6 Talks in New York at The New School For Social Research 1966 Talks 1 - 3

KRISHNAMURTI
6 Talks in New York at the New School for Social Research 1966 Talks 1 - 3
First of six talks given in New York at the New School for Social Research September 26th 1966
Audio and Text KFA. Audio is edited, nearly complete. Not all questions and answers included Published in: The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti, Vol. 17 (ISBN 0840363141) The Mirror of Relationship (ISBN 1888004053) Choiceless Awareness (ISBN 1888004045)
I think we should make these meetings quite informal. And perhaps at the end of the talk, if there is time, we can ask each other questions and hope that well find the right answer. I think its always rather difficult to communicate. Words must be used, and each word has a certain definite meaning, but I think we should bear in mind that the word is not the thing; the word does not convey the total significance. And if we merely semantically stick to words, then I'm afraid we shall not be able to proceed much further. To communicate really deeply needs not only attention but also a certain quality of affection, which doesn't mean that one must not be critical or that one must accept what is said. But if one is sufficiently alert, not only intellectually but avoiding the pitfall of words, there should also be, I think, to really communicate with another about anything, a certain quality of direct affection, a certain quality of exchange, examination, with full capacity to investigate, to examine. And then only communication can take place. Perhaps then there will be a communication with each other, because we are going to deal with so many subjects,
Krishnamurti in New York 1966
Talk 1
so many problems during these talks. And, we are going to go into them fairly deeply, and obviously, to understand what the speaker is saying, if you are interested, one has to have a certain quality of attention in listening. Very few of us listen, because we ourselves have so many ideas, so many opinions, so many conclusions and beliefs, which actually prevent the act of listening. And thats one of the most difficult thingsto listen to another. We are so ready with our own opinions, with our own conclusions. We are apt to interpret, agreeing or disagreeing, taking sides, or saying, "I don't agree", and quickly brushing it aside. All that, it seems to me, prevents the act of actual listening. Its only when there is this listening which is not merely intellectual because any clever person can listen to a certain argument, to a certain exposition of ideas; but to listen with the mind and the heart, with the total being of oneselfif there is such a thing as the being of oneself totallyrequires a great deal of attention. And therefore, to attend implies not knowing one's own beliefs, concepts, conclusions, what one wants, and so on, but also putting those aside for the time being and listening. And then, I think, only is it possible to commune with each other, because we have to talk over a great many things, because life has so many problems; we are all so confused; very few have any belief in anything, or faith. There is war; there is insecurity, great anxiety, fear, the despair, the agony of daily existence, and the utter boredom and loneliness of it. And beyond all this there is the problem of death, and love. And, we are caught in this tremendous confusion, and to understand the totality of it, not the fragment that is very clear to you and which you want to
3
achieve; not the special conclusion which you think is right, or an opinion, or a belief, but rather one should take the whole content of existence, the whole history of man: his suffering, his loneliness, his anxiety, the utter hopelessness, meaninglessness of life. And I think if we can do that, not take any particular fragment which may for the time being appeal to you or give you pleasure, but rather see the whole map, as it were, of existence, not partially, not fragmentarily, but see the whole of it. Then perhaps we shall be able to bring about a radical revolution in the psyche. And it seems to me that's the main crisis of our life that though there are vast changes going on in the world, the world of science, of mathematics, and all the rest. Technologically there is tremendous change going on, but in the psyche of the human being there is very little change. The crisis is not in the outward technological advancement, but rather in the way we think, in the way we live, in the way we feel. I think that is where a revolution must take place. And this revolution can only be possible, not according to any particular pattern, because no revolution psychologically Im talking aboutis possible if there is merely the imitation of a particular ideology. To me, all ideologies are idiotic; it has no meaning. What has meaning is what is, not what should be; and to understand what is there must be freedom to look, not only to look outwardly but inwardly. You know, really there is no division as the outer and the inner, it's a process, a unitary movement; and the moment you understand the outer, you are also understanding the inner. But unfortunately we have divided, broken up, life into fragments: the outer, the inner, the good and the bad, and so on. As one has divided the world into nationalities, with all their miseries and wars, we have also divided our own
Talk 1
existence as inward and outward. I think that is the worst thing one can doto break up ones own existence into various fragments. And that's where contradiction lies, and most of us are caught in this contradiction, and hence in conflict. So, we know all the complications, the confusions, the misery, the enormous human effort that has gone up to build a society which is getting more and more complex. And, is it possible, living in this world, to be totally free of all confusion, and therefore of all contradiction, and hence be free of fear? Because a mind that is afraid obviously has no peace, and its only when the mind is completely and totally free of fear, then it can observe, then it can investigate. One of our major problems is violence, not only outwardly but inwardly. Violence is not merely physical violence, but the whole structure of the psyche is based on violence, that is, this constant effort, this constant adjustment to a pattern, constant pursuit of a pleasure and therefore the avoidance of anything which gives pain, discarding the capacity to look, to observe what is. All that is part of violence: aggression, competition, the constant comparison between what is and what should be, the imitation, surely, all that is a form of violence. Because man since historical times has chosen war as a way of life, our daily existence is a war, in ourselves as well as outwardly: we are always in conflict with ourselves and with another. And, is it possible for the mind to be totally free of this violence? Because we need peace outwardly as well as inwardly, and peace is not possible if there is not freedom, freedom from this total aggressive attitude towards life. So, we all know this, that there is violence, that there
5
is tremendous hate in the world, war, destruction, competition, each one pursuing his own particular form of pleasureall that, it seems to me, is a way of life which breeds contradiction and violence. And we know this intellectually, we have thought about it, we statistically can examine it. Intellectually we can rationalize the whole thing and say, Well, that's inevitable; that is the history of man for the last two million years and more, and we'll go on that way. And, so one asks oneself whether it is at all possible to bring about a total revolution in the psyche, in oneself not as an individual: the individual is the local entity, the American, the Indian, the Russian. He can do very little; but we are not the local entities, we are human beings. There is no barrier as an Indian, or an American, Russian, a communist, and so on, if we regard the whole process of existence of a human beingof which you and I are. If we can bring about a revolution therenot in the individual, because after all, apart from nationalities and the absurdities of religion, organized religion, and superficial culture, if we go beyond that, as a human being we all suffer, we go through tortures of anxiety; there is sorrow; there is the everlasting search for the good and the noble, and what is generally called God. We are all afraid. So if we can bring about a change there in the human psyche, then the individual will act quite differently. This implies that there is no division between the conscious and the unconscious. I know it is the fashion to discuss a great deal and study a great deal about the unconsciousreally there is no such thing as the unconscious. We'll discuss all this, well go into all this. I'm just outlining what we are going to talk over together during the next five talks. And, is it possible for the human being to totally empty the past, so that he is made new to look at life
Talk 1
entirely differently? See the past, whether it is fifty years past or two million years past, which we call the unconscious, the unconscious which is the racial residue, the tradition, the motives, the hidden pursuits, the pleasures, that which we call the unconsciousis not the unconscious. It is always in the conscious, because we have only . . . there is only consciousness. You may not be aware of the total content of that consciousness. And all consciousness is limitation, and we are caught in this. We move in this consciousness from one field to another field, calling it by different names, but it is still the conscious. And this game we play, as the unconscious, the conscious, the past, the future, and all the rest, is within that field: you can observe it for yourself; you are very aware of your own process of thinking, feeling, acting. How we deceive ourselvesmove from one field, from one corner to another. And this consciousness which is always limited, because in that consciousness there is always the observer; and wherever there is the observer, the censor, the watcher, he creates the limitation within that consciousness. I think thats fairly simple if you look at it. So, any change brought about by will, by pleasure, by an avoidance or an escape, so any change or revolution brought about by influence, by pressure, strain, convenience, for particular pleasure, is still within that limit . . . in that consciousness, and therefore its always limited, and therefore its always breeding conflict. So, if one observes this, not through books, not through psychologists and analysts, and all the rest of it, but if one observes this actually, factually, as it takes place in yourself as a human being, then the question will inevitably arise whether it is possible to be conscious where it is necessary to
7
be consciousgoing to the office and all the rest of it and where consciousness is a limitation and therefore be free of it. Not that you go into a trance or amnesia, or some mystical nonsense, but unless there is that freedom from this enclosing consciousness, this time-binding consciousness, then we shall not have peace. Because peace is not dependent on politicians, on the armythey have much too vested interest in all thatnor on the priests, nor on any belief. They have talked, all religions, except perhaps one or two, Buddhism and Hinduism perhaps, always talked peace and entered into warand that's the way of our life. And I feel that if there is no freedom from this limitation of consciousness as time-binding with its observer as the centre, man will go on endlessly suffering. And so, is it possible to empty the whole of consciousness, the whole of my mind, with all its tricks and vanities, deceptions, and pursuits, and moralities, and all that, based essentially on pleasure, is it possible to be totally free of all thatempty the mind so that it can look and act and live totally differently? I say it is possible, not out of vanity or some superstitious, mystical nonsense; but it is possible only when the observer, the centre and the observed . . . there is the realization that the observer is the observed. See, sirs, this is extremely . . . not difficult; it requires a great deal of understanding to come to this. It isn't a matter of your sentimentally agreeing or disagreeing. Do you know what is understanding, what understanding means? Surely, understanding is not intellectual, not saying, "I understand your words, the meaning of your words,"that's not understanding, surely. Nor is it an emotional agreement, a
