Urgency of Change
Passion
Questioner: What is passion? You've talked about it and
apparently you give it a special meaning. I don't think I know
that meaning. Like every man I have sexual passion and passions
for superficial things like fast driving or cultivating a
beautiful garden. Most of us indulge in some form of passionate
activity. Talk about his special passion and you see a man's
eyes sparkle. We know the word passion comes from the Greek word
for suffering, but the feeling I get when you use this word is
not one of suffering but rather of some driving quality like
that of the wind which comes roaring out of the west, chasing
the clouds and the rubbish before it. I'd like to possess that
passion. How does one come by it? What is it passionate about?
What is the passion you mean?
Krishnamurti: I think we should be clear that lust and passion
are two different things. Lust is sustained by thought, driven
by thought, it grows and gathers substance in thought until it
explodes - sexually, or, if it is the lust for power, in its own
violent forms of fulfilment. Passion is something entirely
different; it is not the product of thought nor the remembrance
of a past event; it is not driven by any motive of fulfilment;
it is not sorrow either.
Questioner: Is all sexual passion lust? Sexual response is not
always the result of thought; it may be contact as when you
suddenly meet somebody whose loveliness overpowers you.
Krishnamurti: Wherever thought builds up the image of pleasure
it must inevitably be lust and not the freedom of passion. If
pleasure is the main drive then it is lust. When sexual feeling
is born out of pleasure it is lust. If it is born out of love it
is not lust, even though great delight may then be present. Here
we must be clear and find out for ourselves whether love
excludes pleasure and enjoyment. When you see a cloud and
delight in its vastness and the light on it, there is of course
pleasure, but there is a great deal more than pleasure. We are
not condemning this at all. If you keep returning to the cloud
in thought, or in fact, for a stimulation, then you are
indulging in an imaginative flight of fancy, and obviously here
pleasure and thought are the incentives operating. When you
first looked at that cloud and saw its beauty there was no such
incentive of pleasure operating. The beauty in sex is the
absence of the "me", the ego, but the thought of sex is the
affirmation of this ego, and that is pleasure. This ego is all
the time either seeking pleasure or avoiding pain, wanting
fulfilment and thereby inviting frustration. In all this the
feeling of passion is sustained and pursued by thought, and
therefore it is no longer passion but pleasure. The hope, the
pursuit, of remembered passion is pleasure.
Questioner: What is passion itself, then?
Krishnamurti: It has to do with joy and ecstasy, which is not
pleasure. In pleasure there is always a subtle form of effort -
a seeing, striving, demanding, struggling to keep it, to get it.
In passion there is no demand and therefore no struggle. In
passion there is not the slightest shadow of fulfilment,
therefore there can be neither frustration nor pain, Passion is
the freedom from the "me", which is the centre of all fulfilment
and pain. Passion does not demand because it is, and I am not
speaking of something static. Passion is the austerity of
self-abnegation in which the "you" and the "me" is not;
therefore passion is the essence of life. It is this that moves
and lives. But when thought brings in all the problems of having
and holding, then passion ceases. Without passion creation is
not possible.
Questioner: What do you mean by creation?
Krishnamurti: Freedom.
Questioner: What freedom?
Krishnamurti: Freedom from the "me" which depends on environment
and is the product of environment - the me which is put together
by society and thought. This freedom is clarity, the light that
is not lit from the past. Passion is only the present.
Questioner: This has fired me with a strange new feeling.
Krishnamurti: That is the passion of learning.
Questioner: What particular action in my daily living will
ensure that this passion is burning and operating?
Krishnamurti: Nothing will ensure it except the attention of
learning, which is action, which is now. In this there is the
beauty of passion, which is the total abandonment of the "me"
and its time.
Order
Questioner: In your teaching there are a thousand details. in my
living I must be able to resolve them all into one action, now,
which permeates all I do, because in my living I have only the
one moment right before me in which to act. What is that one
action in daily living which will bring all the details of your
teaching to one point, like a pyramid inverted on its point?
Krishnamurti: ...dangerously!
