Truth and Actuality
Chapter 8
3rd Public Talk Brockwood Park
13th September 1975
Suffering - The Meaning of Death
May we go on with what we were discussing the other day? We were
saying that the crisis in the world is not outward but the
crisis is in consciousness. And that consciousness is its
content: all the things that man has accumulated through
centuries, his fears, his dogmas, his superstitions, his
beliefs, his conclusions, and all the suffering, pain and
anxiety. We said unless there is a radical mutation in that
consciousness, outward activities will bring about more
mischief, more sorrow, more confusion. And to bring about that
mutation in consciousness a totally different kind of energy is
required; not the mechanical energy of thought, of time and
measure. When we were investigating into that we said there are
three active principles in human beings: fear, pleasure and
suffering. We talked about fear at some length. And we also went
into the question of pleasure, which is entirely different from
joy, enjoyment, and the delight of seeing something beautiful
and so on. And we also touched upon suffering.
I think we ought this morning to go into that question of
suffering. It is a nice morning and I am sorry to go into such a
dark subject. As we said, when there is suffering there can be
no compassion and we asked whether it is at all possible for
human minds, for human beings right throughout the world, to put
an end to suffering. For without that ending to suffering we
live in darkness, we accept all kinds of beliefs, dogmas,
escapes, which bring about much more confusion, more violence
and so on. So we are going this morning to investigate together
into this question of suffering, whether the human mind can ever
be free from it totally; and also we are going to talk about the
whole question of death.
Why do we accept suffering, why do we put up with it
psychologically? Physical suffering can be controlled or put up
with; and it is important that such physical suffering does not
distort clarity of thought. We went into that. Because for most
of us, when there is physical pain, a continued suffering, it
distorts our thinking, it prevents objective thinking, which
becomes personal, broken up, distorted. If one is not actively
aware of this whole process of physical suffering, whether
remembered in the past, or the fear of having it again in the
future, then neurotic habits, neurotic activities take place. We
spoke of that briefly the other day.
We are asking if it is at all possible for human beings to end
suffering at all levels of their existence, psychological
suffering. And when we go into it in ourselves deeply, we see
one of the major factors of this suffering is attachment -
attachment to ideas, to conclusions, to ideologies, which act as
security; and when that security is threatened there is a
certain kind of suffering. Please, as we said the other day, we
are sharing this together, we are looking into this question of
suffering together. You are not merely listening to a talk, if I
may point out, and gathering a few ideas and agreeing or
disagreeing, but rather we are in communication, sharing the
problem, examining the question, the issue, actively; and so it
becomes our responsibility, yours as well as the speaker's, to
go into this question.
There is also attachment to persons; in our relationships there
is a great deal of suffering. That is, the one may be free from
this conditioning of fear and so on, and the other may not be
and hence there is a tension. The word attachment means "holding
on", not only physically but psychologically, depending on
something. In a relationship, one may be free and the other may
not be free and hence the conflict; one may be a Catholic and
the other may not be a Catholic, or a Communist and so on. Hence
the conflict that breeds continuous strain and suffering.
Then there is the suffering of the unknown, of death; the
suffering of losing something that you were attached to in the
past, as memory. I do not know if you have not noticed all these
things in yourself? And is it possible to live in complete
relationship with another without this tension, which is brought
about through self-interest, through self-centred activity,
desire pulling in different directions, and live in a
relationship in which there may be contradictions, for one may
be free, the other may not be? To live in that situation demands
not only what is called tolerance - that absurd intellectual
thing that man has created - but it demands a much greater
thing, which is affection, love, and therefore compassion. We
are going to go into that.
We are asking whether man can end suffering. There are various
explanations: how to go beyond it, how to rationalize it, how to
suppress it, how to escape from it. Now we are asking something
entirely different: not to suppress it, not to evade it, nor
rationalize it, but when there is that suffering to remain
totally with it, without any movement of thought, which is the
movement of time and measure.
One suffers: one loses one's son, or wife, or she runs away with
somebody else; and the things that you are attached to, the
house, the name, the form, all the accumulated conclusions, they
seem to fade away, and you suffer. Can one look at that
suffering without the observer? We went into that question of
what the observer is. We said the observer is the past, the
accumulated memory, experience and knowledge. And with that
knowledge, experience, memory, one observes the suffering, so
one dissociates oneself from suffering: one is different from
suffering and therefore one can do something about it. Whereas
the observer is the observed.
This requires a little care and attention, the statement that,
"the observer is the observed". We don't accept it. We say the
observer is entirely different; and the observed is something
out there separate from the observer. Now if one looks very
closely at that question, at that statement that the observer is
the observed, it seems so obvious. When you say you are angry,
you are not different from anger, you are that thing which you
call anger. When you are jealous, you are that jealousy. The
word separates; that is, through the word we recognise the
feeling and the recognition is in the past; so we look at that
feeling through the word, through the screen of the past, and so
separate it. Therefore there is a division between the observer
and the observed.
So we are saying that when there is this suffering, either
momentary, or a continuous endless series of causes that bring
about suffering, to look at it without the observer. You are
that suffering; not, you are separate from suffering. Totally
remain with that suffering. Then you will notice, if you go that
far, if you are willing to observe so closely, that something
totally different takes place: a mutation. That is, out of that
suffering comes great passion. If you have done it, tested it
out, you will find it. It is not the passion of a belief,
passion for some cause, passion for some idiotic conclusion. It
is totally different from the passion of desire. It is something
which is of a totally different kind of energy; not the movement
of thought, which is mechanical.
We have a great deal of suffering in what is called love. Love,
as we know it now, is pleasure, sexual, the love of a country,
the love of an idea, and so on - all derived from pleasure. And
when that pleasure is denied there is either hatred, antagonism,
or violence. Can there be love, not just something personal
between you and me or somebody else, but the enormous feeling of
compassion - passion for everything, for everybody. Passion for
nature, compassion for the earth on which we live, so that we
don`t destroy the earth, the animals, the whole thing... Without
love, which is compassion, suffering must continue. And we human
beings have put up with it, we accept it as normal. Every
religion has tried to find a way out of this, but organized
religions have brought tremendous suffering.
Religious oganizations throughout the world have done a great
deal of harm, there have been religious wars endless
persecution, tortures, burning people, especially in the West -
it wasn't the fashion in those days in the East. And we are
speaking of - not the acceptance of suffering, or the putting up
with suffering - but remaining motionless with that suffering;
then there comes out of it great compassion. And from that
compassion arises the whole question of creation.
What is creation, what is the creative mind? Is it a mind that
suffers and through that suffering has learnt a certain
technique and expresses that technique on paper, in marble, with
paint - that is, is creativeness the outcome of tension? Is it
the outcome of a disordered life? Does creativeness come through
the fragmentary activity of daily life? I don't know if you are
following all this? Or must we give a totally different kind of
meaning to creativeness, which may not need expression at all?
