Krishnamurti on Change

 If there is no fundamental change, 

the future is what we are doing 

in our lives in the present.

Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti to Himself

The future is what you are now. If there is no change – not superficial adaptations, superficial adjustments to any pattern, political, religious or social, but the change that is far deeper, demanding your attention, your care, your affection – if there is not a fundamental change, then the future is what we are doing every day of our life in the present. Change is rather a difficult word. Change to what? Change to another pattern? To another concept? To another political or religious system? Change from this to that? That is still within the realm, or within the field of ‘what is’. Change to that is projected by thought, formulated by thought, materialistically determined. So one must enquire carefully into change. Is there a change if there is a motive? Is there a change if there is a particular direction, a particular end, a conclusion that seems sane, rational? Or perhaps a better phrase is ‘the ending of what is’. The ending, not the movement of ‘what is’ to ‘what should be’.

All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have completely failed to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society.

Krishnamurti, Freedom From the Known

All outward forms of change brought about by wars, revolutions, reformations, laws and ideologies have completely failed to change the basic nature of man and therefore of society. As human beings living in this monstrously ugly world, let us ask ourselves, can this society, based on competition, brutality and fear, come to an end? Not as an intellectual conception, not as a hope, but as an actual fact, so that the mind is made fresh, new and innocent and can bring about a different world altogether? It can only happen, I think, if each one of us recognises the central fact that we, as individuals, as human beings, in whatever part of the world we happen to live or whatever culture we happen to belong to, are totally responsible for the whole state of the world. We are each one of us responsible for every war because of the aggressiveness of our own lives, because of our nationalism, our selfishness, our gods, our prejudices, our ideals, all of which divide us. And only when we realize, not intellectually but actually, as actually as we would recognise that we are hungry or in pain, that you and I are responsible for all this existing chaos, for all the misery throughout the entire world because we have contributed to it in our daily lives and are part of this monstrous society with its wars, divisions, its ugliness, brutality and greed – only then will we act.

If we are to bring about a true revolution in human relationship, which is the basis of all society, there must be a fundamental change in our own values and outlook.

Krishnamurti, Education and the Significance of Life

To understand ourselves, we must be aware of our relationship, not only with people, but also with property, with ideas and with nature. If we are to bring about a true revolution in human relationship, which is the basis of all society, there must be a fundamental change in our own values and outlook; but we avoid the necessary and fundamental transformation of ourselves, and try to bring about political revolutions in the world, which always leads to bloodshed and disaster.

Energy is needed not only for external change, but also to bring about a deep, inward transformation or revolution.

Krishnamurti, The Awakening of Intelligence

Energy is needed not only for external change, but also to bring about a deep, inward transformation or revolution. One must have an extraordinary sense of energy which has no cause, which has no motive, which has the capacity to be utterly quiet, and this very quietness has its own explosive quality. One sees how human beings waste their energy, in quarrels, in jealousies, in a tremendous sense of anxiety, in the everlasting pursuit of pleasure and in the demand for it; it is fairly obvious that this is a wastage of energy. And is it not also a wastage of energy to have innumerable opinions and beliefs about everything? – how another should behave, what another should do and so on. Is it not a waste of energy to have formulas and concepts? In this culture we are encouraged to have concepts according to which we live. Don’t you have formulas and concepts in the sense of having images of how you should be, what should happen? – in the sense of thought which rejects ‘what is’ and formulates ‘what should be’? All such endeavour is a waste of energy.

I see that I must change completely from the roots of my being.

Krishnamurti, Freedom From the Known

Let us state it clearly: I see that I must change completely from the roots of my being. I can no longer depend on any tradition because tradition has brought about this colossal laziness, acceptance and obedience; I cannot possibly look to another to help me to change, not to any teacher, any God, any belief, any system, any outside pressure or influence. What then takes place?

First of all, can you reject all authority? If you can it means that you are no longer afraid. Then what happens? When you reject something false which you have been carrying about with you for generations, when you throw off a burden of any kind, what takes place? You have more energy, haven’t you? You have more capacity, more drive, greater intensity and vitality. If you do not feel this, then you have not thrown off the burden, you have not discarded the dead weight of authority.