Questioner: Or, to put it differently, what is the one action
which will bring the total intelligence of living into focus in
one instant in the present?
Krishnamurti: I think the question to ask is how to live a
really intelligent, balanced, active life, in harmonious
relationship with other human beings, without confusion,
adjustment and misery. What is the one act that will summon this
intelligence to operate in whatever you are doing? There is so
much misery, poverty and sorrow in the world. What are you, as a
human being, to do facing all these human problems? If you use
the opportunity to help others for your own fulfilment, then it
is exploitation and mischief. So we can put that aside from the
beginning. The question really is, how are we to live a highly
intelligent, orderly life without any kind of effort? It seems
that we always approach this problem from the outside, asking
ourselves, "What am I to do, confronted with all the many
problems of mankind - economic, social, human?" We want to work
this out in terms of the outer.
Questioner: No, I am not asking you how I can tackle or solve
the problems of the world, economic, social or political. That
would be too absurd! All I want to know is how to live
righteously in this world exactly as it is, because it is as it
is now, right here before me, and I can't will it into any other
shape. I must live now in this world as it is, and in these
circumstances solve all the problems of living. I am asking how
to make this living a life of Dharma, which is that virtue that
is not imposed from without, that does not conform to any
precept, is not cultivated by any thought.
Krishnamurti: Do you mean you want to find yourself immediately,
suddenly, in a state of grace which is great intelligence,
innocency, love - to find yourself in this state without having
a past or a future, and to act from this state?
Questioner: Yes! That is it exactly.
Krishnamurti: This has nothing to do with achievement, success
or failure. There must surely be only one way to live: what is
it?
Questioner: That is my question.
Krishnamurti: To have inside you that light that has no
beginning and no ending, that is not lit by your desire, that is
not yours or someone else's. When there is this inward light,
whatever you do will always be right and true.
Questioner: How do you get that light, now, without all the
struggle, the search, the longing, the questioning?
Krishnamurti: It is only possible when you really die to the
past completely, and this can be done only when there is
complete order in the brain. The brain cannot stand disorder. If
there is disorder all its activities will be contradictory,
confused, miserable and it will bring about mischief in itself
and around itself. This order is not the design of thought, the
design of obedience to a principle, to authority, or to some
form of imagined goodness. It is disorder in the brain that
brings about conflict; then all the various resistances
cultivated by thought to escape from this disorder arise -
religious and otherwise.
Questioner: How can this order be brought about to a brain that
is disorderly, contradictory, in itself?
Krishnamurti: It can be done by watchfulness throughout the day,
and then, before sleeping, by putting everything that has been
done during the day in order. In that way the brain does not go
to sleep in disorder. This does not mean that the brain
hypnotizes itself into a state of order when there is really
disorder in and about it. There must be order during the day,
and the summing up of this order before sleeping is the
harmonious ending of the day. It is like a man who keeps
accounts and balances them properly every evening so that he
starts afresh the next day, so that when he goes to sleep his
mind is quiet, empty, not worried, confused, anxious or fearful.
When he wakes up there is this light which is not the product of
thought or of pleasure. This light is intelligence and love. It
is the negation of the disorder of the morality in which we have
been brought up.
Questioner: Can I have this light immediately? That is the
question I asked right at the beginning, only I put it
differently.
Krishnamurti: You can have it immediately when the "me" is not.
The "me" comes to an end when it sees for itself that it must
end; the seeing is the light of understanding.
The Individual and The Community
Questioner: I don't quite know how to ask this question but I
have a strong feeling that relationship between the individual
and the community, these two opposing entities, has been a long
history of mischief. The history of the world, of thought, of
civilization, is, after all, the history of the relationship
between these two opposing entities. In all societies the
individual is more or less suppressed; he must conform and fit
into the pattern which the theorists have determined. The
individual is always trying to break out of these patterns, and
continuous battle between the two is the result. Religions talk
about the individual soul as something separate from the
collective soul. They emphasize the individual. In modern
society - which has become so mechanical, standardized and
collectively active - the individual is trying to identify
himself, enquiring what he is, asserting himself. All struggle
leads nowhere. My question is, what is wrong with all this?