Talk 1
sentimental affair. There is understanding of any problem, of any issue, when the mind is totally quiet, not induced quietness, not disciplined quietness, but the mind is completely still, then there is a understanding. This is what we do, actually this takes place when you have a problem of any kind. We have thought a great deal about it, investigated, examined back and forth, and there is no answer, and you more or less push it aside, and your mind becomes quiet with regard to that problem, and suddenly you have an answer. This happens to so many people ordinarily, this is nothing. So, understanding can only come, surely, when there is a direct perception, not a reasoned conclusion. So, our question is then: how is a man, a human being not American, not Englishman, nor a Chinese, and all the rest ofhow is a human being to create not only a new societyand he can only create that when there is a total revolution in himself as a human beingand is that possible? So that he has no fear at all, because he understands the nature of fear, what is the structure of fear, the meaning of fear; comes directly into contact with it, not a thing to be avoided but to be understood. And, it means, is it possible for the whole of that structure of thought, which is always functioning round a centre; is it possible in understanding the whole machinery of thinking, which is the result of memoryand thought is the reaction of memory and hence the limitation of consciousnessis it possible to totally not think, to totally function without the memory as it now functions? I hope Im conveying something; if not, we will go into it. You see, this brings us to a point: what is the function of ideaidea being the prototype, the formula, the ideal, the concepthas it any function at
9
all? For us idea is very important, and we function, we act on idea, on concepts, on formulas. A belief is a formula, and all our activity is from ideas, or based on ideas, and hence a contradiction between act and the idea, isnt it? I have an idea, I have an ideal, a belief, and all the rest of it, and I act according to that, or approximate my action to that, and action can never be the idea. The idea is unreal, the action is real. The idea of a nation, the idea of a certain dogma, the dogma of belief in God, and all the rest of it, are purely ideological. And, is it possible to act without the idea? Please, this requires a great deal of inquiry, because as long as there is conflict, there must be pain and sorrowconflict in any form. And there must be conflict as long as there is contradiction, and the nature of contradiction is essentially the idea and the factthe what issurely. If there is no idea at all: belief, dogma, the tomorrow, which is always the ideal tomorrowthen I can look at what is actually, not translate it in terms of tomorrow but see actually what is. And to understand what is one need not have ideas; all that one has to do is to observe. So, that brings us to a point, which is: what is observing, what is seeing? I wonder if we ever see, observe; or do we see with the word, with a conclusion, with a name, and therefore they become the barriers to seeing? If you say, "Well, he's an Indian from India with all his mystical ideas or romantic ideas, and so on and so on, you're actually not seeing. So, it is only possible to see when thought doesn't function. If you are listening, expecting someI don't know whatand the expectation is preventing you from listening; or the idea, the concept, the knowledge prevents you from observing. If you look at a flower, or a tree, or a cloud, or the bird, whatever it is, immediately your reaction
Talk 1
is: you have given it a name; you like it or dislike it, you have categorized it, put it away as a memory, and youve stopped looking. So, is it possible to look, to see, without all the mentation taking place? Mentation is always thought as an idea, as memory, and there is no direct perception. I do not know if you have not observed, if you have observed, your friend, or your wife, or your husband, lookingto look. You look at another, surely, with all the memories, misfortunes, insults, and all the rest of it, and you look, or you listen, you actually are not listening or seeing. And this process of nonobservance is called relationship. (Laughter in the audience) No, please, don't laugh it away, because, as I saidor Ive probably not said this timeall this is very serious; this isn't a philosophical lecture which you listen to, talk that you listen to, and then go home and carry on. Its only to the very serious man there living, there is life. And one cannot, with all this appalling confusion, misery, just laugh it away, or go to a cinema and forget all about the beastly stuff. Therefore it requires extraordinary, earnest, attentive seriousness, and seriousness is not a reaction. All reactions are limitations, but when one observes, listens, looks, then one begins to understand whether it is at all possible for man to be totally free of his conditioning; because we are all conditioned: by the food, the clothes, the climate, the culture, the society we live in. And is it possible to be free of that conditioning, not in some distant future but on the instant? That's why I said whether it is at all possible to free the mind totally, empty it completely so that it is something new. If this does not take place, we are
11
committed to sorrow; we are committed to everlasting fear. So, how is it possible, and is at all possible, to free the mind of the past totally, empty it, though in certain fields knowledge is essential? If I didnt know where I was going; all the technological knowledge which man has acquired through centuriesone cant forget all that, put all that aside. But Im talking about the psyche, which has accumulated so many concepts, ideas, experiences, and (is) caught within this consciousness with the observer as its centre. Now, having put the question, what is the answer, and, whos going to answer it? It is the right question, not an irrelevant question. When one puts the right question, there is the right answer; but it requires a great deal of integrity to put the right question. We have put the right question: is it possible for man, who has lived for so many centuries and a million years, who has pursued a path of violence, has accepted war as a way of lifein daily life as well as on the battlefieldwho is seeking everlastingly peace and denying it; is it possible for man to transform himself completely, so that he lives totally differently? Now, having put the question, who will answer it? Will you look to somebody to answer it, some guru, some priest, some psychologist, or are you waiting for the speaker to answer it? If you put the question rightly, the answer is in the question, but very few of us have put that question. We have accepted the norm of life; and to change that requires a great deal of energy, and we are committed to certain dogmas, certain beliefs, certain activities as the way of lifewe are committed, and we are frightened to change it, not knowing what itll breed.
Talk 1
So, can we, realizing the implications of all this, can we honestly put that question? And how you put it matters also, surely: I can put it, ask myself intellectually, out of curiosity, out of a moment when I have . . . that I can spare from my daily routine, but that will not answer it. So, what will answer that question depends on the mind: how earnest it is, or how lazy it is, or how indifferent to the whole structure and the misery of existence. Now, having put that question, we are going to find out. We are going to talk over together during these five more talks that are to come how to discover the answer for ourselves, therefore not depending on anybody. There is no authority, there is no guru, no priest thatll answer this; and to come to that point when you are not dependent on anybody psychologically is the first, probably the last step. Then, when the mind has freed itself from all its diseases, then we can find out, then it can find out if there is a reality which is not put together by thought; if there is such thing as God, because man has searched, sought after, and hunted that being. And we have to answer that question, and also we have to answer the question of what death is. A society, a human being, that does not understand what death is, will not know what life is, nor will he know what love is. And, merely to accept or deny something which is not of thought is rather immature, but if one would go into it, one must lay the foundation of virtue, which has nothing to do with social morality. One must understand the nature of pleasure, not deny pleasure or accept pleasure, but understand the nature of it, the structure of it. And obviously there must be
13
freedom from fear, and hence a mind that is completely free from discontent and wanting more experience. Then only, it seems to me, is it possible to find out if there is something beyond the human fear which has created God. Is there time to ask questions? Perhaps well . . . Questioner (Q): I like to ask the question: Would you please repeat that very important question? Krishnamurti (K): You like to ask a question? Q: That was it. Would you please repeat that question the way you asked? K: Would I repeat the question which I asked. I'm afraid I couldn't do that, could I? (Laughter) That means going all over it again. I will perhaps another day. Yes sir? Q2: What is the state of the mind, brain, and body which is energy, the state in which thought is not? K: The gentleman asks: What is that state of mind, or that state of energy which is the outcome of the physical, mental, emotional, but is there an energy which is not? Is that it, sir? Now may I . . . just a minute. Before you ask questions . . . its very easy to ask questions, but who is going to answer it? No, please, do take seriously what I'm saying: who is going to answer it? And to put the right question demands a great deal of intelligenceI'm not saying you're not intelligentit requires a great deal of understanding. Either you ask a question to confirm your own ideas, which is really you're asking for confirmation, therefore, you're not asking a question,
Talk 1
or you are asking the question to clarify ones own confusion. Will you ask a question if you know you are confused? Because out of my confusion I may ask the question, and the reply I will listen to only according to my confusion, and therefore it's not an answer. Or I ask a question because I can't look, I can't understand, therefore I want somebody's help. And the moment you seek help from another psychologically, then you're lost, then you set up the whole structure of hierarchical thinking: the gurus, the priests, you know, these analysts, and all that. So, to ask a right question is one of the most difficult things; and the moment youve asked the right question, there is the answer, you don't have to ask it even. (Laughter) No, please, this is really . . . Q: Are you setting as the goal the contemplation of infinity and perfection? K: What, sir? Q: Are you setting as the goal of human experience the contemplation of infinity and perfection? K: Am I setting the goal . . . Q: . . . as a goal. K: As a goal . . . Q: . . . of human experience. K: . . . of human experience. Q: . . . the contemplation of infinity.