But when you have thrown it off and have this energy in which there is no fear at all – no fear of making a mistake, no fear of doing right or wrong – then is not that energy itself the mutation? We need a tremendous amount of energy and we dissipate it through fear but when there is this energy which comes from throwing off every form of fear, that energy itself produces the radical inward revolution. You do not have to do a thing about it.

Is there actually time in the psychological world – that is, to change that which is to something totally different?

Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti to Himself

Context: Is there actually time in the psychological world – that is, to change that which is to something totally different? Why do ideals, ideologies, whether political or religious, exist at all? Is it not one of the divisive concepts of man that has brought about conflict? After all, the ideologies, the left, right or centre, are put together by study, by the activity of thought, weighing, judging, and coming to a conclusion, and so shutting the door on all fuller enquiry. Ideologies have existed perhaps as long as man can remember. They are like belief or faith that separate man from man. And this separation comes about through time. The ‘me’, the I, the ego, the person, from the family to the group, to the tribe, to the nation. One wonders if the tribal divisions can ever be bridged over. Man has tried to unify nations, which are really glorified tribalism. You cannot unify nations. They will always remain separate. Evolution has separate groups. We maintain wars, religious and otherwise. And time will not change this. Knowledge, experience, definite conclusions, will never bring about that global comprehension, global relationship, a global mind. So the question is: is there a possibility of bringing about a change in ‘what is’, the actuality, totally disregarding the movement of time?

Time is a deceiver: it does not do a thing to help us 

bring about a change in ourselves.

Krishnamurti, Freedom From the Known

When there is real danger, time disappears. There is immediate action. But we do not see the danger of many of our problems and therefore we invent time as a means of overcoming them. Time is a deceiver as it doesn’t do a thing to help us bring about a change in ourselves. Time is a movement which man has divided into past, present and future, and as long as he divides it he will always be in conflict. Is learning a matter of time? We have not learnt after all these thousands of years that there is a better way to live than by hating and killing each other. The problem of time is a very important one to understand if we are to resolve this life which we have helped to make as monstrous and meaningless as it is. The first thing to understand is that we can look at time only with that freshness and innocency of mind which we have already been into. We are confused about our many problems and lost in that confusion. Now if one is lost in a wood, what is the first thing one does? One stops, doesn’t one? One stops and looks round. But the more we are confused and lost in life the more we chase around, searching, asking, demanding, begging. So the first thing, if I may suggest it, is that you completely stop inwardly. And when you do stop inwardly, psychologically, your mind becomes very peaceful, very clear. Then you can really look at this question of time.

When there is a motive, there is actually no change at all.

Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti to Himself

Time is thought. Time is the past. Time is motive. Without any motive can there be – and we will use the word – change? Does not the very word ‘motive’ already imply a direction, a conclusion? And when there is a motive there is actually no change at all. Desire is again a rather complex thing, complex in its structure. Desire to bring about a change, or the will to change, becomes the motive and therefore that motive distorts that which has to be changed, that which has to end. The ending has no time.

I must change first; I must see the nature and structure of my relationship with the world – and in the very seeing is the doing. Therefore I, as a human being, bring about a different quality, and that quality is the quality of the religious mind.

Krishnamurti, Freedom From the Known

I must change first. I must see the nature and structure of my relationship with the world – and in the very seeing is the doing. Therefore I, as a human being living in the world, bring about a different quality, and that quality is the quality of the religious mind. The religious mind is something entirely different from the mind that believes in religion. You cannot be religious and yet be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Christian, a Buddhist. A religious mind does not seek at all, it cannot experiment with truth. Truth is not something dictated by your pleasure or pain, or by your conditioning as a Hindu or whatever religion you belong to. The religious mind is a state of mind in which there is no fear and therefore no belief whatsoever but only what is – what actually is. In the religious mind there is that state of silence that is not produced by thought but is the outcome of awareness, which is meditation when the meditator is entirely absent. In that silence there is a state of energy in which there is no conflict.

A very important and urgent question: 

can you bring about change in yourself? 

Don’t say, ‘If I change, will it have any value? 

Won’t it be just a drop in a vast lake and have no effect at all? 

What is the point of my changing?’ That is a wrong question.

Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti to Himself

This is really a very important and urgent question: whether man, you, can bring about change in yourself – not say, ‘If I change, will it have any value? Won’t it be just a drop in a vast lake and have no effect at all? What is the point of my changing?’ That is a wrong question, if one may point out. It is wrong because you are the rest of mankind. You are the world, you are not separate from the world. You are not an American, Russian, Hindu or Muslim. You are apart from these labels and words; you are the rest of mankind because your consciousness, your reactions, are similar to the others. You may speak a different language, have different customs, which is superficial culture – all cultures apparently are superficial – but your consciousness, your reactions, your faith, your beliefs, your ideologies, your fears, anxieties, loneliness, sorrow and pleasure, are similar to the rest of mankind. If you change it will affect the whole of mankind.

Change now completely, change with great passion, let the mind strip itself of everything, of every conditioning, all knowledge, of everything it thinks is ‘right’ – empty it.

Krishnamurti, The Impossible Question

There is belief in reincarnation, in being reborn in another life. When you inquire what it is that is going to be born in the next life, you come up against difficulties. What is it? Yourself? What are you? A lot of words, a lot of opinions, attachments to your possessions, to your furniture, to your conditioning. Is all that, including the soul, going to be reborn in the next life? Reincarnation implies that what you are today determines what you will be again in the next life. Therefore behave! Not tomorrow, but today, because what you do today you are going to pay for in the next life. People who believe in reincarnation do not bother about behaviour at all; it is just a matter of belief, which has no value. Incarnate today, afresh not in the next life! Change it now completely, change with great passion, let the mind strip itself of everything, of every conditioning, every knowledge, of everything it thinks is ‘right’ – empty it. Then you will know what dying means; and then you will know what love is. For love is not something of the past, of thought, of culture; it is not pleasure. A mind that has understood the whole movement of thought becomes extraordinarily quiet, absolutely silent. That silence is the beginning of the new.

Systems, whether educational or political, are not changed mysteriously; they are transformed when there is 

a fundamental change in ourselves.

Krishnamurti, Education and the Significance of Life

What is the good of learning if in the process of living we are destroying ourselves? As we are having a series of devastating wars, one right after another, there is obviously something radically wrong with the way we bring up our children. I think most of us are aware of this, but we do not know how to deal with it. Systems, whether educational or political, are not changed mysteriously; they are transformed when there is a fundamental change in ourselves. The individual is of first importance, not the system; and as long as the individual does not understand the total process of himself, no system, whether of the left or of the right, can bring order and peace to the world.

All over the world there are revolts and revolutions in order to change the social structure. Obviously the structure has to be changed; is it possible to change it without violence?

Krishnamurti, The Awakening of Intelligence

All over the world there are revolts and revolutions in order to change the social structure. Obviously the structure has to be changed; is it possible to change it without violence? – because violence begets violence. Through revolt one party can assume the power of government, and having achieved this, it will maintain itself in power through violence. It is fairly obvious that this is what is happening throughout the world. So we are asking whether there is a way of bringing about a change in the world and in ourselves which does not breed violence. I should have thought this would be a very serious problem for each one of us.

Institutions can never change humanity 

psychologically, deeply.

Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti to Himself

Institutions and organizations throughout the world have not helped man. There are all the physical organizations for one’s needs; the institutions of war, of democracy, the institutions of tyranny and the institutions of religion – they have had their day and they continue, and man looks up to them, longing to be helped, not only physically but inside the skin, inside the throbbing ache, the shadow of time and the far reaching thoughts. There have been institutions of many, many kinds from the most ancient of days, and they have not inwardly changed man. Institutions can never change man psychologically, deeply. And one wonders why man created them, for all the institutions in the world are put together by man, hoping that they might help him, that they might give him some kind of lasting security. And strangely they have not. We never seem to realize this fact. We are creating more and more institutions, more and more organizations – one organization opposing another.

Ideals and blueprints for a perfect utopia will not bring about the radical change of heart which is essential if there is to be an end to war and universal destruction.

Krishnamurti, Education and the Significance of Life

There is no method by which to educate a child to be integrated and free. As long as we are concerned with principles, ideals and methods, we are not helping the individual to be free from his own self-centred activity with all its fears and conflicts. Ideals and blueprints for a perfect utopia will not bring about the radical change of heart which is essential if there is to be an end to war and universal destruction. Ideals cannot change our present values: they can be changed only by the right kind of education, which is to foster the understanding of what is. When we are working together for an ideal, for the future, we shape individuals according to our conception of that future; we are not concerned with human beings at all, but with our idea of what they should be. The ‘what should be’ becomes far more important to us than what is, namely, the individual with his complexities. If we begin to understand the individual directly instead of looking at him through the screen of what we think he should be, then we are concerned with what is. Then we no longer want to transform the individual into something else; our only concern is to help him to understand himself, and in this there is no personal motive or gain. If we are fully aware of what is, we shall understand it and so be free of it; but to be aware of what we are, we must stop struggling after something which we are not.