Krishnamurti: The only thing that really matters is that there
be an action of goodness, love and intelligence in living. Is
goodness individual or collective, is love personal or
impersonal, is intelligence yours, mine or somebody else's? If
it is yours or mine then it is not intelligence, or love, or
goodness. If goodness is an affair of the individual or of the
collective, according to one's particular preference or
decision, then it is no longer goodness. Goodness is not in the
backyard of the individual nor in the open field of the
collective; goodness flowers only in freedom from both. When
there is this goodness, love and intelligence, then action is
not in terms of the individual or the collective. Lacking
goodness, we divide the world into the individual and the
collective, and further divide the collective into innumerable
groups according to religion, nationality and class. Having
created these divisions we try to bridge them by forming new
groups which are again divided from other groups. We see that
every great religion supposedly exists to bring about the
brotherhood of man and, in actual fact, prevents it. We always
try to reform that which is already corrupt. We don't eradicate
corruption fundamentally but simply rearrange it.
Questioner: Are you saying that we need not waste time in these
endless bargainings between the individual and the collective,
or try to prove that they are different or that they are
similar? Are you saying that only goodness, love and
intelligence are the issue, and that these lie beyond the
individual or the collective?
Krishnamurti: Yes.
Questioner: So the real question seems to be how love, goodness
and intelligence can act in daily living.
Krishnamurti: If these act, then the question of the individual
and the collective is academic.
Questioner: How are they to act?
Krishnamurti: They can act only in relationship: all existence
is in relationship. So the first thing is to become aware of
one's relationship to everything and everybody, and to see how
in this relationship the "me" is born and acts. This "me" that
is both the collective and the individual; it is the "me" that
separates; it is the "me" that acts collectively or
individually, the "me" that creates heaven and hell. To be aware
of this is to understand it. And the understanding of it is the
ending of it. The ending of it is goodness, love and
intelligence.
Meditation and Energy
Questioner: This morning I should like to go into the deeper
meaning, or deeper sense, of meditation. I have practised many
forms of it, including a little Zen. There are various schools
which teach awareness but they all seem rather superficial, so
can we leave all that aside and go into it more deeply?
Krishnamurti: We must also set aside the whole meaning of
authority, because in meditation any form of authority, either
one's own or the authority of another, becomes an impediment and
prevents freedom - prevents a freshness, a newness. So
authority, conformity and imitation must be set aside
completely. Otherwise you merely imitate, follow what has been
said, and that makes the mind very dull and stupid. In that
there is no freedom. Your past experience may guide, direct or
establish a new path, and so even that must go. Then only can
one go into this very deep and extraordinarily important thing
called meditation. Meditation is the essence of energy.
Questioner: For many years I have tried to see that I do not
become a slave to the authority of someone else or to a pattern.
Of course there is a danger of deceiving myself but as we go
along I shall probably find out. But when you say that
meditation is the essence of energy, what do you mean by the
words energy and meditation?
Krishnamurti: Every movement of thought every action demands
energy. Whatever you do or think needs energy, and this energy
can be dissipated through conflict, through various forms of
unnecessary thought, emotional pursuits and sentimental
activities. Energy is wasted in conflict which arises in
duality, in the "me" and the "not-me", in the division between
the observer and the observed, the thinker and the thought. When
this wastage is no longer taking place there is a quality of
energy which can be called an awareness - an awareness in which
there is no evaluation, judgement, condemnation or comparison
but merely an attentive observation, a seeing of things exactly
as they are, both inwardly and outwardly, without the
interference of thought, which is the past.
Questioner: This I find very difficult to understand. If there
were no thought at all, would it be possible to recognise a
tree, or my wife or neighbour? Recognition is necessary, isn't
it, when you look at a tree or the woman next door?
Krishnamurti: When you observe a tree is recognition necessary?
When you look at that tree, do you say it is a tree or do you
just look? If you begin to recognise it as an elm, an oak or a
mango tree then the past interferes with direct observation. In
the same way, when you look at your wife, if you look with
memories of annoyances or pleasures you are not really looking
at her but at the image which you have in your mind about her.