15
K: . . . the contemplation of infinity. I'm afraid I'm not, sir. (Laughter) Q2: Mr. Krishnamurti, Im asking you a question which is neither to confirm my ideas nor to destroy yours, but its a very important point, especially in history. K: Yes sir. Q2: You were talking about the mind being quiet, then the sense is not an induced quiet? . . . (Inaudible) K: The questioner wants to know what we mean by . . . a mind that is quiet, silent, not induced. What do you mean by that, the questioner says. Sir, I can discipline the mind to be quiet, force it, discipline it, control it, because I have an idea that it must be quiet, because out of that quietness I hope to achieve something, or gain something, or realize something, or experience something. All that is induced quietness; therefore it's sterile. But quietness is something entirely different, which we can't go into now, because it requires a great deal of examination and understanding, and that silence comes naturally when there is understanding: there is no effort. Q: What relation has the observer, lets say my observer, to other observers, to the other people? K: What is the relationship between the observer, my observer, and your observer? Is there any relationship? Now wait a minute: what do we mean by that word relationship? Are we ever related to anybody, or the relationship is between two images which we have created about each other, isnt it? I have an image about you, and you have an image about me: I have an image about you as my wife or
Talk 1
husband, or whatever it is, and you have an image about me alsothe relationship is between these two images and nothing else. To have relationship with another is only possible when there is no image, when I can look at you and you can look at me without the image of memory, of insults, all the rest of it, then there is a relationship. But the very nature of the observer is the image, isn't it? And my image observes your image, if it is possible to observe it, and then this is called relationshipbetween two images, a relationship which is non-existent, because both are images. To be related means to be in contact, doesnt it?to be related. Contact must be something direct, not between two images. And it requires a great deal of attention, an awareness, to look at another without the image which I have about that person, the image being my memories of that person, how he has insulted me, pleased me, given me pleasure, this or that. Then only, when there are no images between the two is, then there is a relationship. Sir? Q: Could you comment on the present use of LSD for creating that state of imageless relationship? Krishnamurti: Ah! (Laughter) Could you comment on . . . Q: . . . the use of LSD. K: . . . the use of LSD in bringing about this relationship. Q: Imageless relationship, yes; in creating this state of imageless relationship. K: In creating this state of relationship.
17
Q: Imageless relationship. K: Beg your pardon, sir? Q: Of imageless relationship. K: Imageless relationship. You know, LSD is the newest drug to produce certain effects. In ancient India there existed another of these drugs called Soma. But it doesnt matter, the name doesn't matter. Man has tried everything to bring about right relationship between man and man: drugs, escapes, monasteries oh, I dont know, dozens and dozens of ideals, which one hopes will unify man: the communist ideal, this ideal or that ideal. Now there is this drug. Can an outside agency bring about right relationship, which is imageless relationship? You know we have tried, not chemicals, but a belief as a drug: you believe in Christ, and the Indians believe, or the Buddhists, and so on; and they hope that would bring these people together it has not. On the contrary, by their exclusive belief they have created more mischief. So, as far as I'm concerned, if I may put it, no outside agency as a drug can bring about right relationship. You cannot, through drugs, love another. If we could, then everything is solved. Why do we give much more importance to a drug than to a belief, to a dogma, than to the one Saviour who is going to bring right relationship? Why emphasize a drug or a belief? Both are detrimental to right relationship. What brings about right relationship is to be totally aware of all one's activities, one's thoughts, one's feelings, observes choicelessly what's going on in all relationships, then out of that comes a relationship which is not based on an idea. Yes sir?
Talk 1
Q: Excuse me. When you define the relationship of one observer in relation to another observer, that would also hold true in yourselfthe alienation of the observer to the rest of the psyche? K: I dont quite understand, sir. Q: You spoke of the relationship of an observer of one human being to that of another, that they were images. This would hold true within the person himself. he has an image of himself. K: Of course, surely. Q2: You speak about a quiet mind . . . Q3: Repeat that please. K: Ill repeat it, sir. Q2: . . . a quiet mind is a natural state I believe you said; it comes naturally? K: No. A quiet mindit comes naturally, you havent to induce itis a quiet mind a natural thing, does it come easily?obviously not. (Laughter) Sir, we want little pills to achieve everything. Q2: I wanted to ask, I thought I had understood you to say that it was a natural, a natural . . . K: I said it is a natural outcome, when there is the right foundation. Q2: Yes. This limitationyou spoke of it in relationship to a limited field of consciousness; consciousness being limited, a limitation, and I understood you to
19
mean that this quite mind was maybe not limited. K: No. I'm afraid this question of whether it is possible for a mind to be quiet, one has to go into it from different facets, different angles: whether it is at all possible for a mind to be quiet? Must it be everlastingly chattering? And to understand that, one has to go into the question of thought, and whether the mind, in which is contained the brain, whether the brain can be quiet, though it has its reactions. I'll go into all that later, not now, sir. I think we better stop, dont you? Yes sir? Q5: It's very hard to be honest, and I have the strange feeling that the only reason we're gathered here in this room is because you are here. I think that's rather sad. (Laughter) Before we come again, if we come again, I think we ought to be a little bit clearer about your role in confronting us, because we come with a motive, we didn't come here spontaneously. K: Ah! Sir, the questioner says, weve come here with a motive. And he says we should be very clear of our relationship between the speaker and yourself. I wonder why we attend any meeting at all, go to any meeting, any gathering of this kindis it out of curiosity; out of you've heard somebody's reputation, and you go and say, Well, let's go, or are you serious in wanting to find out? That of course depends on you; no one can answer that. Right, sir, I better stop because . . . yes sir, yes sir? Q6: Lets pause for a moment; I have a question of relationship. I only like to know if these people who go into Samadhi in India, or in Americaisn't that the true aspect of the expression of the inner soul of a man, and therefore very important to his person and
Talk 1
to his surroundings? K: The gentleman wants to know what the Hindus mean by that word samadhi. I'm afraid you'll have to look it up in a book to find out. (Laughter) Im not belittling the questioner because . . . sirs, what matters most, what is important?to find out what samadhi is, a trance, or whatever it may mean, or to find out for oneself the misery in which one lives, the confusion, the endless conflict within oneself, and to find out whether it can be ended? Then, if it can be ended, then youll find out for yourself whatever that word may mean, and then it won't matter at all. See, we're always wandering off from the central issue. And the central issue is so colossal, so enormous, so confusing that we rather not face it. But unfortunately we have to see it, we have to look at it, and by looking at it very closely, without any image, then perhaps the mind can be free from this contagion of life with its misery.