So one has to go into this question within oneself very deeply,
because one's consciousness is the consciousness of the world. I
do not know if you realize that? Fundamentally your
consciousness is the consciousness of the speaker, of the rest
of the world, basically. Because in that consciousness there is
suffering, there is pain, there is anxiety, there is fear of
tomorrow, fear of insecurity, which every man goes through
wherever he lives. So your consciousness is the consciousness of
the world, and if there is a mutation in that consciousness it
affects the total consciousness of human beings. It is a fact.
So it becomes tremendously important that human beings bring
about a radical transformation, or mutation in themselves, in
their consciousness.
Now we can go into this thing called death, which is one of the
major factors of suffering. As with everything else in life we
want a quick, definite answer, an answer which will be
comforting, which will be totally satisfactory, intellectually,
emotionally, physically, in every way. We want immortality,
whatever that may mean, and we want to survive, both physically
and psychologically. We avoid death at any price, put it as far
away as possible. So we have never been able to examine it
closely. We have never been able to face it, understand it, not
only verbally, intellectually, but completely. We wait until the
last moment, which may be an accident, disease, old age, when
you can't think, when you can't look, you are just "gaga". Then
you become a Catholic, a Protestant, believe in this or that. So
we are trying this morning to understand, not verbally, but
actually what it means to die - which doesn't mean we are asking
that we should commit suicide. But we are asking, what is the
total significance of this thing called death, which is the
ending of what we know as life.
In enquiring into this we must find out whether time has a stop.
The stopping of time may be death. It may be the ending and
therefore that which ends has a new beginning, not that which
has a continuity. So first can there be an ending to time, can
time stop? - not chronological time by the watch, as yesterday,
today, and tomorrow, the twenty-four hours, but the whole
movement of time as thought and measure. That movement, not
chronological time, but that movement as thought, which is the
whole process of comparing, of measurement, can all that process
stop? Can thought, which is the response of memory, and can
experience as knowledge - knowledge is always in the past,
knowledge is the past - can that whole momentum come to an end?
Not in the technological field, we don't even have to discuss
that, that is obvious. Can this movement come to an end? Time as
hope, time as something that has happened to which the mind
clings, attachment to the past, or a projection from the past to
the future as a conclusion, and time as a movement of
achievement from alpha to omega - this whole movement in which
we are caught. If one said there is no tomorrow,
psychologically, you would be shocked, because tomorrow is
tremendously important: tomorrow you are going to be happy,
tomorrow you will achieve something, tomorrow will be the
fulfilment of yesterday`s hopes, or today's hopes, and so on.
Tomorrow becomes extraordinarily significant - the tomorrow
which is projected from the past as thought.
So we are asking, can all that momentum come to an end? Time has
created, through centuries, the centre which is the "me". Time
is not only the past as attachment, hope, fulfilment, the
evolving process of thought until it becomes more and more
refined. But also that centre around which all our activities
take place, the "me", the mine, we and they, both politically,
religiously, economically and so on. So the "me" is the
conclusion of time, adding to itself and taking away from
itself, but there is always this centre which is the very
essence of time. We are asking, can that movement come to an
end. This is the whole problem of meditation, not sitting down
and repeating some mantra, some words, and doing some tricks -
that is all silly nonsense. I am not being intolerant but it is
just absurd. And it becomes extraordinarily interesting to find
this out, enquire into this.
Then what is death? Can that be answered in terms of words, or
must one look at it not only verbally but non-verbally? There is
death, the organism dies, by misuse, by abuse, by
overindulgence, drink, drugs, accident, all the things that the
flesh is heir to - it dies, comes to an end, the heart stops,
the brain with all its marvellous machinery comes to an end. We
accept it - we are not afraid of the physical organism coming to
an end but we are afraid of something totally different. And
being afraid of that basically, we want to resolve that fear
through various beliefs, conclusions, hopes.
The whole of the Asiatic world believes in reincarnation, they
have proof for it - they say so at least. That is - watch this,
it is extraordinary - the thing that has been put together by
time as the "me", the ego, that incarnates till that entity
becomes perfect and is absorbed into the highest principle,
which is Brahman, or whatever you like to call it. Time has
created the centre, the "me", the ego, the personality, the
character, the tendencies, and so on, and through time you are
going to dissolve that very entity, through reincarnation. You
see the absurdity? Thought has created something as the "me",
the centre, and through the evolutionary process, which is time,
you will ultimately dissolve that and be absorbed into the
highest principle. And yet they believe in this tremendously.
The other day I was talking to somebody who is a great believer
in this. He said, "If you don't believe it you are not a
religious man", and he walked out. And Christianity has its own
form of continuity of the "me", the resurrection - Gabriel
blowing the trumpet and so on (laughter). When you believe in
reincarnation, what is important is that you are going to live
another life and you suffer in this life because of your past
actions. So what is important is, if one is actually basically
committed wholly to that belief, it means that you must behave
rightly, accurately, with tremendous care now. And we don't do
that. That demands superhuman energy.
There are several problems involved in this. What is immortality
and what is eternity - which is a timeless state - and what
happens to human beings who are still caught in this movement of
time? We human beings live extraordinarily complex,
irresponsible, ugly, stupid lives, we are at each other's
throats, we are battling about beliefs, about authority,
politically and religiously, and our daily lives are a series of
endless conflicts. And we want that to continue. And because our
lives are so empty, so full of meaningless words, we say there
is a state where there is no death, immortality - which is a
state where there is no movement of time. That is, time through
centuries has created the idea of the self, of the "me"
evolving. It has been put together through time, which is a part
of evolution. And inevitably there is death and with the ending
of the brain cells thought comes to an end. Therefore one hopes
that there is something beyond the "me", the
super-consciousness, a spark of God, a spark of truth, that can
never be destroyed and that continues. And that continuity is
what we call immortality. That is what most of us want. If you
don't get it through some kind of fame, you want to have it
sitting near God, who is timeless. The whole thing is so absurd.
Is there something which is not of time, which has no beginning
and no end, and is therefore timeless, eternal? Our life being
what it is, we have this problem of death; and if I, a human
being, have not totally understood the whole quality of myself,
what happens to me when I die? You understand the question? Is
that the end of me? I have not understood, if I have understood
myself totally, then that is a different problem, which we will
come to. If I have not understood myself totally - I am not
using the word "understand" intellectually - but actually to be
aware of myself without any choice, all the content of my
consciousness - if I have not deeply delved into my own
structure and the nature of consciousness and I die, what
happens?
Now who is going to answer this question? (laughter). No, I am
putting it purposefully. Who is going to answer this question?
