |
Do you want to ask any questions? Or - just a minute, sir, just a minute - or you have listened a great deal, we have talked about so many things, things that concern our daily life, and having listened what have you learned, what are you learning? Or are you so full of questions that you're not learning? And who is the teacher? If you have a teacher you are not learning. Because you yourself are the teacher; you yourself are the disciple. There is no teacher outside you, and if you can learn from yourself by observing yourself then you don't have to read a single book about yourself. Well, do you want to ask anything? (Laughter) |
Questioner: Krishnamurti, can we go into the relationship between imagination and the quietness of mind? |
Krishnamurti: Could you go into imagination and to the quietness of mind. What is imagination? Why should you imagine at all? 'Imagine' - build images, that's what that word means. Why should you build images at all? Why should you build an image about another? Why should you build an image about the mountains, about the light on the water? There it is. Why should your mind create image about the light on the water? - unless you want to put it on a canvas. And why do you want to put it on a canvas? Is creation - please, this is... I'll go on if you are interested - is creation... does creation demand expression? Or is creation itself expression? One writes a poem; you feel something. You see something extraordinarily beautiful; you hear the nightingale in the wood, and the beauty of it, the silence, the deep woods and the light of the morning - you want to express it. Why? To convey it to another? And when the other reads it and he begins to imagine himself in the wood, through your words and listening to that bird. And what is all this about? Why should I express at all? |
So, what place has imagination to the quiet mind? None at all. When the mind is absolutely quiet - mind being not only the mind, which is thought, the brain, but the heart and the body, the total harmony - when there is a complete sense of harmony, of which there is no recognition as being harmonious. You can never say 'I am harmonious' - then you are not. And when there is such absolute quietness, there is no place for building images. That state itself is the expression and the creation. |
Perhaps this evening we could go into the problem of effort. It seems to me that it is very important to understand the approach we make to any conflict, to any problem with which we are faced. We are concerned, are we not, most of us, with the action of will. And to us, effort is most essential in every form; to us, to live without effort seems incredible, leading to stagnation and to deterioration. And if we can go into that problem of effort, I think perhaps it will be profitable because we may then be able to understand what is truth - without exercising will, without making an effort - by being capable of perceiving directly what is. But to do that, we must understand this question of effort, and I hope we can go into it without any opposition, any resistance. For most of us, our whole life is based on effort, some kind of volition. And we cannot conceive of an action without volition, without effort; our life is based on it. Our social, economic, and so-called spiritual life is a series of efforts, always culminating in a certain result. And we think effort is essential, necessary. So we are now going to find out if it is possible to live differently, without this constant battle. |
Why do we make effort? Is it not, put simply, in order to achieve a result, to become something, to reach a goal? And if we do not make an effort, we think we shall stagnate. We have an idea about the goal towards which we are constantly striving, and this striving has become part of our life. If we want to alter ourselves, if we want to bring about a radical change in ourselves, we make a tremendous effort to eliminate the old habits, to resist the habitual environmental influences, and so on. So we are used to this series of efforts in order to find or achieve something, in order to live at all. |
And is not all such effort the activity of the self? Is not effort self-centered activity? And, if we make an effort from the center of the self, it must inevitably produce more conflict, more confusion, more misery. Yet we keep on making effort after effort. And very few of us realize that the self-centered activity of effort does not clear up any of our problems. On the contrary, it increases our confusion and our misery and our sorrow. We know this. And yet we continue, hoping somehow to break through this self-centered activity of effort, the action of the will. |
That is our problem - is it possible to understand anything without effort? Is it possible to see what is real, what is true, without introducing the action of will? - which is essentially based on the self, the 'me'. And if we do not make an effort, is there not a danger of deterioration, of going to sleep, of stagnation? Perhaps this evening, as I am talking, we can experiment with this individually and see how far we can go through this question. For I feel the thing that brings happiness, quietness, tranquillity of the mind, does not come through any effort. A truth is not perceived through any volition, through any action of will. And if we can go into it very carefully and diligently, perhaps we shall find the answer. |
How do we react when a truth is presented? Take, for example, what we were discussing the other day - the problem of fear. We realize that our activity and our being and our whole existence would be fundamentally altered if there were no fear of any kind in us. We may see that; we may see the truth of it, and thereby there is a freedom from fear. But for most of us, when a fact, a truth, is put before us, what is our immediate response? Please, experiment with what I am saying; please do not merely listen. Watch your own reactions, and find out what happens when a truth, a fact, is put before you - such as, "Any dependency in relationship destroys relationship." Now, when a statement of that kind is made, what is your response? Do you see, are you aware of the truth of it, and thereby dependency ceases? Or have you an idea about the fact? Here is a statement of truth. Do we experience the truth of it, or do we create an idea about it? |
If we can understand the process of this creation of idea, then we shall perhaps understand the whole process of effort. Because, when once we have created the idea, then effort comes into being. Then the problem arises, what to do, how to act? That is, we see that psychological dependency on another is a form of self-fulfillment; it is not love - in it there is conflict, in it there is fear, in it there is dependency, which corrodes; in it there is the desire to fulfill oneself through another, jealousy, and so on. We see that psychological dependency on another embraces all these facts. Then we proceed to create the idea, do we not? We do not directly experience the fact, the truth of it, but we look at it and then create an idea of how to be free from dependency. We see the implications of psychological dependence, and then we create the idea of how to be free from it. We do not directly experience the truth, which is the liberating factor. But, out of the experience of looking at that fact, we create an idea. We are incapable of looking at it directly, without ideation. Then, having created the idea, we proceed to put that idea into action. Then we try to bridge the gap between the idea and action - in which effort is involved. |