21
Second of six talks given in New York at the New School for Social Research September 28th 1966
Audio and Text KFA. Published in The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti, Volume 17. (ISBN 0-8403-6314-1)
If we may, we continue with what were talking about it the other day. As we were saying: considering the crisis in consciousness, not only outwardly but deeply inwardly, and with all its many problems, we do not seem to be able as human beings to resolve our problems totally. We move from one problem to another endlessly. And man has tried every way to escape from these problems, to avoid them, to find some excuse for not resolving them. And also probably he has not the capacity, the energy, the drive to resolve them, and we have built a network of escapes so cunningly that we do not know even that we are escaping from the main issue. And, it seems to me that there must be a total revolution in the mind, a total change, not a modified continuity but a total psychological mutation so that the mind is entirely free from all the bondage of time, so that it can go beyond the structure of thought, not into some metaphysical region but rather into a timeless dimension where the mind is no longer caught in its own structure, in its own problems. And one sees the absolute necessity of complete change. One has tried so many ways, including LSD, including beliefs, dogmas, joining various sects, going through various disciplines of meditation. And, the mind at the end of all this remains just the same:
22
Talk 2
petty, narrow, limited, anxious; but it has a period of enlightenment, a period of clarity. And that's what most of us are doing: pursuing a vision, a clarity, something that is not entirely the product of thought; but we come back again and again to this confusion. There seems to be no freedom. And, as we were saying the other day: is it possible for man to be totally freeI mean psychologically? We don't know what that freedom means. We can only build an image, or an idea, a conclusion, what freedom should be or should not be; but to actually experience it, to actually come upon it, requires a great deal of examination, a great deal of penetration into our process of thinking. And, if I may this evening, I like to go into it, whether it is possible for man, for a human being, to entirely and it must be unconscious in the sense not deliberately brought abouta freedom from all fear, from all effort, from every form of anxiety. To understand it one must go into the question of what is change. Can our mind which is so bound, so conditioned by society, by our experience, by our heredity, by all the influences that man is heir to, can he put all that aside and discover for himself a state of mind where there is a quality which has not been touched by time at all? Because, after all, that is what we are all seeking. Most of us are tired of the daily experiences of life, the boredom of it, the pettiness of it; and we are seeking something through experience, something much greater: one calls it God, vision, whatever name one can give to itthe name doesn't matter. But I do not see how a mind that has been so conditioned by everyday experience, by knowledge, by social and economic influence, by the culture in
23
which that mind lives, how can such a mind bring about a total revolution, a mutation in itself? Is it possible, because if it is not possible, then we are condemned; we are condemned to sorrow, to anxiety, guilt, despair, and all the rest of it? So it's a valid question, and one must find a right answer, not a verbal answer, not a conclusion, not an ideation, but actually find the answer to that question and live in that. So, one has to go into this question of what is change, and who is the entity that's going to change. Who is it thats going to be conscious or aware that it has changed? The word change implies, doesnt it, a movement from what has been to what will be. There is a time sequence: what was, what is and what should be; and in this time interval from what is to what should be, there is effort to achieve what should be. And what should be is already preconceived, predetermined by what has been. So, the movement from what has been to what should be is no movement at all; its merely a continuity of what has been. I think it would be worthwhile if we could not treat this as a talk to which you are listening, agreeing or disagreeing, but rather actually observing the whole process of your own thinking, the process of your own reactions. Not that we are trying group analysis, but rather to investigate factually what is being said. Therefore if you are investigating what is being said, then you are actually listening, not coming to any conclusion of agreement or disagreement. Therefore its really a matter of examination of oneself as a total human being, not as an American, or an Indian, and all the rest of that silly nonsense, but actually observing the total movement of your own mind. And if one does
24
Talk 2
that, I think it has enormous significance. The speaker is only a mirror in which, or through which, you are observing the whole content, the movement of oneself, and therefore the speaker doesn't matter at all. What is important is to observe, to be completely aware, without any choice, just to observe what's going on. Then you are bound to find out for yourself the meaning and the structure of change, because we must change. There is a great deal of the animal in us: the aggressive, the violent, the greedy, the ambitious: the search for success, to dominate, and all the rest of it, which is all the animal. And whether those remains of the animal can be totally eradicated so that the mind is no longer violent, no longer aggressive? Because, unless the mind is at complete peace, or completely still, it is not possible to discover anything new, and without discovering, or the mind being transformed, we shall merely live in the time process of imitation, continuing with what has been, living always in the past. The past is not only the immediate, but the immediate is the past. So, what does one mean by change? Because that is an imperative necessity, because our life is pretty shoddy, empty, rather dull and stupid, without meaning: going to the office every day for the next forty years, breeding a few children, seeking everlasting amusement, either through the church or football field, all that has really, to a mature man, very little meaning. We know all that has very little meaning, but we don't know what to do; we don't know how to change, how to put an end to the time process. So, let's go into it together. First we must be very
25
clear that there is no authority, that the speaker is not the authority, therefore our relationship between you and the speaker changes entirely: we are both investigating, examining, and therefore both of us partaking in what is being said, like taking a journey together. Therefore your responsibility is much greater than that of the speaker. And one can go into this, take this journey, only when one is very, very serious; because it entails a great deal of attention, energy, clarity. For most of us, change implies a movement towards what is known. It isn't a change, but a continuity of what has been in a modified pattern. All sociological revolutions are based on that. There is the idea of what should be, what a society should be, and the revolutionists try to bring about that idea in action, and that they call revolution. There is the society with class, and all the rest of itwe dont bother about all that silly stuffand they want to change, they want to bring about a totally different structure of society, and they have the pattern: what should be. And that's not change at all, it's merely a reaction, and reaction is always imitative. So, when we talk about change, it is not change or mutation from what has been to what should be. I hope you are observing your own process of your thinking, aware not only (of) the necessity of change but also aware of your conditioning, the limitations, the fears, the anxieties, the utter loneliness and boredom of life. And, one is asking oneself whether that structure can be totally demolished, and a new state of mind can come into being. That state of mind is not to be preconceived: thats merely a concept, an idea; and an idea is never real.
26
Talk 2
So, we have this field in which we livean actual fact. Now, how can that fact behow can that mutation take place in that fact? We only know effort to bring about any change at all, either through pleasure or through pain; change through reward or through punishment. So to understand change in the sense which we are talking about, in the sense of mutation a totally different mind happeningwe have to go into the question of pleasure. Because if we dont understand the structure of pleasure, change merely then will depend on pleasure and pain, on a reward or punishment. So one has to go into this question of pleasure. What we all want is pleasure: more and more pleasure, either physical pleasure through sex, and all the rest of that, through possessions, luxury, and so on and so on, which can easily be transcended, which can easily be understood and set aside, but the pleasure, the psychological pleasure that each one of us is seeking, on which all our values are based: moral, ethical, spiritual, and all the rest of it. And all our relationship is based on that, the relationship between two images not two human beingsbut the two images that human beings have created about each other. So, I hope Im not making all of this too complicated, am I? Questioner (Q): It goes in and out. Krishnamurti (K): You see, the animal wants only pleasure; itll do anything. And, as I said, there is a great deal of the animal in us. And, unless one understands the nature and the structure of pleasure, change or mutation is merely a form of the continuity of pleasure, in which there is always pain. So, what is pleasure? Why does the mind seek this
27
constant thing called pleasure? You know what I mean by pleasure? Psychologically feeling superior, feeling violent, anger, and the opposite, non-violence because all opposites contain its own opposite therefore it is not non-violence at all. And, violence gives a great deal of pleasure. There is a great deal of pleasure in acquiring, in dominating: psychologically the feeling of having a capacity, the feeling of achievement, the feeling that one is entirely different from somebody else. And, on this pleasure principle our relationships are based, on this principle our ethical and moral values are built. And of course the ultimate pleasure is not only sex, but the ultimate pleasure is the idea that one has discovered God, something totally new, and one is making constant effort to achieve that ultimate pleasure. We are changing the patterns of our relationship: I don't like my wife, Ill choose another wife; find various excuses, but this is the way we liveunder constant battle, endless strife. We never consider what pleasure is, whether there is such actual state as pleasure, psychologically; or, we have conceived, formulated, pleasure through thought, and we want to achieve that pleasure; so pleasure may be the product of thinking. So, unless we understand this very deeplynot get rid of pleasure, that's too immature, thats what the monks throughout the world have donebut to understand it, to see the whole structure very, very clearly. So, we are using the word understand in the sense non-intellectually, non-emotionally, seeing something very clearly as it is, not as one would like to be or interpreting certain temperamental fashion, but to see the thing as it is. Then, when one understands something, it isn't that an individual mind has understood it, but rather a total awareness of that
28
Talk 2
fact. Well go into that. I mean, I think it would be rather absurd and not quite honest to say to oneself, I'm not seeking pleasure. Everyone is. And, to understand it, one must go into this question of not only thinking but the structure of memory. Because Ive seen a marvellous sunset; or this morning, very early, on the reservoir there was not a breath of air, and there was perfect reflection of all the trees, the light and the towers, without a movementit was a beautiful sight, and it has given me great pleasure. And the mind has stored that memory as pleasure, and wants that pleasure to be repeated because memory is already a dead thing. Therefore the pleasure is in thinking about that light on the water of this morning, and the thinking is the response of memory which has been stored up through the experience of this morning. And so the thought proceeds from that experience to gather more pleasure from what it experienced yesterday or this morning, right? Isnt that so? Yes. You have flattered me, and I have enjoyed it, and I want more of it, I think about it. (Laughter) No, no. Please, sirs, don't laugh it away. Look at it, go into it. That's why we avoid talking about death. We want to repeat all the experience of youth. So, pleasure comes into being through an experience in which there has been a delight. That experience is gone, but the memory of that remains; then the memory responds and wants, through thinking, more of itthis is simple. And so its making constant effort. So thought, thinking over something which has given pleasure, keeps on thinking about it, as sex, as achievement, and so on and so on and so on. Of
29
course, it's much more complex than that, but there is not enough time to go into all the complexity of it: one can watch it, one can be aware of it, one can see it for oneself. So the problem then is: is it possible to experience, and that experience not leaving a memory and, therefore, no thinking about that?it's over. I wonder if you.You understand my question? Several: Yes. K: Because man has lived for so many millennia, thousands upon thousands of years, and he is the residue of all time, he is the result of endless time, and unless he puts an end to time, he is caught in this wheel, and this wheel is the wheel of thought, experience, and pleasure, right? You can't do anything about it. If you do actually say, I must end pleasure,which you won'tif you do, you do it out of further pleasure. So one has to understand and go into this question of actionsorrybecause here is an issue, a great problem: all religions have tried, and vainly, to say any form of pleasure is sin. The monasteries are full of these monks who deny, suppress pleasure. And pleasure is related to desire, so these people say, Be without desire, which is absolutely impossible. So, how is it possible for an action to take place with regard to the structure of pleasure, an action which is not taken by the desire of a greater pleasure? I dont know ifright? So, when we talk about actionaction being the doing, having done, or in the futureaction. All our actions, if you observe very closely, are based on an idea. The idea which has been formulated, and according to that idea, according to that image,
30
Talk 2
according to that authority, experience, I act. So, to us, idea, the ideal, the prototype is much more important than the action itself, right? And, we are always trying to approximate this action, any action according to the pattern. And if we want to discover anything new in action, one must be free of the pattern. This againright, is it? Look, sir, a certain culture in which one lives has imposed certain patterns of behaviour, certain patterns of thought, certain patterns of morality, and so on and so on and so on. The more ancient that particular culture is, the more conditioned the mind becomes. Now, there is that pattern, and the mind is always imitating, following, adjusting itself to that pattern, and this process is called action. If it is purely technological activity, then it's merely copying, repeating, adding some more to what has been, and inventing some more and adding. Now, why do we please listen to thiswhy do we act with an idea? Why is ideation so terribly important, you understand? I have to do something; but why have an idea about it? I dont know if you are following all this, right? So, I have to find out why I have a formula, why I have an example, an authority, and all thatwhy? Isn't it because you are incapable or you do not want to face the fact, the what is? You understand, sir? I'm in sorrow. Psychologically I'm terribly disturbed, and I have an idea about it: what I should do, what I should not do, how it should be changed, and all the restan idea. That idea, that formula, that concept prevents me from looking at the fact of what is, right? So, ideation and the formula is an escape from what is. And there is immediate action when there is great danger: then you have no idea; you don't formulate an idea and act according to that idea.