Because we think we cannot answer it we look to someone else to
tell us, the priest, the books, the people who have said, "I
know", the endless mushrooming gurus. If one rejects all
authority - and one must, totally, all authority - then what
have you left? Then you have the energy to find out - because
you have rejected that which dissipates energy, gurus, hopes and
fears, somebody to tell you what happens - if you reject all
that, which means all authority, then you have tremendous
energy. With that energy you can begin to enquire what actually
takes place when you have not totally resolved the structure and
the nature of the self, the self being time, and therefore
movement, and therefore division: the "me" and the "not me" and
hence conflict.
Now what happens to me when I have not ended that conflict? You
and I and the rest of the world, if the speaker has not ended
it, what happens to us? We are all going to die - I hope not
soon but sometime or other. What is going to happen? When we
live, as we are living, are we so fundamentally different from
somebody else? You may be cleverer, have greater knowledge or
technique, you may be more learned, have certain gifts, talents,
inventiveness; but you and another are exactly alike basically.
Your colour may be different, you may be taller, shorter, but in
essence you are the same. So while you are living you are like
the rest of the world, in the same stream, in the same movement.
And when you die you go on in the same movement. I wonder if you
understand what I am saying? It is only the man who is totally
aware of his conditioning, his consciousness, the content of it,
and who moves and dissipates it, who is not in that stream. Am I
making this clear? That is, I am greedy, envious, ambitious,
ruthless, violent - so are you. And that is our daily life,
petty, accepting authority, quarrelling, bitter, not loved and
aching to be loved, the agonies of loneliness, irresponsible
relationship - that is our daily life. And we are like the rest
of the world, it is a vast endless river. And when we die we'll
be like the rest, moving in the same stream as before when we
were living. But the man who understands himself radically, has
resolved all the problems in himself psychologically, he is not
of that stream. He has stepped out of it.
The man who moves away from the stream, his consciousness is
entirely different. He is not thinking in terms of time,
continuity, or immortality. But the other man or woman is still
in that. So the problem arises: what is the relationship of the
man who is out to the man who is in? What is the relationship
between truth and reality? Reality being, as we said, all the
things that thought has put together. The root meaning of that
word reality is, things or thing. And living in the world of
things, which is reality, we want to establish a relationship
with a world which has no thing - which is impossible.
What we are saying is that consciousness, with all its content,
is the movement of time. In that movement all human beings are
caught. And even when they die that movement goes on. It is so;
this is a fact. And the human being who sees the totality of
this - that is the fear, the pleasure and the enormous suffering
which man has brought upon himself and created for others, the
whole of that, and the nature and the structure of the self, the
"me", the total comprehension of that, actually - then he is out
of that stream. And that is the crisis in consciousness. We are
trying to solve all our human problems, economic, social,
political, within the area of that consciousness in time. I
wonder if you see this? And therefore we can never solve it. We
seem to accept the politician as though he was going to save the
world, or the priest, or the analyst, or somebody else. And, as
we said, the mutation in consciousness is the ending of time,
which is the ending of the "me" which has been produced through
time. Can this take place? Or is it just a theory like any
other?
Can a human being, can you actually do it? When you do it, it
affects the totality of consciousness. Which means in the
understanding of oneself, which is the understanding of the
world - because I am the world - there comes not only compassion
but a totally different kind of energy. This energy, with its
compassion, has a totally different kind of action. That action
is whole, not fragmentary.
We began by talking about suffering, that the ending of
suffering is the beginning of compassion; and this question of
love, which man has reduced to mere pleasure; and this great
complex problem of death. They are all interrelated, they are
not separate. It isn't that I am going to solve the problem of
death, forgetting the rest. The whole thing is interrelated,
inter-communicated. It is all one. And to see the totality of
all that, wholly, is only possible when there is no observer and
therefore freedom from all that.
Questioner: I'd like to ask a question. You said towards the
beginning that it is important for each individual to transform
his consciousness. Isn't the fact that you say that it is
important an ideal, which is the very thing to be avoided ?
Krishnamurti: When you see a house on fire, isn't it important
that you put it out? In that there is no ideal. The house is
burning, you are there, and you have to do something about it.
But if you are asleep and discussing the colour of the hair of
the man who has set the house on fire...
Q: The house on fire is in the world of reality, isn't it? It is
a fact. We are talking about the psychological world.
K: Isn't that also a factual world? Isn't it a fact that you
suffer? Isn't it a fact that one is ambitious, greedy, violent -
you may not be, but the rest - that is a fact. We say the house
is a fact, but my anger, my violence, my stupid activities are
something different; they are as real as the house. And if I
don't understand myself, dissolve all the misery in myself, the
house is going to become the destructive element.
Q: Sir, as I understand it, your message and the message of
Jesus Christ seem to reach towards the same thing, although
stated differently. I had always understood your message and
Jesus Christ's message to be quite different in content. About
two years ago I was a Christian, so it is very difficult to get
rid of statements that Jesus made, such as, "No man cometh to
the Father but by me". Although I find more sense in your
message at the moment, how do you equate this?
K: It is very simple. I have no message. I am just pointing out.
That is not a message.
Q: But why are you doing it?
K: Why am I doing it? Why do we want a message? Why do we want
somebody to give us something? When everything is in you.
Q: It is wonderful.
K: No, it is not wonderful (laughter). Please do look at it. You
are the result of all the influences, of the culture, the many
words, propaganda, you are that. And if you know how to look,
how to read, how to listen, how to see, the art of seeing,
everything is there, right in front of you. But we don't have
the energy, the inclination, or the interest. We want somebody
to tell us what there is on the page. And we make that person
who tells us into an extraordinary human being. We worship him,
or destroy him, which is the same thing. So it is there. You
don't need a message. Do look at it please. Is the book
important, or what you find in the book? What you find in the
book, and after you have read it you throw it away. Now in these
talks, you listen, find out, go into it, and throw away the
speaker. The speaker is not at all important. It is like a
telephone.
The other question is, "Why do you speak?" Does that need
answering? Would you say to the flower on the wayside, "Why do
you flower?" It is there for you to look, to listen, to see the
beauty of it and come back again to look at the beauty of it.
That is all.
Q: (partly inaudible) We have the same message, the same words,
we have it in ourselves, the guru.
Q: (repeating) We have a guru in ourselves.
K: Have you? Guru means in Sanskrit, the root meaning of that
word means "heavy".
Q: He said heaven.
K: Heaven, it is the same thing, sir. Have you a heaven in
yourself? My lord, I wish you had! (laughter). In yourself you
are so confused, so miserable, so anxious - what a set of words
to use - heaven! You can substitute God into heaven, heaven as
God and you think you are quite different. People have believed
that you had God inside you, light inside you, or something else
inside you. But when you see actually that you have nothing,
just words, then if there is absolutely nothing there is
complete security. And out of that, everything happens, flowers.