So, can we not look at the truth without creating ideas? It is almost instinctive with most of us when something true is put before us to create immediately an idea about it. And I think if we can understand why we do this so instinctively, almost unconsciously, then perhaps we shall understand if it is possible to be free from effort. |
So, why do we create ideas about truth? Surely that is important to find out, is it not? Either we see the truth nakedly, as it is, or we do not. But why do we have a picture about it, a symbol, a word, an image? - which necessitates a postponement, the hope of an eventual result. So, can we hesitantly and guardedly go into this process of why the mind creates the image, the idea? - that I must be this or that, I must be free from dependence, and so on. We know very well that when we see something very clearly, experience it directly, there is a freedom from it. It is that immediacy that is vital, not the picture or the symbol of the truth - on which all systems and philosophies and deteriorating organizations are built. So, is it not important to find out why the mind, instead of seeing the thing directly, simply, and experiencing the truth of it immediately, creates the idea about it? I do not know if you have thought about this. It may perhaps be something new. And to find the truth of it, please do not merely resist. Do not say, "What would happen if the mind did not create the idea? It is its function to create ideas, to verbalize, to recall memories, to recognize, to calculate." We know that. But the mind is not free, and it is only when the mind is capable of looking at the truth fully, totally, completely, without any barrier, that there is a freedom. |
So, our problem is, is it not, why does the mind, instead of seeing the thing immediately and experiencing it directly, indulge in all these ideas? Is this not one of the habits of the mind? Something is presented to us, and immediately there is the old habit of creating an idea, a theory, about it. And the mind likes to live in habit. Because, without habit the mind is lost. If there is not a routine, a habitual response to which it has become accustomed, it feels confused, uncertain. |
That is one aspect. Also, does not the mind seek a result? Because, in the result is permanency. And the mind hates to be uncertain. It is always seeking security in different forms - through beliefs, through knowledge, through experience. And when that is questioned, there is a disturbance, there is anxiety. And so the mind, avoiding uncertainty, seeks security for itself by making efforts to achieve a result. |
I hope you are following all this - not merely listening to me, but actually observing your own minds in operation. If you are only listening to me and not really following what I am talking about, then you will not experience, then it will remain on the verbal level. But if you can, if I may suggest it, observe your own mind in operation and watch how it thinks, how it reacts, when a truth is put before it, then you will experience step by step what I am talking about. Then there will be an extraordinary experience. And it is this direct approach, direct experience of what truth is, that is so essential in bringing about a creative life. |
So, why does the mind create these ideas instead of directly experiencing? That is what we are trying to find out. Why does the mind intervene? We said, it is habit. Also, the mind wants to achieve a result. We all want to achieve a result. In listening to me, are you looking for a result? You are, are you not? So, the mind is seeking a result; it sees that dependency is destructive, and therefore it wants to be free of it. But the very desire to be free creates the idea. The mind is not free, but the desire to be free creates the idea of freedom as the goal towards which it must work. And thereby effort comes into being. And that effort is self-centered; it does not bring freedom. Instead of depending on a person, you depend on an idea or on an image. So, your effort is only self-enclosing; it is not liberating. |
So, can the mind, realizing that it is caught in habit, be free from habit? - not have an idea that it should achieve freedom as an eventual goal, but see the truth that the mind is caught in habit, directly experience it. And similarly, can the mind see that it is pursuing incessantly a permanency for itself, a goal which it must achieve, a god, a truth, a virtue, a being, a state - what you will - and is thereby bringing about this action of will, with all its complications? And when we see that, is it not possible to directly experience the truth of something without all the paraphernalia of verbalization? You may objectively see the fact; in that there is no ideation, no creation of idea, symbol, desire. But subjectively, inwardly, it is entirely different. Because there we want a result; there is the craving to be something, to achieve, to become - in which all effort is born. |
And I feel that to see what is true, from moment to moment, without any effort, but directly to experience it, is the only creative existence. Because it is only in moments of complete tranquillity that you discover something - not when you are making an effort, whether it is under the microscope or inwardly. It is only when the mind is not agitated, caught in habit, trying to achieve a result, trying to become something - it is only when it is not doing that, when it is really tranquil, when there is no effort, no movement, that there is a possibility of discovering something new. |
Surely, that is freedom from the self; that is the abnegation of the 'me' - and not the outward symbols, whether you possess this or that virtue or not. But freedom only comes into being when you understand your own processes, conscious as well as unconscious. And it is possible only when we go fully into the different processes of the mind. And as most of us live in a state of tension, in constant effort, it is essential to understand the complexity of effort, to see the truth that effort does not bring virtue, that effort is not love, that effort does not bring about the freedom which truth alone can give - which is a direct experiencing. For that, one has to understand the mind, one's own mind - not somebody else's mind, not what somebody else says about it. Though you may read all the volumes, they will be utterly useless. For you must observe your own mind, and penetrate into it deeper and deeper, and experience the thing directly as you go along. Because there is the living quality, and not in the things of the mind. Therefore the mind, to find its own processes, must not be enclosed by its own habits, must occasionally be free to look. Therefore it is important to understand this whole process of effort. For effort does not bring about freedom. Effort is only more and more self-enclosing, more and more destructive - outwardly as well as inwardly - in relationship with one or with many. |
Question: I find a regular group that meets to discuss your teachings tends to become confusing and boring. Is it better to think over these things alone, or with others? |
Krishnamurti: What is important? To find out, is it not, to discover for yourself the things about yourself. If that is your urgent, immediate, instinctive necessity, then you can do it with one or with many, by yourself or with two or three. But when that is lacking, then groups become boring things. Then people who come to the groups are dominated by one or two in the group who know everything, who are in immediate contact with the person who has already said these things. So, the one becomes the authority and gradually exploits the many. We know this too familiar game. But people submit to it because they like being together. They like to talk, to have the latest gossip or the latest news. And so, the thing soon deteriorates. You start with a serious intention, and it becomes something ugly. |