31
So, a mind that has become lazy, indolent, through the formula which has given it a means of escape from action with regard to what is. So, is it possible, seeing the whole structure of what has been said for ourselvesseeing it for yourself, not because it has been pointed out to you, then you can face the fact: the fact that one is violentwell take that as an example. We are violent human beings, and we have chosen the way of life as violence, war, and all the rest of it, though we talk everlastingly, especially in the East, of non-violence, and all that pretentious nonsense. Because we are not non-violent people, we are violent people. The idea ofnon-violence is an idea which can be used politically and allthats a different meaningbut it is an idea but not the fact. And because the human being is incapable of meeting the fact of violence, therefore he has invented the ideal of non-violence, which prevents him from dealing with the fact, right? Is this? After all, the fact is I'm violent, I'm angry, and, what is the need of an idea? Not the idea of being angry, the actual fact of being angry, like the actual fact of being hungry: there is no idea about being hungry. The idea then comes what you should eat, and then according to the dictates of pleasure, you eat, and so on. So there is only action with regard to what is when there is no idea; when there is no idea what should be done about that which confronts you, which is what is. Is this? Look, sirs: there is the question of fear. There are various different forms of fearwhich we shan't go into nowthere is the actual fact of fear, and I've never met fear; I know what fear is, I have ideas about it: what I should do, how I should treat it, how I should
32
Talk 2
run away from it, so one is never in contact actually with fear. And, the ideation process is essentially the observer, the censor. Can I go on? Its not too taxing at the end of the day? (Laughter) So one is afraidcan one deal with it totally, so that the mind is free completely of fear, not with regard to a certain aspect of life but the total field of existence, so the mind is completely free? There iscan one Inevitably the question arises: if one is not afraid, youll have (an) accident, physically, you know? We are not talking of physical, self-protective existence, but rather the fear which thought has created with regard to existence. And, can the mind face that fact, without the formula what it should do or what it should not do? And, who is the entity who faces that fact, you understand my? All right, sir, lets put the question differently. You are there, and the speaker is sitting on this platform: you the observer, and the observed is the speaker. You have your own temperament, your own worries, your own tendencies, ambitions, greed, fears, all the rest of it, that is, the observer watching the observedright?as you would watch a tree, which is objective, and you the observer. You, the observer is watching fear, right? No? You say, "I'm afraid. The I is different from the observed, from the observer, you understand? The I who says, I am afraid, fear is something outside of him. And he, who is the observer, wants to do something about that fear, right? This is what we are all doing. But is the observer different from the observedyou understand the question? The observer is afraid, and he says, "I am different from the observed, but the observer is the
33
observed because there is no difference between the observer and the observedhe is afraid as well as the observed. I dont know if you? Say for instancewe talk about it another time, another eveningone is afraid of death; and death is something totally different from the observer. And, one never inquires into what is the observer. What is the observer, the you? Who is afraid? And, being afraid, of course, he has all kinds of neurotic ideas, and then, you know, all the rest of it. Who is the observer with regard to fear? The observer is the knownright?with his experiences, with his knowledge, with his conditioning, with his pleasures, the memories all that is the observer, right? And, the observer is afraid of death because the observer is going to die. And, what is the observer?again: ideas, formulas, memorieswhich is what?already dead. So, the observer is the observed. No, this requires a great deal ofdont agree or disagree, please. This is real meditation, not all the phoney stuff that goes under the name of meditation; this requires a great deal of attention; it requires a great deal of energy to discover thisdiscover it, not be told. Then when you discover this, then you will find that change through will, through effort, through desire, through the fear of sorrow, and all the rest of it, disappears totally, because then action takes place not action through an idea. And action is changeI dont know if you follow thistotal action is mutation. So one has not only to understandwhen were talking about changewe have not only to understand what is pleasurenot deny it, thats no meaning; understanding itand, weve also to understand what this whole accumulation of memory, which is always
34
Talk 2
the known. You may take any drug, any exercise, do everything to escape from the known, and the escape is merely a reaction, an avoidance of the known, and therefore youll fall into the pattern of another known. And that's what is taking place. You may take the LSD; and they do it remarkably well in the East, much better than you do it here, (Laughter) because they have been doing it for centuries; because they think through that way they are going to escape from all the shoddy, miserable existence of life. But I'm afraid you can't do it because the mind is so conditioned, and a conditioned mind cannot experience the real at any circumstances, give it whatever chemical you want. It must be free of its conditioning: the conditioning of society, the influence, the urges, the competition, the greed, the desire for power, position, prestige. A petty little mind, a shallow little mind can take a drugcall it LSD, or another thing in India, or other parts of the world theyve got it all, but it still remains a petty little mind. And we are talking about a total change, a mutation in the mind itself. And, this is a problem of great awareness: awareness not of some spiritual, absurd, mystical state, but awareness of your words, of your talk, of what you do, of what you thinkto be aware of it, so that you begin to discover for yourself the whole movement of your mind. And your mind is the mind of every other human being in the world. You don't have to read philosophy or psychology to discover the process of your own mindit is there. And one has to learn how to look, and to look you must be aware, not only of the outward things but inward movements. The outward is the inward movement; there is no outward and inward, it's a constant movement of interaction. One has to be aware of that; not learn how to be aware by going to a monastery and watching to be aware, but
35
watching every day when you get into a bus, into a tramcar, or whatever it is. That demands a great deal of attention, and attention means energy, therefore one begins to discover how that energy is dissipated by endless absurd talk. So, one begins, through awareness, just to be aware without any choice, any like or dislike, without any condemnation, just to observe; to observe how you walk, how you talk, how you treat people. Then you will see by simple watching, without any formula, that very watching brings tremendous energy. You don't have to take drugs to have more energy. And we dissipate that energy by like and dislike. Then you will see for yourself that a mutation has taken place without your wanting it. Right, sir. Questioner (Q): My question may be too intellectual to be considered intelligent. However, Im quite confused about the speakers treatment of the notion of reality, the notion of what is. The speaker seems to be quite categorically committed to what one might call the metaphysical dualism. He treats such notions as mind, as mind-body, psyche as external, internal. In predicating the outer, in predicating what is Krishnamurti (K): Sir, may I? If you are going to ask your question, please, I have to repeat it, so you have to make it brief. Q: Briefly then, are you doing phenomenology or ontology when you for example makewhen youby merely positing dualism, are you merely positing mind, the possibility of there being an internal and an external; or youre actually stating this as a psychologist? Are you stating this as a metaphysical (inaudible)? (Laughter)
36
Talk 2
K: Im sorry, I didnt see the joke. Q2: The joke was: it was not brief. But sometimes it cant be helped. K: Beg your pardon? Q2: You asked for a brief question, and it wasnt so brief. K: The questioner wants to know, if Ive understood it rightly, and I hope hell correct if I havent understood it, wants to know if were dealing with metaphysical things, if we are dealing with non-factual things. Q: I want to say that there is an implicit metaphysic here when you make such descriptions as what is. K: No, wait, sir, I explained. He wants to know, when we use the word, two words, what is, what do you mean by that? Is it metaphysical, is it something abstract, is it intellectual, and all the rest of? I mean, you know when we say what is we know what is. When I have a toothachethat is what is. When I'm afraid, that's what is. When I'm hungry, when I have great many appetites for so many things, that's what is. When I'm ambitious, competing with somebody and talking about love and brotherhoodwhich is sheer nonsense when I'm ambitiousthe what is is the ambition. The idea that there should be peace in the world is an ideation, which has no reality. There is no peace in the world because as a human being I'm aggressive, competitive, ambitious, dividing myself into different groups, sociologically and morally and spiritually. I belong to this religion and you belong to that religion. So the what is is very simple.