Chapter 9
4th Public Talk
Brockwood Park
14th September 1975
The Sacred, Religion, Meditation
I would like this morning to talk about the question of what is
sacred, what is the meaning of religion and of meditation. First
we must examine what is reality and what is truth. Man has been
concerned throughout the ages to discover, or live in truth; And
he has projected various symbols, conclusions, images made by
the mind or by the hand and imagined what is truth. Or he has
tried to find out through the activity and the movement of
thought. And I think we should be wise if we would differentiate
between reality and truth and when we are clear what reality is
then perhaps we shall be able to have an insight into what is
truth.
The many religions throughout the world have said that there is
an enduring, everlasting truth, but the mere assertion of truth
has very little significance. One has to discover it for
oneself, not theoretically, intellectually, or sentimentally,
but actually find out if one can live in a world that is
completely truthful. We mean by religion the gathering together
of all energy to investigate into something: to investigate if
there is anything sacred. That is the meaning we are giving it,
not the religion of belief, dogma, tradition or ritual with
their hierarchical outlook. But we are using the word "religion"
in the sense: to gather together all energy, which will then be
capable of investigating if there is a truth which is not
controlled, shaped, or polluted by thought.
The root meaning of the word reality is thing or things. And to
go into the question of what is reality, one must understand
what thought is. Because our society, our religions, our
so-called revelations are essentially the product of thought. It
is not my opinion or my judgement, but it is a fact. All
religions when you look at them, observe without any prejudice,
are the product of thought. That is, you may perceive something,
have an insight into truth, and you communicate it verbally to
me and I draw from your statement an abstraction and make that
into an idea; then I live according to that idea. That is what
we have been doing for generations: drawing an abstraction from
a statement and living according to that abstraction as a
conclusion. And that is generally called religion. So we must
find out how limited thought is and what are its capacities, how
far it can go, and be totally aware that thought doesn't spill
over into a realm in which thought has no place.
I don't know if you can see this? Please, we are not only
verbally communicating, which means thinking together, not
agreeing or disagreeing, but thinking together, and therefore
sharing together; not the speaker gives and you take, but
together we are sharing, therefore there is no authority. And
also there is a non-verbal communication, which is much more
difficult, because unless we see very clearly the full meaning
of words, how the mind is caught in words, how words shape our
thinking, and can go beyond that, then there is no non-verbal
communication, which becomes much more significant. We are
trying to do both: to communicate verbally and non-verbally.
That means we must both be interested at the same time, at the
same level, with the same intensity, otherwise we shan't
communicate. It is like love; love is that intense feeling at
the same time, at the same level. Otherwise you and I don't love
each other. So we are going to observe together what is reality,
what are the limitations of thought, and whether thought can
ever perceive truth. Or is it beyond the realm of thought?
I think we all agree, at least most of us do, even the
scientists, that thought is a material process, is a chemical
process. Thought is the response of accumulated knowledge as
experience and memory. So thought is essentially a thing. There
is no sacred thought, no noble thought, it is a thing. And its
function is in the world of things, which is technology,
learning, learning the art of learning, the art of seeing and
listening. And reality is in that area. Unless we understand
this rather complex problem we shall not be able to go beyond
it. We may pretend, or imagine, but imagination and pretension
have no place in a human being who is really serious and is
desirous to find out what is truth.
As long as there is the movement of thought, which is time and
measure, in that area truth has no place. Reality is that which
we think and the action of thought as an idea, as a principle,
as an ideal, projected from the previous knowledge into the
future modified and so on. All that is in the world of reality.
We live in that world of reality - if you have observed yourself
you will see how memory plays an immense part. Memory is
mechanical, thought is mechanical, it is a form of computer, a
machine, as the brain is. And thought has its place. I cannot
speak if I have no language; if I spoke in Greek you wouldn't
understand. And learning a language, learning to drive a car, to
work in a factory and so on, there thought is necessary.
psychologically, thought has created the reality of the "me".
"Me", "my", my house, my property, my wife, my husband, my
children, my country, my God - all that is the product of
thought. And in that field we have established a relationship
with each other which is constantly in conflict. That is the
limitation of thought.
Unless we put order into that world of reality we cannot go
further. We live a disorderly life in our daily activities; that
is a fact. And is it possible to bring about order in the world
of reality, in the world of thought, socially, morally,
ethically and so on? And who is to bring about order in the
world of reality? I live a disorderly life - if I do - and being
disorderly, can I bring about order in all the activities of
daily life? Our daily life is based on thought, our relationship
is based on thought, because I have an image of you and you have
an image of me, and the relationship is between those two
images. The images are the product of thought, which is the
response of memory, experience and so on. Now can there be order
in the world of reality? This is really a very important
question. Unless order is established in the world of reality
there is no foundation for further enquiry. In the world of
reality, is it possible to behave orderly, not according to a
pattern set by thought, which is still disorder? Is it possible
to bring about order in the world of reality? That is, no wars,
no conflict, no division. Order implies great virtue, virtue is
the essence of order - not following a blueprint, which becomes
mechanical. So who is to bring order in this world of reality?
Man has said, "God will bring it. Believe in God and you will
have order. Love God and you will have order." But this order
becomes mechanical because our desire is to be secure, to
survive, to find the easiest way of living - let us put it that
way.
So we are asking, who is to bring order in this world of
reality, where there is such confusion, misery, pain, violence
and so on. Can thought bring about order in that reality - a
world of reality which thought has created? Do you follow my
question? The Communists say control the environment, then there
will be order in man. According to Marx the State will wither
away - you know all that. They have tried to bring order but man
is in disorder, even in Russia! So one has to find out, if
thought is not to bring about order, then what will? I don`t
know if this is a problem to you, if it really interests you? So
one has to ask, if thought, which has made such a mess of life,
cannot bring clarity into this world of reality, then is there
an observation in the field of reality, or of the field of
reality, without the movement of thought. Are we meeting each
other about this? A human being has exercised thought, he says
there is disorder, I will control it, I will shape it, I will
make order according to certain ideas - it is all the product of
thought. And thought has created disorder. So thought has no
place in order, and how is this order to come about?
Now we will go into it a little bit. Can one observe this
disorder in which one lives, which is conflict, contradiction,
opposing desires, pain, suffering, fear, pleasure and all that,
this whole structure of disorder, without thought? You
understand my question? Can you observe this enormous disorder
in which we live, externally as well as inwardly, without any
movement of thought? Because if there is any movement of
thought, then it is going to create further disorder, isn't it?
So can you observe this disorder in yourself without any
movement of thought as time and measure - that is, without any
movement of memory?
We are going to see whether thought as time can come to an end.