But if we are really, insistently needing to discover for ourselves what is true, then all relationship becomes important; but such people are rare. Because, we are not really serious, and so we eventually make of groups and organizations something to be avoided. So it surely depends, does it not, on whether you are really earnest to discover these things for yourself. And this discovery can come at any moment - not only in a group, or only when you are by yourself, but at any moment when you are aware, sensitive to the intimations of your own being. To watch yourself - the way you talk at table, the way you talk to your neighbor, your servant, your boss - surely all these, if one is aware, indicate the state of your own being. And it is that discovery which is important. Because it is that discovery which liberates. |
Question: What would you say is the most creative way of meeting great grief and loss? |
Krishnamurti: What do we mean by "meeting"? You mean, how to approach it, what we should do about it, how to conquer it, how to be free of it, how to derive benefit from it, how to learn from it so as to avoid more suffering? Surely that is what we mean, do we not, by how to "meet" grief? |
Now, what do we mean by "grief? Is it something apart from you? Is it something outside of you, inwardly or outwardly, which you are observing, which you are experiencing? Are you merely the observer experiencing? Or, is it something different? Surely that is an important point, is it not? When I say, "I suffer," what do I mean by it? Am I different from the suffering? Surely that is the question, is it not? Let us find out. |
There is sorrow - I am not loved, my son dies, what you will. There is one part of me that is demanding why, demanding the explanation, the reasons, the causes. The other part of me is in agony for various reasons. And there is also another part of me which wants to be free from the sorrow, which wants to go beyond it. We are all these things, are we not? So, if one part of me is rejecting, resisting sorrow, another part of me is seeking an explanation, is caught up in theories, and another part of me is escaping from the fact - how then can I understand it totally? It is only when I am capable of integrated understanding that there is a possibility of freedom from sorrow. But if I am torn in different directions, then I do not see the truth of it. |
So, it is very important to find out, is it not, whether I am merely the observer experiencing sorrow. Please follow this question slowly and carefully. If I am merely the observer experiencing sorrow, then there are two states in my being - the one who observes, who thinks, who experiences, and the other who is observed - which is, the experience, the thought. So as long as there is a division, there is no immediate freedom from sorrow. |
Now, please listen carefully, and you will see that when there is a fact, a truth, there is understanding of it only when I can experience the whole thing without division - and not when there is the separation of the 'me' observing suffering. That is the truth. Now, what is your immediate reaction to that? Is not your immediate reaction, response, "How am I to bridge the gap between the two?" I recognize that there are different entities in me - the thinker and the thought, the experiencer and the experience, the one who suffers and the one who observes the suffering. And, as long as there is a division, a separation, there is conflict. And it is only when there is integration that there is freedom from sorrow. That is the truth; that is the fact. Now, how do you respond to it? Do you see the thing immediately and experience it directly, or do you ask the question, "How am I to bridge the division between the two entities? How am I to bring about integration?" Is that not your instinctive response? If that is so, then you are not seeing the truth. Then your question of how to bring about integration has no value. For it is only when I can see the thing completely, wholly, without this division in myself, that there is a possibility of freedom from the thing which I call sorrow. |
So, one has to find out how one looks at sorrow. Not what the books or what anybody else says, not according to any teacher or authority, but how you regard it, how you instinctively approach it. Then you will surely find out, will you not, if there really is this division in your mind. So long as there is that division, there must be sorrow. So long as there is the desire to be free from sorrow, to resist sorrow, to seek explanations, to avoid, then sorrow becomes the shadow, everlastingly pursuing. |
So, what is very important in this question is, is it not, how each one of us responds to psychological pain - when we are bereaved, when we are hurt, and so on. We need not go into the causes of sorrow. But we know them very well - the ache of loneliness, the fear of losing, not being loved, being frustrated, the loss of someone. We know all this very well; we are only too familiar with this thing called sorrow. And we have many explanations, very convenient and satisfying. But there is no freedom from sorrow. Explanations do not give freedom. They may cover up, but the thing continues. And we are trying to find out how to be free from sorrow, not which explanations are more satisfactory. There can be freedom from sorrow only if there is an integration. And we cannot understand what integration is unless we are first aware of how we look at sorrow. |
Question: For one who is caught in habit, it seems impossible to see the truth of a thing instantaneously. Surely time is needed - time to break away from one's immediate activity and really seek to go into what has been happening. |
Krishnamurti: Now what do we mean by "time"? Please - again let us experiment. What do we mean by "time"? Obviously not time by the clock. When you say, "I need time," what does it mean? That you need leisure - an hour to yourself, or a few minutes to yourself? Surely, you do not mean that. You mean, "I need time to achieve a result." That is, "I need time to break away from the habits which I have created." |
Now, time is obviously the product of the mind; mind is the result of time. What we think, feel, our memories, are basically the result of time. And you say that time is necessary to break away from certain habits. That is, this inward psychological habit is the outcome of desire and fear, is it not? I see the mind is caught in it, and I say, "I need time to break it down. I realize it is this habit that is preventing me from seeing things immediately, experiencing them directly, and so I must have time to break down this habit." |
First, how does habit come into being? Through education, through environmental influences, through our own memories. And also, it is comfortable to have a mechanism that functions habitually so that it is never uncertain, quivering, inquiring, doubtful, anxious. So, the mind creates the pattern which you call the habit, the routine. And in that it functions. And the questioner wants to know how to break down that habit so that experience can be direct. You see what has happened? The moment he says, "How?" he has already introduced the idea of time. |