Can the Mind Be Free of Conditioning?

 

SELF-KNOWLEDGE, or the learning about yourself every day, brings about a new mind. 

You have denied the old mind. 

Through self-knowledge, you have denied your conditioning totally. 

The conditioning of the mind can be denied only when the mind is aware of its operations, how it works, what it thinks, what it says, its motives.

There is another factor involved. 

We think it is a gradual process, that it will take time to free the mind from conditioning. 

We think that it will take days or years to uncondition our conditioned mind, gradually, day after day. 

This implies acquiring knowledge in order to dissipate conditioning, which means you are not learning but acquiring. A mind that is acquiring is not learning. A mind that uses knowledge to achieve a sense of liberation must have time. Such a mind thinks it must have time to free itself from its conditioning, which means it is going to acquire knowledge, and as the knowledge expands, it will become freer and freer. This is utterly false.

There Is No Gradual Process Towards Freedom or Peace

AS LONG AS THE WORLD is broken up into nationalities, as long as it is divided by faiths, beliefs and dogmas, there can be no peace at all. There can be peace only when all nationalism ceases, when all beliefs which divide man come to an end. This can happen only when the mind is free from all conditioning, when the mind no longer thinks in terms of America or Russia, communist, socialist or capitalist, Catholic, Protestant or Hindu. 

We can only deal with the many problems that arise when we approach them as human beings, that is, when we are not conditioned in any of these patterns cultivated for generations. It is arduous, really difficult to break down the enclosures that the mind has built around itself.

If we are to survive in this mad, chaotic world, surely it is imperative that each one of us should consider this problem of freeing the mind from its conditioning. This does not mean the cultivation of better conditioning, but freedom from all conditioning. It is impossible to be aware of the total process of our being as long as we are not aware of our own conditioning. 

Each one of us is conditioned by the climate, the food we eat, and other physiological influences. Those we know how to deal with. But of the deeper conditioning of the psyche, the inward, very few of us are aware, and it is that which dictates, controls and shapes our actions.

As most of us are unconscious of our conditioning, is it not first of all essential to be aware of it? 

Each one of us is conditioned, as a Christian or as belonging to some other group with certain ideas, beliefs and dogmas contrary to other ideas, beliefs and dogmas. These very beliefs and dogmas create enmity and maintain division between man and man. 

So is it not important to ask ourselves whether it is possible for the mind to free itself from all conditioning? Is it possible not to belong to any group or religion? 

Which does not mean entering another conditioned state, becoming an atheist, a communist or something else. 

To be free from all conditioning is not to seek better conditioning. I think that is the real crux of the matter, because only when the mind is unconditioned can it tackle the problem of living as a total process, not just on one sectionalised level of our existence.

Can you and I be aware of our conditioning? 

Is it possible to be free of it? 

Can any action of the will bring about that freedom? 

I realise I am conditioned, as a Hindu or what you will, and I see the effects of that conditioning in my relationship with others, which is really a relationship of resistance, creating its own problems. 

1. Can I break down that conditioning by an act of will, by saying to myself I must not be conditioned, I must think differently, I must consider human beings as a whole, and so on? 
2. Can the conditioning be broken down through any action of the will? After all, what is it that we call the will? 
3. Is it not the process of desire centred in the ‘me’ that wants to achieve a result?

I see I am conditioned, and I want to know how to break it down because that conditioning prevents me from thinking clearly. It prevents a direct relationship with people. It creates resistance, and resistance creates its own problems. 

1. So, seeing the whole implication of the effects of conditioning, how is my mind to free itself from conditioning? 
2. Do you understand the problem? 
3. Is the entity that desires to free the mind from conditioning different from the mind itself? 

If it is different, the problem of effort and the action of will come into being. 

Is the ‘I’, the thinker, the person who says, ‘I am conditioned, and I must be free,’ the ‘I’ who makes an effort to be free, is that ‘I’, that will, that desire, different from the conditioned state? 