Whether thought as measure, which is comparison, as time, from
here to there - all that is involved in the movement of time -
whether that time can have a stop? This is the very essence of
meditation. You understand? So we are going to enquire together
if time has a stop, that is, if thought as movement can come to
an end. Then only is there order and therefore virtue. Not
cultivated virtue, which requires time and is therefore not
virtue, but the very stopping, the very ending of thought is
virtue. This means we have to enquire into the whole question of
what is freedom. Can man live in freedom? Because that is what
it comes to. If time comes to an end it means that man is deeply
free. So one has to go into this question of what is freedom. Is
freedom relative, or absolute? If freedom is the outcome of
thought then it is relative. When freedom is not bound by
thought then it is absolute. We are going to go into that.
Outwardly, politically, there is less and less freedom. We think
politicians can solve all our problems and the politicians,
especially the tyrannical politicians, assume the authority of
God, they know and you don't know. That is what is going on in
India, freedom of speech, civil rights, have been denied, like
in all tyrannies. Democratically we have freedom of choice, we
choose between the Liberal, Conservatives, Labour or something
else. And we think that having the capacity to choose gives us
freedom. Choice is the very denial of freedom. You choose when
you are not clear, when there is no direct perception, and so
you choose out of confusion, and so there is no freedom in
choice - psychologically, that is. I can choose between this
cloth and that cloth, and so on; but psychologically we think we
are free when we have the capacity to choose. And we are saying
that choice is born out of confusion, out of the structure of
thought, and therefore it is not free. We accept the authority
of the gurus, the priests, because we think they know and we
don't know. Now if you examine the whole idea of the guru, which
is becoming rather a nuisance in this country and in America,
the world over - I am sorry I am rather allergic to gurus
(laughter), I know many of them, they come to see me (laughter).
They say, "What you are saying is the highest truth" - they know
how to flatter! But we are dealing, they say, with people who
are ignorant and we are the intermediaries: we want to help
them. So they assume the authority and therefore deny freedom. I
do not know if you have noticed that not one single guru has
raised his voice against tyranny.
A man who would understand what freedom is must totally deny
authority, which is extraordinarily difficult, it demands great
attention. We may reject the authority of a guru, of a priest,
of an idea, but we establish an authority in ourselves - that is
"I think it is right, I know what I am saying, it is my
experience. All that gives one the authority to assert, which is
the same thing as the guru and the priest.
Can the mind be free of authority, of tradition, which means
accepting another as your guide, as somebody to tell you what to
do, except in the technological field? And man must be free if
he is not to become a serf, a slave, and deny the beauty and
depth of the human spirit. Now can the mind put aside all
authority in the psychological sense? - if you put aside the
authority of the policeman you will be in trouble. That requires
a great deal of inward awareness. One obeys and accepts
authority because in oneself there is uncertainty, confusion,
loneliness, and the desire to find something permanent,
something lasting. And is there anything lasting, anything that
is permanent, created by thought? Or does thought give to itself
permanency? The mind desires to have something it can cling to,
some certainty, some psychological security. This is what
happens in all our relationships with each other. I depend on
you psychologically - because in myself I am uncertain,
confused, lonely - and I am attached to you, I possess you, I
dominate you. So living in this world is freedom possible,
without authority, without the image, without the sense of
dependency? And is it freedom from something or freedom per se?
Now can we have freedom in the world of reality? You understand
my question? - can there be freedom in my relationship with you?
Can there be freedom in relationship between man and woman, or
is that impossible? - which doesn't mean freedom to do what one
likes, or permissiveness, or promiscuity. But can there be a
relationship between human beings of complete freedom? I do not
know if you have ever asked this question of yourself? You might
say it is possible or not possible. The possibility or the
impossibility of it is not an answer, but to find out whether
freedom can exist, absolute freedom in our relationships. That
freedom can only exist in relationship when there is order:
order not according to you, or another, but order in the sense
of the observation of disorder. And that observation is not the
movement of thought, because the observer is the observed; only
then there is freedom in our relationship.
Then we can go to something else. Having observed the whole
nature of disorder, order comes into being in our life. That is
a fact, if you have gone into it. From there we can move and
find out whether thought can end, can realize its own movement,
see its own limitation and therefore stop. We are asking, what
place has time in freedom. Is freedom a state of mind in which
there is no time? - time being movement of thought as time and
measure. Thought is movement, movement in time. That is, can the
brain, which is part of the mind - which has evolved through
centuries with all the accumulated memories, knowledge,
experience - is there a part of the brain which is not touched
by time? Do you understand my question? Our brain is conditioned
by various influences, by the pursuit of desires; and is there a
part of the brain that is not conditioned at all? Or is the
whole brain conditioned and can human beings therefore never
escape from conditioning? They can modify the conditioning,
polish, refine it, but there will always be conditioning if the
totality of the brain is limited, and therefore no freedom.
So we are going to find out if there is any part of the brain
that is not conditioned. All this is meditation, to find out.
Can one be aware of the conditioning in which one lives? Can you
be aware of your conditioning as a Christian, a Capitalist, a
Socialist, a Liberal, that you believe in this and you don't
believe in that? - all that is part of the conditioning. Can a
human being be aware of that conditioning? Can you be aware of
your consciousness? - not as an observer, but that you are that
consciousness. And if you are aware, who is it that is aware? Is
it thought that is aware that it is conditioned? Then it is
still in the field of reality, which is conditioned. Or is there
an observation, an awareness in which there is pure observation?
Is there an act, or an art of pure listening?
Do listen to this a little bit. The word "art" means to put
everything in its right place, where it belongs. Now can you
observe without any interpretation, without any judgement,
without any prejudice - just observe, see purely? And can you
listen, as you are doing now, without any movement of thought.
It is only possible if you put thought in the right place. And
the art of learning means not accumulating - then it becomes
knowledge and thought - but the movement of learning, without
the accumulation. So there is the art of seeing, the art of
listening, the art of learning - which means to put everything
where it belongs. And in that there is great order.
Now we are going to find out if time has a stop. This is
meditation. As we said at the beginning, it is all in the field
of meditation. Meditation isn't something separate from life,
from daily life. Meditation is not the repetition of words, the
repetition of a mantra, which is now the fashion and called
transcendental meditation, or the meditation which can be
practised. Meditation must be something totally unconscious. I
wonder if you see this? If you practise meditation, that is
follow a system, a method, then it is the movement of thought,
put together in order to achieve a result, and that result is
projected as a reaction from the past and therefore still within
the area of thought.
So can there be a mutation in the brain? It comes to that. We
say it is possible. That is, a mutation is only passible when
there is a great shock of attention. Attention implies no
control. Have you ever asked whether you can live in this world
without a single control? - of your desires, of your appetites,
of the fulfilment of your desires and so on, without a single
breath of control? Control implies a controller: and the
controller thinks he is different from that which he controls.
But when you observe closely the controller is the controlled.