But if we can see that the mind creates habits and functions in habit, and that a mind which is enclosed by its own self-created memories, desires, fears, cannot see or experience anything directly - when we can see the truth of that, then there is a possibility of experiencing directly. The perception of the truth is not a matter of time, obviously. That is one of the conveniences of the mind - eventually, next life, I shall reach perfection, whatever I want. So, being caught, then it proceeds to say, "How am I to be free?" It can never be free. It can only be free when it sees the truth of how it creates habit - that is, by tradition, by cultivating virtues in order to be something, by seeking to have permanency, to have security. All these things are barriers. In that state, how can the mind see or experience anything directly? If we see that it cannot, then there is a freedom, immediate freedom. But the difficulty is, is it not, that most of us like to continue in our habits of thought and feeling, in our traditions, in our beliefs, in our hopes. Surely, all those compose our mind. The mind is made up of all those things. How can such a mind experience something which is not its own projection? Obviously it cannot. So, it can only understand its own mechanism and see the truth of its own activities. And when there is freedom from that, then there is a direct experience. |
Question: You have said that neither meditation nor discipline will create a still mind, but only the annihilation of the 'I' consciousness. How can the T annihilate the 'I'? |
Krishnamurti: Surely any movement of the 'I', however lofty, however noble, is still within the field of self-consciousness, is it not? You may divide the 'I' into the higher self and the lower self - the higher dominating, controlling, directing the lower; but it is still within the field of thought, is it not? |
The question is, How can the 'I', the 'me', destroy itself? I am saying that the 'I' is a series of movements, a series of activities, responses, a series of thoughts. And thought may divide itself into the higher and lower, but it is still the process of thinking; it is still within its own field. And, can one part of thought destroy another part? That is, can one part of me put aside, resist, conceal, drive away, the other part which it does not like? Obviously it does; it covers it up. But it is still there in the unconscious. So, any movement of thought, any movement of the 'me', is still within the field of its own consciousness. It cannot destroy itself. All that it can do is to make no movement in any direction. Because, any movement in any direction is to perpetuate itself - under a different name, under a different cloak. |
Please, experiment with what I am talking about. One part of me can say, "I will subjugate anger, jealousy, control my irritability, envy, and so on." One part that controls is desirous of dominating some other part. But it is caught, is it not, within the field of time, and whatever it does is of its own projection. That is fairly clear, surely? If it says, "I must through belief understand God or attain God," it is caught in its own projection, is it not? And so long as the mind, the 'me', is active in projecting, in demanding, in craving, the 'I' cannot destroy itself. It only perpetuates itself. |
If you see the truth of that, then the mind is still. Because, it cannot do anything. Any movement, negatively or positively, is its own projection; therefore, there is no freedom from it. Seeing the truth of that brings about a quietness of the mind which obviously cannot come through any form of self-discipline, through any form of spiritual exercise, because they are all indications of self-perpetuation, ideation. |
Tranquillity of the mind is not a result; it is not something put together which can be undone again. It is not the result of the mind seeking an escape from ideation. It comes into being only when the mind is no longer manufacturing or projecting. And that can only happen when you understand the process of thinking, your own reactions and responses to everything - not only the conscious, but the unconscious as well - the hidden responses, the motives, the urges that are concealed. And this does not demand time. Time exists only when you want to achieve a result, when you say, "I must have tranquillity within a couple of years, or tomorrow." Then come all the spiritual exercises in order to achieve a result. Such a mind is a stagnant mind; it can have no experience of what is real; it is only seeking a result, a reward. And how can such a mind experience something which is immeasurable, which cannot be grasped by any word? The mind is only still when it sees the truth of that - immediately. And the urgency is what is necessary. |
I am afraid this is the last talk. Like two friends sitting in the park on last thousands and thousands of years. We seem to have changed very little a lovely day talking about life, talking about their problems, investigating seriously the very nature of their existence and asking themselves seriously why life has become such a great problem; why, though intellectually you are very sophisticated, yet our daily life is such a grind, without any meaning, except survival, which again is rather doubtful, why life, everyday existence, has become such a torture. One may go to church, follow some leader politically or religiously, but the daily life is always a turmoil, though there are certain periods which are occasionally joyful, happy, but there is always a cloud of darkness about our life. And these two friends walking together, as we are, you and the speaker, we are talking over together in a friendly manner, perhaps with affection, with care, with concern, whether it is at all possible to live a life, our daily life without a single problem. And though we are highly educated, have certain careers, specialised, yet we have these unresolved struggles, pain, suffering, joy and sometimes a great feeling of not being totally selfish. And together, if we can this morning, go into this question why human beings live as we do live - go to the office from nine o'clock until five or six for the next fifty years; or be occupied all the time, not only with our own problems, but also the brain, the mind is constantly occupied, there is never a quietness, there is never peace, there is always this occupation with something or other. And that is our life. That is our daily, monotonous rather lonely insufficient life. And we try to escape from it through religion, through various forms of entertainment. |
At the end of the day we are still where we were for the last thousands and thousands of years. We seem to have changed very little psychologically, inwardly. And our problems increase, and always there is the fear of old age, disease, some accident that will put us out. So this is our existence, from childhood until we die, either voluntarily or involuntarily die. And we don't seem to have been able to solve that problem also, the problem of living and the problem of dying. Specially as one grows older one remembers all the things that have been; the times of pleasure, the times of pain, the times of sorrow, the times of tears. But always there is this unknown thing called death of which most of us are frightened. And as two friends sitting in the park on a bench, not in this hall with all this light and so on, which is rather ugly, but sitting on a bench in the park with sunlight, and the dappling light, the sun coming through the leaves, the ducks on the canal and the beauty of the earth, talking over together. And that's what we are going to do, talking over together as two friends who have had a long life, a long serious life with all the troubles; the troubles of sex, loneliness, despair, depression, anxiety, uncertainty, a sense of meaninglessness to all this. And there is always at the end of all this, death. |