Please, this is not complicated. 

You are bound to ask yourself this question when you look at the problem. 

• Am I, who wishes to free myself from conditioning, different from the conditioning, or are they both the same? 
• If they are the same, which they are, then how is it possible for the mind to free itself from conditioning?

Your mind is conditioned, and this conditioning is preventing peace and creating war, destruction and misery. Unless you resolve your conditioning completely, there will be no real peace in the world; there will be the peace of politicians, between two immense powers, which is terror. 

To have peace, the mind must be totally unconditioned. 

One must realise that, not superficially and not as insurance for your security. 

Peace is a state of mind; it is not the development of monstrous means of destroying each other and then maintaining peace through terror. To have real peace in the world is to be able to live happily, creatively, without any sense of fear, without being secure in any thought or any way of life. To have such peace, the mind must be totally free from all conditioning, either externally imposed or inwardly cultivated. 

Can your mind, which is conditioned—because all minds are conditioned—can such a mind free itself from its own effects, desires and conditioned state?

So, is there a part of the mind not conditioned, which can take over, control or destroy the conditioned mind? 

Or is the mind totally conditioned at all times, and therefore cannot act upon itself? 

When it realises that it cannot act upon itself, will not the mind be utterly still, without movement towards its conditioning? 

For most of us, freedom implies freedom from something. 

Freedom from something is resistance against something and therefore is not freedom. 

I am talking not of freedom from something, but of being free. 

Being free is not becoming free; being peaceful is not becoming peaceful. 

There is no gradual process toward freedom or peace—either you are peaceful, or you are not peaceful. What we are trying to find out is whether the mind which has been conditioned for centuries, generation upon generation, can free itself. Surely, it can be free only when there is no action of will, when it realises that it is conditioned and does not make any effort to free itself from its conditioning. When my mind knows that its way of thinking is oriental, whatever that may mean, when it fully realises that, will it then think along the Western line, which is another form of conditioning, or will it cease thinking in any particular pattern and therefore be free to think?

This is a very important point to understand; it is the crux of the matter, because a conditioned mind can never find out what is true, a conditioned mind can never discover what God is. It can project its own images, dogmas and beliefs, thinking it has found God, but that is still the action of a limited, conditioned mind. 

If I see that, perceive it as a fact, will any action on my part be necessary? 

If I know I am blind, I have quite a different approach to life, I develop a different perception. 

In the same way, when I know that I am conditioned, that my thinking is limited, and that a limited mind, whatever its experiences, however much knowledge it acquires, is still limited; when I realise that, is any action on my part necessary to break down that limitation? 

Will not that limitation break down of itself when I know the mind is limited? 

Therefore, is there not an instantaneous freedom from conditioning? 

Most of us think that an analytical process will ultimately bring about the freedom of the mind because we are so used to thinking in terms of making an effort. We say, ‘I must break down this conditioning, I must produce a result, I must do something.’ But the ‘I’ who is acting is itself conditioned. The ‘I’ is the conditioned mind, and therefore it cannot break down that conditioning.

When the whole of me realises that I cannot break down conditioning, that whatever I do about it—discipline, worship, prayer, anything through which the ‘me’ makes an effort to break down any part of itself—is still limited, then does not the action of the ‘me’ come to an end? 

And the very ending of this effort is the cessation of conditioning.

Please, experiment with this. 

If you have listened rightly, you will see that the mind cannot do a thing about its conditioning. 

It can explore, it can analyse, it can achieve certain results, but it is always limited. 

Whatever its projections, hopes or fulfilments, they are always the result of its background and therefore limited. 

When the mind realises that, is there not an instantaneous cessation without any compulsion of this ‘I’ which is seeking, searching, hoping, gaining? 

After all, that is meditation, which is not through any action of will. 

It is the meditation of the mind, which is tranquillity. A mind that is merely caught in desires, in achieving a result, in knowing, in experiencing can never be a still mind. When a limited mind meditates, when it thinks of God, its God and its meditation are still petty. 

However much a mediocre mind may be expanded, however much it knows, it is still mediocre, small, petty, and therefore its problems will always remain petty, unsolvable.

So, what is important is to realise all this, not merely through hearing what I am saying, but through seeing it for yourself, experiencing directly that your mind is small, limited. And being limited, however much it may know, whatever experiences it may have, it is still limited, and therefore can never find out what is true, what is real. Reality comes into being only when there is a total cessation of all conditioning, that is, when the mind is free and therefore still.