37
Q3: Sir, when pleasure is not named, because is observation, what remains is energy. K: The gentleman wants the questioner wants to know when the pleasure goes, what remains? Is that a valid question? Q3: When the pleasure has no name K: When the pleasure has no name Q3:is not named by the mind, because is observation K: Sir, no, please sir, you see you are going off into something that has no validity at all. Have you observed your pleasure? Have you observed what the content of your pleasure is, how that pleasure has arisen, what is implied in that pleasure? Look, sir; make it very simple: there is the visual perception of a woman, or a beautiful car, or something or other. Then the perception evokes, stimulates sensation, and from that sensation there is desire. I think about, think about that desire which gives me pleasure. Sowait a minute, sirso the fact is: we shall find out when I've understood pleasure, not what happens after. Well, thats like saying Q3: No, but if you let meIf I see a woman without think, well then(inaudible) K: If I see a woman without Q3:think K:without thoughtthe gentleman wants to know
38
Talk 2
what happens. (Laughter) K: Go to bed! Sir, no, its very important to understand that question. (Continued laughter) Can you observe wait a minute, sircan you observe something without pleasure, without painnot pleasure in theyou know, more than thatcan you observe anything? And when you do, what takes place? Unless you are blind, paralysed, you have reactions, surely. You may have controlled those reactions, suppressed those reactions, denied them, avoided them, but there is a reaction. And you must have that reaction, otherwise you are dead. But that reaction becomes desire, and the more you think about that desire, either it gives you pain or pleasure. And if it is painful you avoid thinking about it, but if it is pleasurable, you think about it. So you can't say, Well, I won't have pleasure, you have to understand the whole machinery of this very complex process, both physiological as well as psychological. And therefore to observe very clearly demands a clear perception. Sir, have you ever watched a flower? Q4: For a long time I have not been able to be clear about idea and action. You just mentioned hungry: if I am hungry, and if I don't have the idea of choosing between milk and bread, how can I make that choice? K: (Laughs) Sir, you have to make a choice of different dentists and different doctors, don't you, choice when you choose a coat or a dress. But is there any other choice at all when you see something very clearly? Say for instance, sir, when you see nationalism, which is rampant in the world, when you see nationalism: what it entails, what is involved in it, the limitation, the quarrels, the battles, the pride and all the ugly
39
business involved in nationalism, which is poison, then if you realize it's poison, it drops away, there is no action; there is no choice. Choice exists only when there is confusion. When the mind is not confused, there is no choice, there is direct perception. We are using very simple words; there is no jargon behind these words. When we use the word pleasure, we mean the ordinary dictionary meaning of that word. Q5: May I ask something? Is it possible to arrive at direct perception by itself? Isnt it because the ideas in back of me have changed impossible, and the relation is possible, and I will finally come to action in the way that you have described it? K: You see it isn't I have described action, this is what we do, this is what takes place every day of our life. Q6: I didn't hear the question. K: Sir, look: now let me repeat again something. To ask a question, and the right question is very importantnot to me, not to the speakerbut to ask the right question; and to ask the right question there must be a great deal of scepticism, not the absurd scepticism of an immature mind. To ask the right question, there must be no acceptance, no authority; and to ask the right question is one of the most difficult things to do, because we have never asked a right question. We have asked many, many, many questions, but to ask the right question implies that there is no person who is going to answer that questionright?because to ask the right question implies that the mind is free from all authority and comparison. Therefore its in a position to ask, and in the very asking of that question is the answer.
40
Talk 2
Q: What is spontaneous action free from conditioning? K: What is spontaneous action free from conditioning? First of all, there is no spontaneous action as long as there is conditioning. Moment there is freedom from conditioning, which is one of themplease, sirs, you are dealing with this as though it was one of the easiest things to get rid of our conditioninggood God! (Laughter) You'll find out, if you go into it, what is implied. You mean to say: take a person who has been conditioned for ten thousand years as a Hindu, can he just throw it off? One has to go into it. And to be free of conditioning is not a matter of time, it isn't a gradual process. When one knows one is conditioned, observe it!the very awareness of that fact is the ending of that fact. Then you'll find out there is no action at all, you're just moving. There is no question of spontaneity. Its only the man in bondage is always talking about spontaneity. Q7: I have a question. K: Sorry, that gentleman, sorryI saw him first. Q8: Thank you. At the start of your talk tonight, you asked, Is it possible for man to be totally free without returning to the confusion? K: Yes, sir. Q8: And I think you answered yes. At the end of your talk you spoke about moving along the path of discovery, which implies that there will be moments of experiencing what is and moments of not experiencing
41
what is. And so, returning K: No, sir, I understand. No, no, sorry. Is it time to stop? Several: No. (Laughter) Q9: Five more minutes. Q10: I havent understood yet. K: Its half past seven: an hour and a halfisnt that good enough? (Laughter) Sir, let me, if I may, briefly answer that question. You see, most of us are unaware that we are confused. When we are committed to a particular formula communist, Catholic, Hindu, whatever it isor the latest fashion in thought, when we are committed we think we are clear of confusionwe are not. And, confusion can only cease when there is no movement of the observer. Sir, you see, this requires a great deal of going into. Perhaps we can go into this, if you will permit me, next time we meet here, this whole question of confusion, because really its a very complex question. Moments we think we are confused; other moments we are not confused: we think we are very clear, and next moment we are confused. We think we have solved the problem completely, and that very same problem arises another day. So we are caught in confusion; and out of this confusion you listen, you seek a leader, political, religious, psychological, or whatever that is. And what you choose is born out of confusion, and therefore what you choose is also confused. Its really quite a complex problem, and I hope we can go into it next time. Sorry.
42
Talk 2
43
Third of six talks given in New York at the New School for Social Research September 30th 1966
44

Audio and Text KFA. Published in The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti, Volume 17 ( ISBN 0-8403-6314-1) and extracts in Choiceless Awareness (ISBN 1-8880-0404-5)
Talk 1
I think we said that we would talk over together this evening the question of confusion. Before we go into that, I think we should understand what we mean by freedom, and if there is such thing as freedom, and also what we mean by choice. Freedom from something, which is really a reaction, is not freedom at all. A revolt against a certain pattern of thought or a certain structure of society, a mere revolt, is not freedom. Freedom implies, doesnt it really, a state of mind in which there is no imitation, conformity, and therefore no fear. One can revolt and yet conform, as is happening in the world now, and this revolt is generally called freedom. But that revolt inevitably, whether it is the communist revolution, or any other social revolution, must invariably create a pattern maybe a different social order, but its still a pattern of conformity. And when we are talking about freedom, surely we mean a state in which there is no conformity at all, no imitation. And imitation and conformity must exist when there is fear; and fear invariably breeds authority: the authority of an experience of another, or the authority of a new drug, or the authority of one's own experience, one's own pattern of thinking. So, I think we should be fairly clear when we talk about freedom. The politicians talk about freedom, and they really don't mean it at all. The religious people throughout the world have talked of freedom from bondage, freedom from sorrow, freedom from all the travails of human anxiety. And theyve said,
45
theyve laid down a certain course, a certain pattern of behaviour, thought, action; and again that freedom is denied when there is conformity to the pattern, religious, or social, and so on. And, is there freedom? Is there freedom when there is choice? And choice, it seems to me, is an act of confusion. When I'm bewildered, confused, uncertain, then I choose; and I say to myself, I choose out of my freedom; I am free to choose, but choiceis it not the outcome of uncertainty? And out of my confusion, bewilderment, uncertainty, the feeling of being incapable of clarity, out of this confusion I act, I choose a leader, I choose a certain course of action; and I commit myself to a particular activity, but that activity, that pattern of action, a pursuit of a particular mode of thought is the result of my confusion. If I'm not confused, if there is no confusion whatsoever, then there is no choice; I see things as they are. I act not on choice. So it seems to me that a mind capable of choosing is really a very confused mind. Perhaps you may not agree to this but, please, if I may suggest, just listen to the very end of it, neither agreeing nor disagreeing. As we said the other day, we're not doing any propaganda for any particular philosophy, for any particular course of action, or lay down certain principlesall those are the indications of the utter lack of freedom. And, when one is confused, bewildered, as most people are right throughout the world, we, out of this confusion, choose a political leader, a religious system, or the dictates of the latest craze. So, one has to go into this question of what is clarity, whether the mind, which is so confused, uncertain, may discomfit inaction and, thinking that it is incapable of real clarity and therefore must choose.