And in talking about it, either we intellectually approach it; that is, rationalise it, say it is inevitable, don't be frightened, or escape through some form of belief, the hereafter as the Asiatics believe, reincarnation, or if you are highly intellectual this is the end of all things, end of all our existence, our experiences, our memories, tender, delightful, plentiful. And also with it goes the great pain and suffering. What does it all mean, this life which is really, if one examines very closely, rather meaningless? One can intellectually, verbally construct a meaning to life, but the way we live has very little meaning actually. |
So there is thing called living and dying. That is all we know. Everything apart from that becomes a theory, a speculation; or a pursuit of a belief in which one finds some kind of security, hope. But those beliefs are also very shallow, rather meaningless, as all beliefs are. Or you have ideals projected by thought, and struggle to achieve those ideals. This is our life; whether we are very young, full of vitality, fun, a sense that one can do almost anything, but even then with youth, middle age and old age, there is always this question of death, dying. Can we, this morning, talk over together this? Please, as we pointed out yesterday, we are thinking about it together. You are not merely, if one may point out, listening to a series of words, to some ideas, but rather together, I mean together, investigate this whole problem of living and dying. And either one does it with one's heart, with one's whole mind, or partially, superficially, and so with very little meaning. |
So first of all we should look: our brains never act fully, completely, we only use a very small part of our brain. That part is the structure of thought. That part being in itself a part and therefore incomplete, as thought is incomplete, so the brain functions within a very narrow area, depending on our senses, which again our senses are partial, never all the senses fully awakened. I do not know if you have not experimented with watching something with all your senses; watching the sea, the birds and the moonlight at night on a green lawn; if you have not watched partially or with all your senses fully awakened. The two states are entirely different. When you watch something partially you are establishing more the separative, egotistic attitude and living. But when you watch that moonlight on the water making a silvery path with all your senses, that is, with your mind, with your heart, with your nerves, giving all your attention to that observation, then you will see for yourself that there is no centre from which you are observing. |
So can we observe what is living, the actuality, and what does it mean to die - together? Our life, daily life, is a process of remembrances. Our brain, mind is entirely memory. Right? Are we together in it? You see the difficulty is that I am not sure that we are understanding each other. I don't know how much English you know, and that is not an insulting statement, whether we understand English completely, what the speaker is saying. Or you are partially listening, partially understanding English, and so attention wandering off and so one looks rather dazed from here! The language that the speaker is using is very ordinary non-specialised language. It is simple English. So I hope we understand each other. |
We are saying we are - we, our ego, our personality, our whole structure - is entirely put together as memory, we are memory. Right? Please this is subject to investigation, don't accept it. Observe it, listen. The speaker is saying, the 'you', the ego, the 'me', is altogether memory. There is no spot or space in which there is clarity. Or you can believe, hope, have faith that there is something in you which is uncontaminated, which is god, which is a spark of that which is timeless, you can believe all that. But that belief is merely illusory; all beliefs are. But the fact is that our whole existence, we are entirely memory, remembrance. There is no spot or space inwardly which is not memory. You can investigate this, if you have time, perhaps not this morning because we have a lot to cover, but if you are enquiring seriously into yourself you will see that the 'me', the ego, is all memory, remembrances. And that is our life. We function, live from memory. And for us death is the ending of that memory. Right? |
Am I speaking to myself, or are we all together in this? You see the speaker is used to talking in the open, under trees, or in a vast tent without these glaring lights; and one can then have an intimate communication with each other. As a matter of fact there is only you and me talking together, not all this enormous audience in a vast hall, but you and I sitting on the banks of a river, on a bench, talking over this thing together. And one is saying to the other, we are nothing but memory, and it is to that memory that we are attached: my house, my property, my experience, my relationship, the office I go to, the factory, the skill I like being able to gather during a certain period of time; I am all that. And to that, thought is attached. That's what we call living. And this attachment, with all its problems, because when you are attached there is fear of losing, we are attached because we are lonely, deep abiding loneliness which is suffocating, isolating, depressing. And the more we are attached to another, which is again memory, the other is a memory - my wife, my husband, my children, are physically different from me, psychologically the memory of my wife, I am attached to that, to the name, to the form, my existence is attachment to that memory which I have gathered through all my life. Where there is attachment I recognise, observe there is corruption. When I am attached to a belief, hoping in that attachment to that belief there will be certain security, both psychologically as well as physically, that attachment not only prevents further examination, but I am frightened to examine even when I am greatly attached to something - to a person, to an idea, to an experience. So corruption exists where there is an attachment. And one's whole life is a movement within the field of the known. This is obvious. And death means the ending of the known. Right? Ending of the physical organism, ending of all the memory of which I am. I am nothing but memory, memory being the known. And I am frightened to let all that go, which means death. I think that is fairly clear, at least verbally. Intellectually you can accept that. Logically, sanely, that is a fact. |
So the question is: why human beings throughout the world, though they believe, some of them, in the Asiatic world, in the rebirth of themselves in the next life; the next life being much more dignified, more prosperous, better houses, better position. So those who believe in reincarnation, that is, the soul, the ego, the 'me', which is a bundle of memories being born next life; the next life is a better life because if I behave rightly now, conduct myself righteously, live a life without violence, without greed and so on, the next life I will have a better life, better position. But that is, the next life, a belief in reincarnation, is just a belief because those who have this strong belief don't live a righteous life today. Right? You are following all this? It is just an idea that the next life will be marvellous. The beauty of the next life must correspond to the beauty of the present life. But the present life is so tortuous, so demanding, so complex, we forget the belief and struggle, deceit, hypocrisy, every form of vulgarity and so on. That is one aspect of death, that is, believing in something next life. |