That prevents direct perception: direct perception does not need
recognition. Outward recognition of your wife, your children,
your house or your neighbour is, of course necessary, but why
should there be an interference of the past in the eyes, the
mind and the heart? Doesn't it prevent you from seeing clearly?
When you condemn or have an opinion about something, that
opinion or prejudice distorts observation.
Questioner: Yes, I see that. That subtle form of recognition
does distort, I see that. You say all these interferences of
thought are a waste of energy. You say observe without any form
of recognition, condemnation, judgement; observe without naming,
for that naming, recognition, condemnation are a waste of
energy. That can be logically and actually understood. Then
there is the next point which is the division, the separateness,
or, rather, as you have often put it in your talks, the space
that exists between the observer and the observed which creates
duality; you say that this also is a waste of energy and brings
about conflict. I find everything you say logical but I find it
extraordinarily difficult to remove that space, to bring about
harmony between the observer and the observed. How is this to be
done?
Krishnamurti: There is no how. The how means a system, a method,
a practice which becomes mechanical. Again we have to be rid of
the significance of the word "how".
Questioner: Is it possible? I know the word possible implies a
future, an effort, a striving to bring about harmony, but one
must use certain words. I hope we can go beyond those words, so
is it possible to bring about a union between the observer and
the observed?
Krishnamurti: The observer is always casting its shadow on the
thing it observes. So one must understand the structure and the
nature of the observer, not how to bring about a union between
the two. One must understand the movement of the observer and in
that understanding perhaps the observer comes to an end. We must
examine what the observer is: it is the past with all its
memories, conscious and unconscious, its racial inheritance, its
accumulated experience which is called knowledge, its reactions.
The observer is really the conditioned entity. He is the one who
asserts that he is, and I am. In protecting himself, he resists,
dominates, seeking comfort and security. The observer then sets
himself apart as something different from that which he
observes, inwardly or outwardly. This brings about a duality and
from this duality there is conflict, which is the wastage of
energy. To be aware of the observer, his movement, his
self-centred activity, his assertions, his prejudices, one must
be aware of all these unconscious movements which build the
separatist feeling that he is different. It must be observed
without any form of evaluation, without like and dislike; just
observe it in daily life, in its relationships. When this
observation is clear, isn't there then a freedom from the
observer?
Questioner: You are saying, sir, that the observer is really the
ego; you are saying that as long as the ego exists, he must
resist, divide, separate, for in this separation, this division,
he feels alive. It gives him vitality to resist, to fight, and
he has become accustomed to that battle; it is his way of
living. Are you not saying that this ego, this "I", must
dissolve through an observation in which there is no sense of
like or dislike, no opinion or judgement, but only the observing
of this "I" in action? But can such a thing really take place?
Can I look at myself so completely, so truly, without
distortion? You say that when I do look at myself so clearly
then the "I" has no movement at all. And you say this is part of
meditation?
Krishnamurti: Of course. This is meditation.
Questioner: This observation surely demands extraordinary
self-discipline.
Krishnamurti: What do you mean by self-discipline? Do you mean
disciplining the self by putting him in a strait-jacket, or do
you mean learning about the self, the self that asserts, that
dominates, that is ambitious, violent and so on - learning about
it? The learning is, in itself, discipline. The word discipline
means to learn and when there is learning, not accumulating,
when there is actual learning, which needs attention, that
learning brings about its own responsibility, its own activity,
its own dimensions: so there is no discipline as something
imposed upon it. Where there is learning there is no imitation,
no conformity, no authority. If this is what you mean by the
word discipline, then surely there is freedom to learn?
Questioner: You are taking me too far and perhaps too deeply,
and I can't quite go with you where this learning is concerned.
I see very clearly that the self as the observer must come to an
end. It is logically so, and there must be no conflict: that is
very clear. But you are saying that this very observation is
learning and in learning there is always accumulation; this
accumulation becomes the past. Learning is an additive process,
but you are apparently giving it a different meaning altogether.
From what I have understood you are saying that learning is a
constant movement without accumulation. Is that so? Can learning
be without accumulation?