So what place has control? In the sense of restraint,
suppression, to control in order to achieve, to control to
change yourself to become something else - all that is the
demand of thought. Thought by its very nature being fragmentary,
divides the controller and the controlled. And we are educated
from childhood to control, to suppress, to inhibit - which does
not mean to do what you like; that is impossible, that is too
absurd, too immature. But to understand this whole question of
control demands that you examine the desire which brings about
this fragmentation; the desire to be and not to be. To find out
whether you can live without comparison, therefore without an
ideal, without a future - all that is implied in comparison. And
where there is comparison there must be control. Can you live
without comparison and therefore without control - do you
understand? Have you ever tried to live without control, without
comparison? Because comparison and control are highly
respectable. The word "respect" means to look about. And when we
look about we see that all human beings, wherever they live,
have this extraordinary desire to compare themselves with
somebody, or with an idea, or with some human being who is
supposed to be noble, and in that process they control,
suppress. Now if you see this whole movement, then one will live
without a single breath of control. That requires tremendous
inward discipline. Discipline means actually to learn, not to be
disciplined to a pattern like a soldier. The word "discipline"
means to learn. Learn whether it is possible to live without a
single choice, comparison, or control. To learn about it; not to
accept it, not to deny it, but to find out how to live.
Then out of that comes a brain which is not conditioned.
Meditation then is freedom from authority, putting everything in
its right place in the field of reality, and consciousness
realizing its own limitation and therefore bringing about order
in that limitation. When there is order there is virtue, virtue
in behaviour.
From there we can go into the question, whether time has a stop.
Which means, can the mind, the brain itself, be absolutely
still? - not controlled. If you control thought in order to be
still, then it is still the movement of thought. Can the brain
and the mind be absolutely still, which is the ending of time?
Man has always desired throughout the ages to bring silence to
the mind, which he called meditation, contemplation and so on.
Can the mind be still? - not chattering, not imagining, not
conscious of that stillness, because if you are conscious of
that stillness there is a centre which is conscious, and that
centre is part of time, put together by thought; therefore you
are still within the area of reality and there is no ending in
the world of reality of time.
Man has made, whether by the hand or by the mind, what he thinks
is sacred, all the images in churches, in temples. All those
images are still the product of thought. And in that there is
nothing sacred. But out of this complete silence is there
anything sacred? We began by saying that religion is not belief,
rituals, authority, but religion is the gathering of all energy
to investigate if there is something sacred which is not the
product of thought. We have that energy when there is complete
order in the world of reality in which we live - order in
relationship, freedom from authority, freedom from comparison,
control, measurement. Then the mind and the brain become
completely still naturally, not through compulsion. If one sees
that anything which thought has created is not sacred, nothing -
all the churches, all the temples, all the mosques in the world
have no truth - then is there anything sacred?
In India, when only Brahmins could enter Temples and Gandhi was
saying that all people can enter temples - I followed him around
one year - and I was asked, "What do you say to that"? I
replied, God is not in temples, it doesn't matter who enters.
That was of course not acceptable. So in the same way we are
saying that anything created by thought is not sacred, and is
there anything sacred? Unless human beings find that sacredness,
their life really has no meaning, it is an empty shell. They may
be very orderly, they may be relatively free, but unless there
is this thing that is totally sacred, untouched by thought, life
has no deep meaning. Is there something sacred, or is everything
matter, everything thought, everything transient, everything
impermanent? Is there something that thought can never touch and
therefore is incorruptible, timeless, eternal and sacred? To
come upon this the mind must be completely, totally still, which
means time comes to an end; and in that there must be complete
freedom from all prejudice, opinion, judgement - you follow?
Then only one comes upon this extraordinary thing that is
timeless and the very essence of compassion.
So meditation has significance. One must have this meditative
quality of the mind, not occasionally, but all day long. And
this something that is sacred affects our lives not only during
the waking hours but during sleep. And in this process of
meditation there are all kinds of powers that come into being:
one becomes clairvoyant, the body becomes extraordinarily
sensitive. Now clairvoyance, healing, thought transference and
so on, become totally unimportant; all the occult powers become
so utterly irrelevant, and when you pursue those you are
pursuing something that will ultimately lead to illusion. That
is one factor. Then there is the factor of sleep. What is the
importance of sleep? Is it to spend the sleeping hours dreaming?
Or is it possible not to dream at all? What are dreams, why do
we dream, and is it possible for a mind not to dream, so that
during sleep, the mind being utterly restful, a totally
different kind of energy is built in?
If during waking hours we are completely attentive to our
thoughts, to our actions, to our behaviour, totally aware, then
are dreams necessary? Or are dreams a continuation of our daily
life, in the form of pictures, images, incidents - a continuity
of our daily conscious or unconscious movements? So when the
mind becomes totally aware during the day, then you will see
that dreams become unimportant, and being unimportant they have
no significance and therefore there is no dreaming. There is
only complete sleep; that means the mind has complete rest: it
can renew itself. Test it out. If you accept what the speaker is
saying, then it is futile; but not if you enquire and find out
if during the day you are very very awake, watchful, aware
without choice - we went into what it is to be aware - then out
of that awareness when you do sleep, the mind becomes
extraordinarily fresh and young. Youth is the essence of
decision, action. And if that action is merely centred round
itself, round the centre of myself, then that action breeds
mischief, confusion and so on. But when you realize the whole
movement of life as one, undivided, and are aware of that, then
the mind rejuvenates itself and has immense energy. All that is
part of meditation.
Part 3
Questions from Public Dialogues Saanen
Chapter 10
Question From the 7th Public Talk Saanen
25th July, 1976
Right Livelihood
Questioner: Is a motive necessary in business? What is the right
motive in earning a livelihood?
Krishnamurti: What do you think is the right livelihood? - not
what is the most convenient, not what is the most profitable,
enjoyable, or gainful; but what is the right livelihood? Now,
how will you find out what is right? The word "right" means
correct, accurate. It cannot be accurate if you do something for
profit or pleasure. This is a complex thing. Everything that
thought has put together is reality. This tent has been put
together by thought, it is a reality. The tree has not been put
together by thought, but it is a reality. Illusions are reality
- the illusions that one has, imagination, all that is reality.
And the action from those illusions is neurotic, which is also
reality. So when you ask this question, "What is the right
livelihood", you must understand what reality is. Reality is not
truth.
Now what is correct action in this reality? And how will you
discover what is right in this reality? - discover for yourself,
not be told. So we have to find out what is the accurate,
correct, right action, or right livelihood in the world of
reality, and reality includes illusion. Don't escape, don't move
away, belief is an illusion, and the activities of belief are
neurotic, nationalism and all the rest of it is another form of
reality, but an illusion. So taking all that as reality, what is
the right action there?