But those who do not accept such theory, though they are trying to compile evidence of reincarnation, which is rather absurd too - you understand all this - because what is it that is going to reincarnate? What is it that has continuity? You understand my question? Are we talking together? What is it that has continuity in life, in our daily life? It is the remembrance of yesterday's experience, pleasures, fears, anxieties and there is that continuity right through life unless we break it and move away from that current. Right? |
Now the question is: is it possible while one is living, with all the turmoil, with that energy, capacity, to end, say for example, attachment? Because that is what is going to happen when you die. You may be attached to your wife, to your husband, to your property - not to property, that is dangerous - we are attached to some belief, belief in god. That belief is merely a projection, or an invention of thought, but we are attached to it because it gives a certain feeling of security however illusory it is, we are attached to that. Death means the ending of that attachment. Now while living can we end voluntarily, easily, without any effort, that form of attachment? Which means dying to something we have known. You follow? Can we do this? Because that is living and dying together, not separated by a hundred years, or fifty years, waiting for some disease to push us off. But living with all our vitality, energy, intellectual capacity, with the greater feeling, to end certain conclusions, certain idiosyncrasies, experiences, attachments, hurts, to end it. That is, while living also living with death. You understand this? Are we meeting each other? So that death is not something far away, death is not something that is at the end of one's life, through some accident, disease, old age, but rather living, to all the things of memory, ending that, which is death. That means death is not separate from living. |
Also, as we said yesterday, we should consider together, sitting on the banks of that river on a bench, water flowing, clear, not muddied, polluted water, seeing all the movement of the waves pursuing each other down the river, we also as two friends sitting there, talk together about what is religion. Why has religion played such a great part in our lives from the ancient of times until today? What is a religious mind like? What does the world 'religion' actually mean? Because historically, not that one has read a great deal about it but one has observed how civilisations disappear, to be reborn again with a different religion. Religions have brought about new civilisations, new culture; not the technological world, not the computers, the submarines, the war materials; nor the businessman, nor the economists; but religious people throughout the world have brought about a tremendous change. So one must enquire together what we mean by that word 'religion' . What is its significance, whether it is mere superstition, illogical, meaningless? Or there is something far greater, something much more infinitely beautiful. And to find that is it not necessary - we are talking over together as two friends - is it not necessary to be free of all the things thought has invented as religion? You understand my question? I want to find out what is the significance of religion. What is the depth of it? What is its end? Because man has always sought something beyond the physical existence. He has always looked, searched, asked, suffered, tortured himself to find out if there is something which is not of time, which is not of thought, which is not belief or faith. And to find that out one must be absolutely free, otherwise if you are anchored to a particular form of belief that very belief will prevent investigation into what is eternal, if there is such a thing as eternity which is beyond all time, beyond all measure. So one must be free, if one is serious in the enquiry into what is religion, one must be free of all the things that thought has invented, put together about that which is considered religious. That is, all the things that Hinduism has invented, with its superstitions, with its beliefs, with its images, and the ancient literature as the Upanishads and so on, one must be completely free of all that. If one is attached to all that then it is impossible, naturally, to discover that which is original. You understand the problem? |
That is, if my mind, my brain is conditioned by the Hindu superstition, beliefs, dogmas, idolatry, with all the ancient tradition, my mind then is anchored to that, therefore it cannot move, it is not free. Therefore one must be free completely from all that - being a Hindu. Right? Similarly, one must be free totally from all the inventions of thought, as the rituals, dogmas, beliefs, symbols, the saviours and so on of Christianity. That may be rather difficult, that is coming nearer home. Or if you go to Ceylon or the Tibetan, North, Buddhism, with all their idolatry, as the idolatry of Christianity, they too have this problem: being attached as security to the things thought has invented. So all religions, whether Christianity, Muslim, Islam, Hinduism, or Buddhism, they are the movement of thought continued through time, through literature, through symbols, through things made by the hand or by the mind, all that is considered religious in the modern world. To the speaker that is not religion. To the speaker it is a form of illusion, comforting, satisfying, romantic, sentimental but not actual, because religion must affect life, the way we live, that is the significance of life. Because then only when there is order, as we talked about yesterday, in our life. |
Order is something that is totally disassociated with disorder. We live in disorder, that is, in conflict, contradiction, say one thing, do another, think one thing and act another, that is contradiction. Where there is contradiction which is division, there must be disorder. And a religious mind is completely without disorder. That is the foundation of religious life, not all the nonsense that is going on with the gurus with their idiocies. |
You know it is a most extraordinary thing: many gurus have come to see the speaker, many of them. Because they think I attack the gurus. You understand? They want to persuade me not to attack. They say, what you are saying and what you are living is the absolute truth, but not for us, because we must help those people who are not as fully advanced as you are. You see the game they play. You understand? So one wonders why the Western world, or some of the Western people go to India, follow these gurus, get initiated - whatever that may mean - put on different robes and think they are terribly religious. But strip them of their robes, stop them and enquire into their life, they are just like you and me. |
So the idea of going somewhere to find enlightenment, changing your name to some Sanskrit name, seems so strangely absurd and romantic without any reality, but thousands are doing it. Probably it is a form of amusement without much meaning. I am - the speaker is not attacking. Please let's understand: we are not attacking anything, we are just observing; observing the absurdity of the human mind, how easily we are caught, we are so gullible. |
So a religious mind is a very factual mind, it deals with facts. That is, facts being what is actually happening, with the world outside, and the world inside. The world outside is the expression of the world inside, there is no division between the outer and the inner - that is too long to go into. So a religious life is a life of order, diligence, dealing with what is actually happening within oneself, without any illusion so that one leads an orderly, righteous life. When that is established, unshakeably then we can begin to enquire what is meditation. |