Talk 1
So, can a mind which is so conditioned in the various social influences, religious patterns, by the propaganda that goes on incessantly to force you to think this way or that way, the innumerable political and religious leaders that exist in the world, the sects all these have brought about confusion in the mind. When I am dissatisfied with one particular pattern of activity, or a course of thought, or a particular philosophy, dogma, I move to another series; and so Im always held, Im always committed. And we think that there will be clarity, there will be freedom from confusion, when I'm committed to a particular course of action. So it seems to me, a mind that is confusedand we know the various reasons of this confusion: the religious, political, the philosophies, the theologians with their particular patterns of thinking, what to believe and what not to believe, with their commitmentsso we as ordinary human beings are lost, we dont know what to do. So it seems to me, the first thing is not to be committedto any organization, religious, political, sectarian, or to any latest drugnot to be committed. And that's very difficult because all the pressure around one says you must be committed, you must do something. Do this or do that, take the latest drug, or go to this particular philosophy, or to that particular teacher, or, you know, all the rest of it. And we, out of our confusion, because they assert so clearly, so positively, and with such clarity, that we accept, hoping out of this acceptance therell come about a certain clarity of thought, a feeling of certainty. So, can the mind be in a state of noncommitment? Please, as we said the other day, a talk of this kind is only worthwhile if we can go beyond the word,
47
because the explanation and the word is not the thing. There can be a hundred explanations for the reasons of confusion; but a mind that wants, that demands freedom from confusion, is not satisfied with explanations, with words, or with any authority. So, if we can this evening find out for ourselves whether it is possible for a mindwhich realizes it is confused, realizes it is committed to a particular course of action, social, or religious, or all the rest of it(to) cease to be committed not because someone tells it, but (because) the understanding that any commitment to any particular pattern of thought or action engenders more confusion. And a mind demanding clarity, a mind demanding that it must be free from all confusion because it understands the necessity of it and that very understanding frees the mind from commitment. And that's one of the most difficult things to do. We are committed because we think that commitment will lead us to a certain clarity, to a certain facility of action, and so on and on and on. And if one is not committed, one feels lost because all around one, people are committed: you go to this group or to that group, to this teacher or to that teacher, you follow a certain leader. Everyone is caught in this. And, not to be committed demands the awareness of what is implied in commitment, and that very awareness frees the mind from commitment. If I am aware, if one is aware, of a danger, sees it very clearly, then you don't touch it, you don't go near it. But to see it clearly is very difficult because the mind says, I must do, act. I can't wait. What am I to do? Surely, a mind that is confused, uncertain, disturbed, must first realize that it is disturbed, and also understand that any movement out of this disturbance only creates further disturbance. And not to be committed implies to stand completely alone, and that
Talk 1
demands great understanding of fear, because you can see what's happening in the world. Nobody wants to be alonealone in the sense: not with a radio, not with a book, not sitting under a tree by yourself, in a monastery with a different name or a different label. It implies an awareness of all the implications of the various forms of commitments of man out of his confusion, and because a mature human being demands freedom from confusion, and then when there is that awareness of the facts of confusion, then out of that, then one is alone, then one is not really afraid. Then what is one to do? One sees very clearly that any action born of confusion only leads to more confusion. That's very simple and very clear. And, when one sees clearly that any action born of confusion only leads to further confusion, when you see that very clearly, then what is the right action? I dont know if Im making myself clear. We live by action, we cannot but act. The whole process of living is action. So one has to again go into this question of what is action. We know, one knows very clearly the action born of confusion, hoping through that act to achieve certainty, clarity. And if I see that, then, being not committed to any course of thought, philosophy, or ideals, then what is action? This is a legitimate question after we have said all these things. The only action that we know is the action of conformity. I have had certain experiences, certain pleasures, certain knowledge, and that has set the course of my action. I believe in certain things, and according to that belief I act, conform. I've had certain pleasures in my experience, and pleasure dictates the course of my action, sexual or non-sexual, ideological, and so on. So most of our actionif one observes very
49
closely; action being the doingis always the outcome of the past. So action is never in the present; it is always the result of the past, isnt it? And that action is what we call the positive, because it is always following what has been in the present and creating the future, bene? Please, we're not talking any deep philosophy, we're just observing the facts. And after observing the facts, we can go very, very, very deeply. But first one must clear the field. So, the word action implies an active present. Action is always action in the present, not I have acted or I will act. So, our action is an approximation of an idea, of a symbol, of an ideology, or a philosophy, or of an experience which we have had, the knowledge, the accumulated experiences, traditions, and so on and so on and so on. Now, is there an action which is not conforming? Are you interested in all this? Audience: Yes. (Laughter) Krishnamurti (K): Because you see, a mind that demands freedom, and its only in freedom you have passion, not lustI'm not talking of thatnot that it has not its right place, but Im talking of freedom in which there is intense energy and passion. Otherwise you can't act, otherwise you are merely a repetitive, mechanical machine, the machines set up by the society, by the particular culture in which one has grown, or by the religious organizational machine. If one wantsnot wantsif one see the urgency of freedom, and in that freedom there is passion. And passion is always in the present, not something thats passed and that you will have tomorrow, which is the
Talk 1
passion created by thought as pleasure. Surely there is a difference between the passion of pleasure and the passion which comes when there is complete freedom from confusion, when there is total clarity. And that clarity is only possible, with its intensity, with its passion, with its timeless quality, is only possible when we understand what is action, whether action can ever be freed from imitation, conformity, from the dictates either of society, or of our own fears, or of our own inherent laziness. Because we like to repeat, repeat, repeat, especially anything that gives us great pleasure: the sexual act, and all the rest of it. And that becomes much more important when society becomes more and more superficial, which is what is happening in the world. When progress is technological, outward, when prosperity is self-centred, then pleasure becomes the highest importance, whether it's the pleasure of sex, the pleasure of a religious (Some laughter) Please don't laugh, because its much too serious, all these things, because we are facing a tremendous crisis in life. And some know this crisis, which is not economic, social, but a crisis in consciousness itself. And to break through that, to answer to that crisis as a challenge, demands great seriousness. So, one has to go into this question of action because life is a movement in action. You can't just sit still, and thats what we are doing. We are not in a movement, we are in the movement of what has been; and the young people say, We are the new generation, but they are not. And to understand all this, one must go into this question of what is action in freedomif there is such thing as freedom, first; whether the mind can be free from its conditioning, whether the brain cells themselves, which have been so heavily conditioned
51
for so many million years, which has its own responsive patterns? So, what is action? Action according to an idea we know very well, according to a formula, a formula imposed outwardly on the mind or the formula the mind itself creates for itself, and according to that act. The formula of knowledge, of experience, of tradition, and the fear of what the neighbour says, and so on and on, and that's the action we know, and therefore that action is always limited, always leads to more conditioning. Now, is there any other action which is not? I think inevitably one must ask this question for oneself, knowing what is taking place in the world: the misery, the wars, the political divisions, the geographical divisions, the divisions created by religions, by beliefs, dogmasyou know whats happening in the world. And, seeing all that, can there be an action which is not of that pattern? Surely, can we go on? Please, as I said, as we said: to agree or to disagree has no meaning; you can turn your back on it, on the challenge, on the crisis, and amuse yourself, entertain yourself in different ways, but when you are confronted with the crisiswhich each one of us is because we are totally responsible for the whole structure of human society. We are responsible for these wars; we are responsible for these national, geographical divisions; we are responsible for the divisions of religion, with their dogmas, with their fears, with their superstitions, because we have committed ourselves to these. And we cannot avoid themthere they are. So how will one answer? (Sound of a baby. Laughter)
Talk 1
So, is there any other action which is not creating its own bondage? (Long Pause) I think there is, and I'm going to go into it. Please, again, we're not accepting any authority. The speaker has no authority whatsoever, because there is no follower, nor is there any teacher. The follower destroys the teacher, and the teacher destroys the follower. But what we are trying to do is to examine, and in the process of examination discover what is true for oneself. Really it is not a process: process implies time, a gradual step-by-step. But there is no step-by-step, there is no gradual process of understanding. When you see something very clearly, you act. And clarity of perception doesn't come about through gradual process and time. We said, there is the positive action with which we are all familiar, and we are trying to find out if there is an action which is not positive at all, in the sense as we have understood it being positive, which is conformity. That is, to put it differently, one is confusedof that there is no doubt. In our relationships with each other, in our activities, which God to worshipif we worship at alland so and so on, we are confused. And, out of that confusion any action is still confusing, therefore that understanding brings aboutif you observe it very carefully, and I hope you are doing it nowbrings about a negation of the positiveright?and therefore there is an action which is not positive. It is the very denying of the positive is the negative action. Look, sir, let me put it around differently, the question is: Is there an actionI'm not talking of spontaneous action; there is no such thing as spontaneous action, except perhaps when you see some dangerous thing,
53
or when a child is drowning, and so on, we are not facing that every day. We are trying to find out an action which is not based on a mechanical process? And one must find it, otherwise one is a mere machine, which most human beings are: the daily routine of going to the office for the next forty years, the repetitive action of pleasure, and so on and so on. Now, we're trying to find out if there is an action which is not at all conforming. And to find out, the positive action must come to an end, right?surely. And is it possible for the positive action to come to an end without any assertion of the will? If there is any assertion of the will, decision that all positive action must come to an end, that decision will create the new pattern, which will be an action of conformity. I dont know if you? When I say to myself, I will not do that, the assertion of will is the outcome of my desire to find something new; but the old pattern, the old activity, is created by desire, by fear, by pleasure. By denying the old pattern through an action of will, I have created the same pattern in a different field. Is this fairly clear? Audience: Yes. K: Ah, no, pleasenot verbally clear; explanation is never the thing. The word is not the real, the symbol is never the real. What is real is to see this thing very clearly, and when you see it, then the positive action comes to an end. You see, freedom is total negation of the positive, but the positive is not opposite of the negative but is something entirely different, at a different dimension altogether. Sir, look: death is the ultimate negation of life, isnt it?