Who is going to tell you? Nobody, obviously. But when you see
reality without illusion, the very perception of that reality is
your intelligence, isn't it? in which there is no mixture of
reality and illusion. So when there is observation of reality,
the reality of the tree, the reality of the tent, reality which
thought has put together, including visions, illusions, when you
see all that reality, the very perception of that is your
intelligence - isn't it? So your intelligence says what you are
going to do. I wonder if you understand this? Intelligence is to
perceive what is and what is not - to perceive "what is" and see
the reality of "what is", which means you don't have any
psychological involvement, any psychological demands, which are
all forms of illusion. To see all that is intelligence; and that
intelligence will operate wherever you are. Therefore that will
tell you what to do.
Then what is truth? What is the link between reality and truth?
The link is this intelligence. Intelligence that sees the
totality of reality and therefore doesn't carry it over to
truth. And the truth then operates on reality through
intelligence.
Chapter 11
Question From the 3rd Public Talk Saanen
15th July, 1975
Will
Questioner: I wish to know if effort of will has a place in
life.
Krishnamurti: Has the will a place in life? What do we mean by
life? - going to the office every day, having a profession, a
career, the everlasting climbing the ladder, both religiously
and mundanely, the fears, the agonies, the things that we have
treasured, remembered, all that is life, isn't it? All that is
life, both the conscious as well as the hidden. The conscious of
which we know, more or less; and all the deep down hidden things
in the cave of one's mind, in the deepest recesses of one's
mind. All that is life: the illusion and the reality, the
highest principle and the "what is", the fear of death, fear of
living, fear of relationship - all that. What place has will in
that? That is the question.
I say it has no place. Don't accept what I am saying; I am not
your authority, I am not your guru. All the content of one's
consciousness, which is consciousness, is created by thought
which is desire and image. And that is what has brought about
such havoc in the world. Is there a way of living in this world
without the action of will? That is the present question.
I know this, as a human being I am fully aware of what is going
on within my consciousness, the confusion, the disorder, the
chaos, the battle, the seeking for power, position, safety,
security, prominence, all that; and I see thought has created
all that. Thought plus desire and the multiplication of images.
And I say, "What place has will in this?" It is will that has
created this. Now can I live in this without will? Biologically,
physiologically, I have to exercise a certain form of energy to
lean a language, to do this and that. There must be a certain
drive. I see all this. And I realise - not as a verbal
realization, as a description, but the, actual fact of it, as
one realizes pain in the body - I realize that this is the
product of thought as desire and will. Can I, as a human being,
look at all this, and transform this without will?
Now what becomes important is what kind of observation is
necessary. Observation to see actually what is. Is the mind
capable of seeing actually "what is"? Or does it always
translate into "what should be", "what should not be", "I must
suppress", "I must not suppress", and all the rest of it? There
must be freedom to observe, otherwise I can't see. If I am
prejudiced against you, or like you, I can't see you. So freedom
is absolutely necessary to observe - freedom from prejudice,
from information, from what has been learned, to be able to look
without the idea. You understand: to look without the idea. As
we said the other day, the word "idea" comes from Greek; the
root meaning of that word is to observe, to see. When we refuse
to see, we make an abstraction and make it into an idea.
There must be freedom to observe, and in that freedom will is
not necessary; there is just freedom to look. Which means, to
put it differently, if one makes a statement, can you listen to
it without making it into an abstraction? Do you understand my
question? The speaker makes a statement such as, "The ending of
sorrow is the beginning of wisdom". Can you listen to that
statement without making an abstraction of it? - the abstraction
being: "Is that possible?", "What do we get from it?,', "How do
we do it?". Those are all abstractions - and not actually
listening. So can you listen to that statement with all your
senses, which means with all your attention? Then you see the
truth of it. And the perception of that truth is action in this
chaos.
Chapter 12
Question From the 5th Public Talk Saanen
22nd July, 1975
Emotions and Thought
Questioner: Are emotions rooted in thought?
Krishnamurti: What are emotions? Emotions are sensations, aren't
they? You see a lovely car, or a beautiful house, a beautiful
woman or man, and the sensory perception awakens the senses.
Then what takes place? Contact, then desire, Now thought comes
in. Can you end there and not let thought come in and take over?
I see a beautiful house, the right proportions, with a lovely
lawn, a nice garden: all the senses are responding because there
is great beauty - it is well kept, orderly, tidy. Why can't you
stop there and not let thought come in and say, "I must have"
and all the rest of it? Then you will see emotions, or
sensations, are natural, healthy, normal. But when thought takes
over, then all the mischief begins.
So to find out for oneself whether it is possible to look at
something with all the senses and end there and not proceed
further - do it! That requires an extraordinary sense of
awareness in which there is no control; no control, therefore no
conflict. Just to observe totally that which is, and all the
senses respond and end there. There is great beauty in that. For
after all what is beauty?
Chapter 13
Question From the 5th Public Talk Saanen
22nd July, 1975
Beauty
Is beauty in the world of reality? Or is it not within the
movement of thought as time? Please follow this carefully
because we are investigating together. I am not laying down the
law. I am just asking myself: does beauty lie within the
movement of thought as time? That is, within the field of
reality. There are beautiful paintings, statues, sculpture,
marvellous cathedrals, wonderful temples. If you have been to
India, some of those ancient temples are really quite
extraordinary: they have no time, there has been no entity as a
human being who put them together. And those marvellous old
sculptures from the Egyptians, from the Greeks, down to the
Moderns. That is, is it expression and creation? Does creation
need expression? I am not saying it does, or does not, I am
asking, enquiring. Is beauty, which is both expression outwardly
and the sense of inward feeling of extraordinary elation, that
which comes when there is complete cessation of the "me", with
all its movements?
To enquire what is beauty, we have to go into the question of
what is creation. What is the mind that is creative? Can the
mind that is fragmented, however capable, whatever its gifts,
talent, is such a mind creative? If I live a fragmented life,
pursuing my cravings, my selfishness, my self-centred ambitions,
pursuits, my pain, my struggle - is such a mind (I am asking)
creative? - though it has produced marvellous music, marvellous
literature, architecture and poetry - English and other
literature is filled with it. A mind that is not whole, can that
be creative? Or is creation only possible when there is total
wholeness and therefore no fragmentation? A mind that is
fragmented is not a beautiful mind, and therefore it is not
creative.
Chapter 14
Question From the 6th Public Talk Saanen
24th July, 1975
The Stream Of "selfishness"
One can see that thought has built the "me", the "me" that has
become independent, the "me" that has acquired knowledge, the
"me" that is the observer, the "me" that is the past and which
passes through the present and modifies itself as the future. It
is still the "me" put together by thought, and that "me" has
become independent of thought. That "me" has a name, a form. It
has a label called X or Y or John. It identifies with the body,
with the face; there is the identification of the "me" with the
name and with the form, which is the structure, and with the
ideal which it wants to pursue. Also with the desire to change
the "me" into another form of "me", with another name. This "me"
is the product of time and of thought. The "me" is the word:
remove the word and what is the "me"?