Perhaps that word did not exist about twenty years ago, or thirty years ago in the Western world. The Eastern gurus have brought it over here. There is the Tibetan meditation, Zen meditation, the Hindu meditation, the particular meditation of a particular guru, the meditation of yoga, sitting cross legged, breathing, you know, all that. All that is called meditation. We are not denigrating the people who do all this. We are just pointing out how absurd meditation has become. The Christian world believe in contemplation, giving themselves over to the will of god, grace and so on. They have the same thing in the Asiatic world, only they use different words in Sanskrit, but it is the same thing: man seeking some kind of everlasting security, happiness, peace, not finding it on earth, hoping it exists somewhere or other, the desperate search for something imperishable. This has been the search of man from time beyond measure. The ancient Egyptians, the ancient Hindus, Buddhists and so on, and some of the Christians, have followed this. |
So to enquire together, to go into, deeply into, what is meditation and whether there is anything called sacred, holy: not the thing that thought has invented as being holy, that is not holy. What thought creates is not holy, is not sacred because it is based on knowledge, and knowledge being incomplete, and whatever thought invents, how can that be sacred? But we worship that which thought has invented all over the world. |
So together, having established, some partially, others completely, totally, order in their life, in their behaviour, in which there is no contradiction whatsoever, having established that, and rejected, totally rejected, all the various forms of meditation, their systems, their practices because when you practise you are repeating over and over and over again, like a pianist when he practises he may be practising the wrong note. You understand? So it is easy to conform to a pattern, to obey something somebody has said that will help you to reach the highest state of whatever it is. So you practise, you accept systems because you want to get something other than 'what is'. |
Now we are saying quite the contrary. There is no system, no practice; but the clarity of perception of a mind that is free, which has no direction, no choice, but free to observe. Most meditations have this problem, which is controlling thought. The one who practises is different from that which he is practising. I hope you are following all this, if it interests you. So most meditation, whether the Zen, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Christian, or the latest guru, is to control your thought because through control you centralise, you bring all your energy to a particular point. That is, concentrate. Which is, there is a controller different from the controlled. Are you following all this? Which is, the controller is the past, which is still thought, still memory, and that which he is controlling is still thought, which is wandering off, so there is conflict. You are sitting quietly and thought goes off, you want to concentrate, like a schoolboy looking out of the window and the teacher says, 'Don't look out of the window, concentrate on your book'. And we do the same thing. So one has to learn the fact, the controller is the controlled. Is that clear? Must all this be explained, step by step? That is - I'll explain, please. |
The controller, the thinker, the experiencer, we think is different from the controlled, from the movement of thought, from the experiencer and the experience, we think these two are different movements. But if you observe closely, the thinker is the thought. Thought has made the thinker separate from thought, which then he says, 'I must control'. You are following all this? This is so logical, so sane. So when the controller is the controlled, then you remove totally conflict. Conflict exists only when there is division. Right? Between you and the Germans, between the Israelis and the Arabs. Where there is nationalistic, or economic, or social division there must be conflict. So inwardly where there is the division between the observer, the one who witnesses, the one who experiences is different from that which he experiences, there must be conflict. And our life is conflict because we live with this division. But this division is fallacious, is not real, it has become our habit, our culture, to control. We never see the controller is the controlled. Right? Do you get all this? |
So when one realises that, not verbally, not idealistically, not as a utopian state for which you have to struggle, but to observe it actually in one's life that the controller is the controlled, the thinker is the thought, then the whole pattern of our thinking undergoes a radical change because there is no conflict. And that is absolutely necessary if you are meditating because meditation demands a mind that is highly compassionate. And therefore highly intelligent, the intelligence which is born out of love, not out of cunning thought. |
So meditation means the establishment of order in our daily life, in which there is no contradiction. Then rejecting totally all the systems, meditations, all that, because the mind must be completely free, without direction, and also it means a mind that is completely silent. Is that possible? Because we are chattering endlessly; the moment you leave this place I know you will start chattering. So our minds are everlastingly occupied, chattering, thinking, struggling, and so there is no space. Space is necessary to have silence. For a mind that is practising, struggling, wanting to be silent is never silent. But when it sees that silence is absolutely necessary, not the silence projected by thought, not the silence between two notes, between two noises, between two wars, but the silence of order. And when there is that absolute silence, not cultivated silence, which is what most meditations try to do, cultivate silence; that is, cultivate thought which is never silent. I don't know if you see the absurdity of it. So when there is that silence then one discovers - sorry, one doesn't discover - in that silence truth, which has no path to it, exists. Truth then is timeless, sacred, incorruptible. That is meditation, that is a religious mind. |
To COMMUNICATE with one another, even if we know each other very well, is extremely difficult. I may use words that may have to you a significance different from mine. Understanding comes when we, you and I, meet on the same level at the same time. That happens only when there is real affection between people, between husband and wife, between intimate friends. That is real communion. Instantaneous understanding comes when we meet on the same level at the same time.It is very difficult to commune with one another easily, effectively and with definitive action. I am using words which are simple, which are not technical, because I do not think that any technical type of expression is going to help us solve our difficult problems; so I am not going to use any technical terms, either of psychology or of science. I have not read any books on psychology or any religious books, fortunately. I would like to convey, by the very simple words which we use in our daily life, a deeper significance; but that is very difficult if you do not know how to listen. |