Krishnamurti 

New York 1954

THE MIND IS THE RESULT of the past, which is the process of conditioning. 

How is it possible for the mind to be free? 

To be free, the mind must not only see and understand its pendulum-like swing between the past and the future but also be aware of the interval between thoughts. That interval is spontaneous; it is not brought about through any causation, wish or compulsion.

If you watch very carefully, you will see that though the response, the movement of thought, seems so swift, there are gaps, there are intervals between thoughts. Between two thoughts is a period of silence unrelated to the thought process. If you observe, you will see that that period of silence, that interval, is not of time and the discovery of that interval, the full experiencing of that interval, liberates you from conditioning—or rather it does not liberate ‘you’ but there is liberation from conditioning. 

So the understanding of the process of thinking is meditation. 

We are not only discussing the structure and the process of thought, which is the background of memory, experience and knowledge, but we are also trying to find out if the mind can liberate itself from the background. It is only when the mind is not giving continuity to thought when it is still—a stillness not induced, that is, without any causation—only then can there be freedom from the background.

From Krishnamurti

in, Book The First and Last Freedom

Any Movement of the Mind To Be Free Is the Result of Its Conditioning

OUR MANY PROBLEMS cannot be solved except through a fundamental revolution of the mind. 

Such a revolution alone can bring about the realisation of that which is truth. 

Therefore it is important to understand the operation of one’s mind, not analytically or introspectively but by being aware of its total process. 

If we do not see ourselves as we are, if we do not understand the thinker—the entity that seeks, that is perpetually asking, demanding, questioning, trying to find out, the entity that is creating the problem, the ‘I’, the self, the ego—then our thought and search will have no meaning. As long as one’s instrument of thinking is not clear, is perverted, conditioned, whatever one thinks is bound to be limited, narrow.

It is possible to find out what is real, or if there is such a thing as God, only when the mind is free from all conditioning. The mere occupation of a conditioned mind with God, truth or love, has no meaning at all, for such a mind can function only within the field of its conditioning. The communist who does not believe in God thinks in one way, and the man who believes in God, who is occupied with dogma, thinks in another way. But the minds of both are conditioned, therefore neither can think freely and all their protestations, theories and beliefs have very little meaning. 

So religion is not a matter of going to church, of having beliefs and dogmas. 

Religion may be something entirely different, the total freeing of the mind from this vast tradition of centuries. It is only a free mind that can find truth, reality, that which is beyond the projections of the mind.

This is not a theory of mine. 

As we can see from what is happening in the world, the communists want to settle the problems of life in one way, the Hindus in another, the Christians in still another—their minds are conditioned. Your mind is conditioned, whether you acknowledge it or not. 

You may superficially break away from a tradition, but the deep layers of the unconscious are full of that tradition, conditioned by centuries of education according to a pattern. 

A mind that would find something beyond, if there is such a thing, must first be free of all conditioning.

We are not discussing self-improvement in any way, nor are we concerned with the improvement of the pattern; we are not seeking to condition the mind in a nobler pattern, or a pattern of wider social significance. On the contrary, we are trying to find out how to free the mind, the total consciousness, from all conditioning, for unless that happens, there can be no experiencing of reality. 

You may talk about reality, you may read volumes about it, read the sacred books of the East and the West, but until the mind is aware of its process, until it sees itself functioning in a pattern and can be free from that conditioning, all search is vain.

So it seems to me of the greatest importance to begin with ourselves, to be aware of our own conditioning. It is only the mind that is capable of patiently observing its conditioning and being free from it that is able to have a revolution, a radical transformation, and thereby to discover that which is infinitely beyond the mind, beyond all our desires, vanities and pursuits. 

Without self-knowledge, without knowing oneself as one is—not as one would like to be, which is merely an illusion, an idealistic escape—without knowing the ways of one’s thinking, all one’s motives, thoughts and innumerable responses, it is not possible to understand and go beyond this whole process of thinking.

It is important to understand the difference between attention and concentration. 

Concentration implies choice, trying to concentrate on what I am saying, so your mind is focused, made narrow, and other thoughts intervene. So there is not an actual listening, but a battle going on in the mind, a conflict between what you are hearing and your desire to translate it, to apply what I am talking about, and so on. Whereas, attention is something entirely different. 