And that "me" suffers: the "me", as you, suffers. The "me" in
suffering is you. The "me" in its great anxiety is the great
anxiety of you. Therefore you and I are common; that is the
basic essence. Though you may be taller, shorter, have a
different temperament, different character, be cleverer, all
that is the peripheral field of culture; but deep down,
basically we are the same. So that "me" is moving in the stream
of greed, in the stream of selfishness, in the stream of fear,
anxiety and so on, which is the same as you in the stream.
Please don't accept what I am saying - see the truth of it. That
is, you are selfish and another is selfish; you are frightened,
another is frightened; you are aching, suffering, with tears,
greed, envy, that is the common lot of all human beings. That is
the stream in which we are living, the stream in which we are
caught, all of us. We are caught in that stream while we are
living; please see that we are caught in this stream as an act
of life. This stream is "selfishness" - let us put it that way -
and in this stream we are living - the stream of "selfishness" -
that expression includes all the descriptions of the "me" which
I have just now given. And when we die the organism dies, but
the selfish stream goes on. Just look at it, consider it.
Suppose I have lived a very selfish life, in self-centred
activity, with my desires, the importance of my desires,
ambitions, greed, envy, the accumulation of property, the
accumulation of knowledge, the accumulation of all kinds of
things which I have gathered - all of which I have termed as
"selfishness". And that is the thing I live in, that is the
"me", and that is you also. In our relationships it is the same.
So while living we are together flowing in the stream of
selfishness. This is a fact, not my opinion, not my conclusion;
if you observe you will see it, whether you go to America, to
India, or all over Europe, modified by the environmental
pressures and so on, but basically that is the movement. And
when the body dies that movement goes on... That stream is time.
That is the movement of thought, which has created suffering,
which has created the "me" from which the "me" has now asserted
itself as being independent, dividing itself from you; but the
"me" is the same as you when it suffers. The "me" is the
imagined structure of thought. In itself it has no reality. It
is what thought has made it because thought needs security,
certainty, so it has invested in the "me" all its certainty. And
in that there is suffering. In that movement of selfishness,
while we are living we are being carried in that stream and when
we die that stream exists.
Is it possible for that stream to end? Can selfishness, with all
its decorations, with all its subtleties, come totally to an
end? And the ending is the ending of time. Therefore there is a
totally different manifestation after the ending, which is: no
selfishness at all.
When there is suffering, is there a "you" and "me"? Or is there
only suffering? I identify myself as the "me" in that suffering,
which is the process of thought. But the actual fact is you
suffer and I suffer, not "I" suffer something independent of
you, who are suffering. So there is only suffering... there is
only the factor of suffering. Do you know what it does when you
realize that? Out of that non-personalised suffering, not
identified as the "me" separate from you, when there is that
suffering, out of that comes a tremendous sense of compassion.
The very word "suffering" comes from the word "passion".
So I have got this problem. As a human being, living, knowing
that I exist in the stream as selfishness, can that stream, can
that movement of time, come totally to an end? Both at the
conscious as well as at the deep level? Do you understand my
question, after describing all this? Now, how will you find out
whether you, who are caught in that stream of selfishness, can
completely step out of it? - which is the ending of time. Death
is the ending of time as the movement of thought if there is the
stepping out of that. Can you, living in this world, with all
the beastliness of it, the world that man has made, that thought
has made, the dictatorships, the totalitarian authority, the
destruction of human minds, destruction of the earth, the
animals, everything man touches he destroys, including his wife
or husband. Now can you live in this world completely without
time? - that means no longer caught in that stream of
selfishness.
You see there are many more things involved in this; because
there is such a thing as great mystery. Not the thing invented
by thought, that is not mysterious. The occult is not
mysterious, which everybody is chasing now, that is the fashion.
The experiences which drugs give are not mysterious. There is
this thing called death, and the mystery that lies where there
is a possibility of stepping out of it.
That is, as long as one lives in the world of reality, which we
do, can there be the ending of suffering in that world of
reality? Think about it. Look at it. Don't say yes, or no. If
there is no ending of suffering in the world of reality - which
brings order - if there is no ending of selfishness in the world
of reality - it is selfishness that creates disorder in the
world of reality - if there is no ending to that then you
haven't understood, or grasped, the full significance of ending
time. Therefore you have to bring about order in the world of
reality, in the world of relationships, of action, of rational
and irrational thinking, of fear and pleasure. So can one,
living in the world of reality as we are, end selfishness? You
know it is a very complex thing to end selfishness, it isn't
just, "I won't think about myself".... This selfishness in the
field of reality is creating chaos. And you are the world and
the world is you. If you change deeply you affect the whole
consciousness of man.
Chapter 15
Question From the 7th Public Talk Saanen
27th July, 1975
The Unifying Factor
What is the unifying factor in meditation? Because that is one
of the most necessary and urgent things. Politicians are not
going to bring this unity however much they may talk about it.
It has taken them thousands of years just to meet each other.
What is that factor? We are talking about a totally different
kind of energy, which is not the movement of thought with its
own energy; and will that energy, which is not the energy of
thought, bring about this unity? For God's sake, this is your
problem, isn't it? Unity between you and your wife or husband,
unity between you and another. You see, we have tried to bring
about this unity; thought sees the necessity of unity and
therefore has created a centre. As the sun is the centre of this
world, holding all things in that light, so this centre created
by thought hopes to bring mankind together. Great conquerors,
great warriors, have tried to do this through bloodshed.
Religions have tried to do it, and have brought about more
division with their cruelty, with their wars, with their
torture. Science has enquired into this. And because science is
the accumulation of knowledge, and the movement of knowledge is
thought, being fragmentary it cannot unify.
Is there an energy which will bring about this unity, this
unification of mankind? We are saying, in meditation this energy
comes about, because in meditation there is no centre. The
centre is created by thought, but something else, totally
different, takes place, which is compassion. That is the
unifying factor of mankind. To be - not to become compassionate,
that is again another deception - but to be compassionate. That
can only take place when there is no centre, the centre being
that which has been created by thought - thought which hopes
that by creating a centre it can bring about unity, like a
fragmentary government, like a dictatorship, like autocracy, afl
those are centres hoping to create unity. All those have failed,
and they will inevitably fail. There is only one factor, and
that is this sense of great compassion. And that compassion is
when we understand the full width and depth of suffering. That
is why we talked a great deal about suffering, the suffering not
only of a human being, but the collective suffering of mankind.
Don't understand it verbally or intellectually but somewhere
else, in your heart, feel the thing. And as you are the world
and the world is you, if there is this birth of compassion you
will inevitably bring about unity, you can't help it.