There is an art of listening. To be able really to listen, one should abandon or put aside all prejudices, pre-formulations and daily activities. When you are in a receptive state of mind, things can be easily understood; you are listening when your real attention is given to something. But unfortunately most of us listen through a screen of resistance. We are screened with prejudices, whether religious or spiritual, psychological or scientific; or with our daily worries, desires and fears. And with these for a screen, we listen. Therefore, we listen really to our own noise, to our own sound, not to what is being said. It is extremely diffcult to put aside our training, our prejudices, our inclination, our resistance, and, reaching beyond the verbal expression, to listen so that we understand instantaneously. That is going to be one of our difficulties. |
If, during this discourse, anything is said which is opposed to your way of thinking and belief, just listen; do not resist. You may be right, and I may be wrong; but by listening and considering together wc are going to find out what is the truth. Truth cannot be given to you by somebody. You have to discover it; and to discover, there must bc a state of mind in which there is direct perception. There is no dircct perception when there is a resistance, a safeguard, a protection. Understanding comes through being aware of what is. To know exactly what is, the real, the actual, without interpreting it, without condemning or justifying it, is, surely, the beginning of wisdom. It is only when we begin to interpret, to translate according to our conditioning, according to our prej udice, that we miss the truth. After all, it is like research. To know what something is, what it is exactly, requires research—-you cannot translate it according to your 11100ds. Similarly, if we can look, observe, listen, be av,t are of what is, exactly, then the problem is solved. And that is what we are trying to do in all these discourses. I am going to point out to you what is, and not translate it according to my fancy; nor should you translate it or interpret it according to your background or training. |
Is ic not possible, then, to be aware of everything as it is ? Starting from there, surely, thcrc can be an understanding. To acknowledge, to be aware of, to get at that which is, puts an cnd to struggle. If I know that I am a liar, and it is a fact which I recognize, then thc struggle is over. To acknowledge, to be aware of what one is, is already the beginning of wisdom, the beginning of understanding, which releases you from time. To bring in the quality of time time, not in the chronological sense, but as the medium, as the psychological process, the process of the mind—is destructive, and creates confusion. |
So, we can have understanding of what is when we recognize it without condemnation, without justification, without identification. To know that one is in a certain condition, in a certain state, is already a process of liberation ; but a man who is not aware of his condition, of his struggle, tries to be something other than he is, which brings about habit. So, then, let us keep in mind that we want to examine what is, to observe and be aware of exactly what is the actual, without giving it any slant, without giving it an interpretation. It needs an extraordinarily astute mind, an extraordinarily pliable heart, to be aware of and to follow what is; because what is is constantly moving, constantly undergoing a transformation, and if the mind is tethered to belief, to knowledge, it ceases to pursue, it ceases to follow the swift movement of what is. What is is not static, surely—it is constantly moving, as you will see if you observe it very closely. To follow it, you need a very swift mind and a pliable heart—which are denied when the mind is static, fixed in a belief, in a prejudice, in an identification; and a mind and heart that are dry cannot follow easily, swiftly, that which is. |
One is aware, I think, without too much discussion, too much verbal expression, that there is individual as well as collective chaos, confusion and misery. It is not only in India, but right throughout the world; in China, America, England, Germany, all over the world, there is confusion, mounting sorrow. It is not only national, it is not particularly here, it is all over the world. There is extraordinarily acute suffering, and it is not individual only but collective. So it is a world catastrophe, and to limit it merely to a geographical area, a coloured section of the map, is absurd ; because then we shall not understand the full significance of this worldwide as well as individual suffering. Being aware of this confusion, what is our response to-day? How do we react ? |
There is suffering, political, social, religious; our whole psychological being is confused, and all the leaders, political and religious, have failed us; all the books have lost their significance. You may go to the Bhagavad Gita or the Bible or the latest treatise on politics or psychology, and you will find that they have lost that ring, that quality of truth; they have become mere words. You yourself, who are the repeater of those words, are confused and uncertain, and mere repetition of words conveys nothing. Therefore the words and the books have lost their value; that is, if you quote the Bible, or Marx, or the Bhagavad Gita, as you who quote it are yourself uncertain, confused, your repetition becomes a lie; because what is written there becomes mere propaganda, and propaganda is not truth. So when you repeat, you have ceased to understand your own state of being. You are merely covering with words of authority your own confusion. But what we are trying to do is to understand this confusion and not cover it up with quotations; so what is your response to it? How do you respond to this extraordinary chaos, this confusion, this uncertainty of existence? Be aware of it, as I discuss it: follow, not my words, but the thought which is active in you. Most of us are accustomed to be spectators and not to partake in the game. We read books but we never write books. It has become our tradition, our national and universal habit, to be the spectators, to look on at a football garne, to watch the public politicians and orators. We are merely the outsiders, looking on, and we have lost the creative capacity. Therefore we want to absorb and partake. |
But if you are merely observing, if you are merely spectators, you will lose entirely the significance of this discourse, because this is not a lecture which you are to listen to from force of habit. I am not going to give you information which you can pick up in an encyclopædia. What we are trying to do is to follow each other's thoughts, to pursue as far as we can, as profoundly as we can, the intimations, the responses of our own feelings. So please find out what your response is to this cause, to this suffering; not what somebody else's words are, but how you yourself respond. Your response is one of indifference if you benefit by the suffering, by the chaos, if you derive profit from it, either economic, social, |
political or psychological. Therefore you do not mind if this chaos continues. Surely, the more trouble there is in the world, the more chaos, the more one seeks security. Haven't you noticed it? When there is confusion in the world, psychologically and in every way, you enclose yourself in some kind of security, either that of a bank account or that of an ideology; or else you turn to prayer, you go to the temple—which is really escaping from what is happening in the world. More and more sects are being formed, more and more 'isms' are springing up all over the world. Because the more confusion there is, the more you want a leader, somebody who will guide you out of this mess, so you turn to the religious books, or to one of the latest teachers; or else you act and respond according to a system which appears to solve the problem, a system either of the left or of the right. That is exactly what is happening. |
Subsets and Splits