Krishnamurti: Learning is its own action. What generally happens
is that having learnt - we act upon what we have learnt. So
there is division between the past and action, and hence there
is a conflict between what should be and what is, or what has
been and what is. We are saying that there can be action in the
very movement of learning: that is, learning is doing; it is not
a question of having learnt and then acting. This is very
important to understand because having learnt, and acting from
that accumulation, is the very nature of the "me", the "I", the
ego or whatever name one likes to give it. The "I" is the very
essence of the past and the past impinges on the present and so
on into the future. In this there is constant division. Where
there is learning there is a constant movement; there is no
accumulation which can become the "I".
Questioner: But in the technological field there must be
accumulated knowledge. One can't fly the Atlantic or run a car,
or even do most of the ordinary daily things without knowledge.
Krishnamurti: Of course not, sir; such knowledge is absolutely
necessary. But we are talking about the psychological field in
which the "I" operates. The "I" can use technological knowledge
in order to achieve something, a position or prestige; the "I"
can use that knowledge to function, but if in functioning the
"I" interferes, things begin to go wrong, for the "I", through
technical means, seeks status. So the "I" is not concerned
merely with knowledge in scientific fields; it is using it to
achieve something else. It is like a musician who uses the piano
to become famous. What he is concerned with is fame and not the
beauty of the music in itself or for itself. We are not saying
that we must get rid of technological knowledge; on the
contrary, the more technological knowledge there is the better
living conditions will be. But the moment the "I" uses it,
things begin to go wrong.
Questioner: I think I begin to understand what you are saying.
You are giving quite a different meaning and dimension to the
word learning, which is marvellous. I am beginning to grasp it.
You are saying that meditation is a movement of learning and in
that there is freedom to learn about everything, not only about
meditation, but about the way one lives, drives, eats, talks,
everything.
Krishnamurti: As we said, the essence of energy is meditation.
To put it differently - so long as there is a meditator there is
no meditation. If he attempts to achieve a state described by
others, or some flash of experience....
Questioner: If I may interrupt you, sir, are you saying that
learning must be constant, a flow, a line without any break, so
that learning and action are one, or a constant movement? I
don't know what word to use, but I am sure you understand what I
mean. The moment there is a break between learning, action and
meditation, that break is a disharmony, that break is conflict.
In that break there is the observer and the observed and hence
the whole wastage of energy; is that what you are saying?
Krishnamurti: Yes, that is what we mean. Meditation is not a
state; it is a movement, as action is a movement. And as we said
just now, when we separate action from learning, then the
observer comes between the learning and the action; then he
becomes important; then he uses action and learning for ulterior
motives. When this is very clearly understood as one harmonious
movement of acting, of learning, of meditation, there is no
wastage of energy and this is the beauty of meditation. There is
only one movement. Learning is far more important than
meditation or action. To learn there must be complete freedom,
not only consciously but deeply, inwardly - a total freedom. And
in freedom there is this movement of learning, acting,
meditating as a harmonious whole. The word whole not only means
health but holy. So learning is holy, acting is holy, meditation
is holy. This is really a sacred thing and the beauty is in
itself and not beyond it.
Ending Thought
Questioner: I wonder what you really mean by ending thought. I
talked to a friend about it and he said it is some kind of
oriental nonsense. To him thought is the highest form of
intelligence and action, the very salt of life, indispensable.
It has created civilization, and all relationship is based on
it. All of us accept this, from the greatest thinker to the
humblest labourer. When we don't think we sleep, vegetate or
daydream; we are vacant, dull and unproductive, whereas when we
are awake we are thinking, doing, living, quarrelling: these are
the only two states we know. You say, be beyond both - beyond
thought and vacant inactivity. What do you mean by this?