Talk 1
ending. And the ending we resist through positive assertion of the known, right?my family, my house, my character, my this and this, all the rest of it. We're not discussing, we are not going into the question of death now; that we'll have to do another evening then, immense question. And, what we're trying to find out is: is there an action in total negation, because we have to negate totally all the structure of fear, all the structure that demands security, certainty, because there is no certainty. There is no certainty in Vietnam. A man killed there is a manis you. So can we, in the very denying of the total positive fragmentary approach to life, denying that totally, not through any ideal or through any pleasure, because you see the absurdity of the whole of the structure? Not belonging to any nation, to any group, to any society, to any philosophy, to any activitycompletely denying all that, because you see that it is the product of a confused mind. Then in the very denial is the action which is not conforming; therefore that is freedom. Look, I believe since recorded history, man has chosen the way of war: fourteen thousand five hundred or more, fifteen thousand wars, two and a half wars every year, and we haven't denied wars. We have favourite wars and not-favourite wars. We haven't denied violence, which indicates man does not want peace. Peace is something not between two wars, or the peace of a politicianpeace is something entirely different. Peace comes when there is freedom from the positive. I hope you understand the word, when we use the word positive. And when you deny totally war, or totally the division of the religious absurdities,
55
because you understand the whole nature of it, the structure of itnot because you don't like this or that: it has nothing to do with like or dislikethen in the very denial of that is the negation, and out of that negation there is an action which is never conforming. So a mind that is confused, seeking clarity will only further confuse itself, because a confused mind can't seek clarity. It's confused; what can it do? Any search on its part will only lead to further confusion. I think we don't realize that. When it's confused, one has to stopstop pursuing any activity, and the very stopping is the beginning of the new, which is the most positive actionpositive in a different sense altogether. And all this implies, does it not, that there must be profound self-knowing. To know the whole structure of your thinking-feeling, the motives, the fears, the anxieties, the guilt, the despair, the fear, and to know the whole content of one's mind, one has to be awareaware in the sense observe, not with resistance or with condemnation, with approval or disapproval, with pleasure or non-pleasurejust to observe. And that observation is the negation of the psychological structure of a society which says, You must; you must not. Therefore self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom; and also self-knowledge is the beginning and the ending of sorrow. And the self-knowing is not to be bought in a book, or going to a psychologist and being examined analytically. Self-knowledge is the understanding actually what is in oneself: the pains, the anxieties, seeing them without any distortion. Then out of this awareness clarity comes into being. Right. Can we talk over together the question what we have
Talk 1
said this afternoon? Questioner (Q): How can one start to learn to know oneself. K: How canIm sorry Im not stopping you from asking questions, but I have to repeat the question, therefore it has to be briefhow can one start knowing oneself? I wonder why we make everything so difficult. First of all, we don't know ourselves. We are all second-hand people. We dont know ourselves at all. And, we are at the mercy of all the analysts, philosophers, teachers. And to know oneself, one must understand what is learning. This is please just give a little attention to what we are going to talk about. Learning is something entirely different from accumulating knowledge. Learning is always active present, knowledge is always in the past. A mind that learns a language is accumulating words, storing it up, any technique, and so on, and from that accumulation it acts. And, learning is something entirely different, learning is never accumulating. I have to accumulate if I have to learn a technique; and from that technique, from that skill which I have learned, I operate and add more to that skillsurely thats not learning. Learning is a movement, is a flow, and there is no flow moment there is a static state of knowledge, which is essential when we function technologically. But life isn't technological accumulation, life is a movement. And to learn it and to follow it, one has to learn each moment, and therefore to learn, there is no accumulation. I wonder if Im making myself clear. Voices from audience: Yes, yes.
57
K: So, that's the first thing one has to observe that if there is to be self-knowledge, there must be an act of learning each minute. Not: having learned, I look at myself and then add more to that knowledge after having looked at myself. Which means what?that the division between the observer and the observed is sustained. I wonder if you follow all this. Look, sir; I want to know about myself. First of all, I've been told so many things about myself: that I am the soul, that I am the eternal flame, God knows what else, dozens of philosophies, ideas: the higher self, the lower self, the permanent reality, and so on and so on and so on. I want to learn about myself, so I have to discard all that, obviously. So I have to discard by observing how tremendously the mind has been influenced. We are the slaves of propaganda, whether its religious, military, or business; and, we are that. And to understand all that I can't condemn it, I mustn't say, This is good, this is bad, this I must keep, this I must not keep,I must observe. So, to observe there must be no condemnation, no justification, no acceptance. Then I begin to learn. Learning is not accumulation. Then I watchplease follow all thisI watch; I watch to see what I am, not what I should like to be, what actually is. I'm not in misery, or say, How terrible what I am,it is so. I neither condemn nor accept. So, I observe, I see the way, the pattern of my thinking, my feeling, my motives, my fears, anxieties. Now then: who is the observer? Please, this is not deep philosophy, just ordinary, daily occurrence. Who is the observer, who is the I that says, I look? The I which is looking is the accumulated experiences,
Talk 1
condemnations, observations, experiences, knowledge, and so onwho is the centre, the censor, the observer. He separates himself from the observed; he says, I am observing my fear, my guilt, my despair. But the observer is the observed; if he is not, he wouldnt recognize his despair. Youre following all this? I know what despair is, what loneliness isand that memory remains. The next time it arises, I say I see that something different from me, right? So, this division between the observer and the observed creates a conflict, and then I go off at a tangent how to resolve that conflict. But the fact is the observer is the observednot an intellectual concept but the fact. Then, when the observer is the observed, then learning is acting. I don't learn and then act; but the action takes place only when the observer is the observed, and that action is the denial of what has been, the mechanical process. So I hope it sounds very complex; it isnt. Yes, sir? Q2: Sir, is there a state of awareness where the past does not continually re-assert itself? K: Is there a state of awareness where the past does not continually assert itself? If there is an awareness of the total process of timetotal process, not the fragmentary process of yesterday, today and tomorrow? Again, we have to go into the whole question of time, but its not he occasion, the moment, now. If there is a total awareness of time, then there is no continuity as I am aware, or I have been aware, or I will be aware. Sir, when one is completely attentiveattentive, that is, giving your mind, your heart, your nerves, your
59
eyes, ears: everything attentivethere is no time at all. You don't then say, I was attentive yesterday, and I'm not today. Attention is not a continuous momentum of time: either you are attentive or you are not attentive. And as most of us are inattentive; and in that state of inattention we act and create misery for ourselves. And if you are attentive of what is taking place, totally, in the world: the starvation, the wars, the diseaseyou know, what is going in the world totally attentive, then the whole division of man against man comes to an end. Q3: Except, sir, there are moments almost like that, but one wakes up the next day and the attention is not maintained. If I do this I will not be able to (inaudible) K: Yes, sir, quite. The questioner says, There are moments like this, but the next day its gone, the next moment it's gone. How am I to keep on to that memory which Ive had? It's a memory, and therefore it's a dead thing. Therefore it's not awareness, not attention. Attention is completely in the . And when you are inattentivethat's the art of living, sirwhen you are inattentive, don't act. That requires a great deal of intelligence, a great deal of self-observation, because it's the inattention that breeds mischief and misery. But when you are completely attentive with all your being, in that state action is instantaneous. But the mind remembers that action and wants to repeat it, and then you are lost. Q4: Sir, can you speak about the relation of action, energy and attention? K: Im doing it, sir. Look, inattention is dissipation of energy, is wasted energy. And we are trained, through
Talk 1
education, through all the social structure and the psychological structure of the world, we are trained to be inattentive. People think for us; they tell us what to do, what to believe, they tell us how to experience, the new drug, and we like sheep followall that is inattention. And when there is self-knowledge, when there is delving deeply into the whole structure and the nature of oneself, then attention becomes a natural thing. And there is great beauty in attention.
61

6 Talks in New York at The New School For Social Research 1966 Talks 1 - 3

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

6 Talks in New York at The New School For Social Research 1966 Talks 1 - 3

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

KRISHNAMURTI

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

Krishnamurti in New York 1966

S-ar putea să vă placă și