Krishnamurti: Very simply put, thought is the response of
memory, the past. The past is an infinity or a second ago. When
thought acts it is this past which is acting as memory, as
experience, as knowledge, as opportunity. All will is desire
based on this past and directed towards pleasure or the
avoidance of pain. When thought is functioning it is the past,
therefore there is no new living at all; it is the past living
in the present, modifying itself and the present. So there is
nothing new in life that way, and when something new is to be
found there must be the absence of the past, the mind must not
be cluttered up with thought, fear, pleasure, and everything
else. Only when the mind is uncluttered can the new come into
being, and for this reason we say that thought must be still,
operating only when it has to - objectively, efficiently. All
continuity is thought; when there is continuity there is nothing
new. Do you see how important this is? It's really a question of
life itself. Either you live in the past, or you live totally
differently: that is the whole point.
Questioner: I think I do see what you mean, but how in the world
is one to end this thought? When I listen to the blackbird there
is thought telling me instantly it is the blackbird; when I walk
down the street thought tells me I am walking down the street
and tells me all I recognise and see; when I play with the
notion of not thinking it is again thought that plays this game.
All meaning and understanding and communication are thought.
Even when I am not communicating with someone else I am doing so
with myself. When I am awake, I think, when I am asleep I think.
The whole structure of my being is thought. Its roots lie far
deeper than I know. All I think and do and all I am is thought,
thought creating pleasure and pain, appetites, longings,
resolutions, conclusions, hopes, fears and questions. Thought
commits murder and thought forgives. So how can one go beyond
it? Isn't it thought again which seeks to go beyond it?
Krishnamurti: We both said, when thought is still, something new
can be. We both saw that point clearly and to understand it
clearly is the ending of thought.
Questioner: But that understanding is also thought.
Krishnamurti: Is it? You assume that it is thought, but is it,
actually?
Questioner: It is a mental movement with meaning, a
communication to oneself.
Krishnamurti: If it is a communication to oneself it is thought.
But is understanding a mental movement with meaning?
Questioner: Yes it is.
Krishnamurti: The meaning of the word and the understanding of
that meaning is thought. That is necessary in life. There
thought must function efficiently. It is a technological matter.
But you are not asking that. You are asking how thought, which
is the very movement of life as you know it, can come to an end.
Can it only end when you die? That is really your question,
isn't it?
Questioner: Yes.
Krishnamurti: That is the right question. Die! Die to the past,
to tradition.
Questioner: But how?
Krishnamurti: The brain is the source of thought. The brain is
matter and thought is matter. Can the brain - with all its
reactions and its immediate responses to every challenge and
demand - can that brain be very still? It is not a question of
ending thought, but of whether the brain can be completely
still. Can it act with full capacity when necessary and
otherwise be still? This stillness is not physical death. See
what happens when the brain is completely still. See what
happens.
Questioner: In that space there was a blackbird, the green tree,
the blue sky, the man hammering next door, the sound of the wind
in the trees and my own heartbeat, the total quietness of the
body. That is all.
Krishnamurti: If there was recognition of the blackbird singing,
then the brain was active, was interpreting. It was not still.
This really demands tremendous alertness and discipline, the
watching that brings its own discipline, not imposed or brought
about by your unconscious desire to achieve a result or a
pleasurable new experience. Therefore during the day thought
must operate effectively, sanely, and also watch itself.
Questioner: That is easy, but what about going beyond it?
Krishnamurti: Who is asking this question? Is it the desire to
experience something new or is it the enquiry? If it is the
enquiry, then you must enquire and investigate the whole
business of thinking and be completely familiar with it, know
all its tricks and subtleties. If you have done this you will
know that the question of going beyond thought is an empty one.
Going beyond thought is knowing what thought is.
The New Human Being
Questioner: I am a reformer, a social worker. Seeing the
extraordinary injustice there is in the world my whole life has
been dedicated to reform. I used to be a Communist but I can't
go along with Communism any more, it has ended in tyranny.
Nevertheless, I am still dedicated to reforming society so that
man can live in dignity, beauty and freedom, and realize the
potential which nature seems to have given him, and which he
himself seems always to have stolen from his fellow man. In
America there is a certain kind of freedom, and yet
standardization and propaganda are very strong there - all the
mass media exert a tremendous pressure on the mind. It seems
that the power of television, this mechanical thing that man has
invented, has developed its own personality, its own will, its
own momentum; and though probably nobody - perhaps not even any
one group - is deliberately using it to influence society, its
trend shapes the very souls of our children. And this is the
same in varying degrees in all democracies. In China there seems
to be no hope at all for the dignity or freedom of man, while in
India the government is weak, corrupt and inefficient. It seems
to me that all the social injustice in the world absolutely must
be changed. I want passionately to do something about it, yet I
don't know where to begin to tackle it.
Krishnamurti: Reform needs further reform, and this is an
endless process. So let us look at it differently. Let us put
aside the whole thought of reform; let us wipe it out of our
blood. Let us completely forget this idea of wanting to reform
the world. Then let us see actually what is happening, right
throughout the world. Political parties always have a limited
programme which, even if fulfilled, invariably brings about
mischief, which then has to be corrected once again. We are
always talking about political action as being a most important
action, but political action is not the way. Let us put it out
of our minds. All social and economic reforms come under this
category. Then there is the religious formula of action based on
belief, idealism, dogmatism, conformity to some so-called divine
recipe. In this is involved authority and acceptance, obedience
and the utter denial of freedom. Though religions talk of peace
on earth they contribute to the disorder because they are a
factor of division. Also the churches have always taken some
political stand in times of crisis, so they are really political
bodies, and we have seen that all political action is divisive.
The churches have never really denied war: on the contrary they
have waged war. So when one puts aside the religious recipes, as
one puts aside the political formulas - what is left, and what
is one to do? Naturally civic order must be maintained: you have
to have water in the taps. If you destroy civic order you have
to start again from the beginning. So, what is one to do?
Questioner: That is what I am actually asking you.
Krishnamurti: Be concerned with radical change, with total
revolution. The only revolution is the revolution between man
and man, between human beings. That is our only concern. In this
revolution there are no blueprints, no ideologies, no conceptual
utopias. We must take the fact of the actual relationship
between men and change that radically. That is the real thing.
And this revolution must be immediate, it must not take time. It
is not achieved through evolution, which is time.
Questioner: What do you mean? All historical changes have taken
place in time; none of them has been immediate. You are
proposing something quite inconceivable.
Krishnamurti: If you take time to change, do you suppose that
life is in suspension during the time it takes to change? It
isn't in suspension. Everything you are trying to change is
being modified and perpetuated by the environment, by life
itself. So there is no end to it. It is like trying to clean the
water in a tank which is constantly being refilled with dirty
water. So time is out.
Now, what is to bring about this change? It cannot be will, or
determination, or choice, or desire, because all these are part
of the entity that has to be changed. So we must ask what
actually is possible, without the action of will and
assertiveness which is always the action of conflict.
Questioner: Is there any action which is not the action of will
and assertiveness?
Krishnamurti: Instead of asking this question let us go much
deeper. Let us see that actually it is only the action of will
and assertiveness that needs to be changed at all, because the
only mischief in relationship is conflict, between individuals
or within individuals, and conflict is will and assertiveness.
Living without such action does not mean that we live like
vegetables. Conflict is our main concern. All the social
maladies you mentioned are the projection of this conflict in
the heart of each human being. The only possible change is a
radical transformation of yourself in all your relationships,
not in some vague future, but now.
Questioner: But how can I completely eradicate this conflict in
myself, this contradiction, this resistance, this conditioning?
I understand what you mean intellectually, but I can only change
when I feel it passionately, and I don't feel it passionately.
It is merely an idea to me; I don't see it with my heart. If I
try to act on this intellectual understanding I am in conflict
with another, deeper, part of myself.
Krishnamurti: If you really see this contradiction passionately,
then that very perception is the revolution. If you see in
yourself this division between the mind and the heart, actually
see it, not conceive of it theoretically, but see it, then the
problem comes to an end. A man who is passionate about the world
and the necessity for change, must be free from political
activity, religious conformity and tradition - which means, free
from the weight of time, free from the burden of the past, free
from all the action of will: this is the new human being. This
only is the social, psychological, and even the political
revolution.
Visit Downloads Page for Link to download this E-Book as a PDF File.