In attention, there is no focusing, no choice; there is complete awareness without any interpretation. If we can listen so attentively, completely, to what is being said, that very attention brings about the miracle of change within the mind itself.

What we are talking about is something of immense importance, because unless there is a fundamental revolution in each one of us, I do not see how we can bring about a radical change in the world. And surely that radical change is essential. 

Mere economic revolution is of no importance at all. 

There can be only a religious revolution, and the religious revolution cannot take place if the mind is merely conforming to the pattern of previous conditioning. As long as one is a Christian or a Hindu, there can be no fundamental revolution in this true religious sense of the word. And we do need such a revolution. When the mind is free from all conditioning, you will find that there comes the creativity of reality, of God, and it is only such a mind, a mind constantly experiencing this creativity, that can bring about a different outlook, different values, a different world.

So it is important to understand oneself. 

Self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom. 

Self-knowledge is not according to any psychologist, book or philosopher, but it is to know oneself as one is from moment to moment. 

To know oneself is to observe what one thinks, how one feels, not just superficially, but to be deeply aware of ‘what is’ without condemnation, judgment, evaluation or comparison. 

Try it, and you will see how extraordinarily difficult it is for a mind that has been trained for centuries to compare, condemn, judge and evaluate, to stop that whole process and simply observe ‘what is’. 

Unless this takes place, not only at the superficial level but right through the whole content of consciousness, there can be no delving into the profundity of the mind.

Our problem is not what societies you should belong to, what kind of activities you should indulge in, what books you should read, and all that superficial business, but how to free the mind from conditioning. The mind is not merely the waking consciousness occupied with daily activities, but also the deep layers of the unconscious in which there is the whole residue of the past, tradition and racial instincts. All that is the mind, and unless that total consciousness is free right through, our search, inquiry and discovery will be limited, narrow and petty.

So the mind is conditioned right through—there is no part of the mind not conditioned. 

Can such a mind free itself? 

And who is the entity that can free it? 

The mind is the total consciousness, with all its different layers of knowledge, acquisition, tradition, racial instincts, memory. Can such a mind free itself, or can the mind be free only when it sees that it is conditioned and that any movement from this conditioning is still another form of conditioning?

The mind is completely conditioned. 

This is an obvious fact if you come to think about it. It is not my invention; it is a fact. 

We belong to a society; we were brought up according to an ideology, with dogmas and traditions. 

The vast influence of culture and society is continually conditioning the mind. 

How can such a mind be free, since any movement of the mind to be free is the result of its conditioning and must bring about further conditioning? 

There is only one answer. 

The mind can be free only when it is completely still. 

Though it has problems, innumerable urges, conflicts and ambitions, if—through self-knowledge, through watching itself without acceptance or condemnation—the mind is choicelessly aware of its own process, then out of that awareness comes an astonishing silence, a quietness of the mind in which there is no movement of any kind. It is only then that the mind is free. It is no longer desiring anything, no longer seeking, no longer pursuing a goal or ideal—which are all the projections of a conditioned mind.

If you ever come to that understanding, in which there can be no self-deception, you will find that there is a possibility of the coming into being of that extraordinary thing called creativity. Then only can the mind realise that which is measureless, which may be called God or truth. You may be socially prosperous, you may have possessions, cars, houses, superficial peace, but unless that which is measureless comes into being, there will always be sorrow. 

Freeing the mind from conditioning is the ending of sorrow.

Krishnamurti 

Ojai 1955

Ignorância

 

Jean-Marie Franceschi

 

Pergunta: Quer dizer que não há qualquer ajuda para os homens quando a vida se torna difícil? Que eles ficam inteiramente entregues a si próprios para se ajudarem?

     

Krishnamurti: Penso, se não estou enganado – se estiver, por favor corrijam-me – penso que o interlocutor quer saber se não haverá uma fonte, uma pessoa ou uma ideia, para a qual nos possamos voltar em tempos de aflição, em tempos de pesar, em tempos de sofrimento.

Afirmo que não há qualquer fonte permanente que nos possa dar compreensão. 

Sabem, para mim a glória do homem é que ninguém o pode salvar exceto ele próprio. 

Por favor, quando olham para o homem em toda a parte do mundo, veem que ele sempre se voltou para outro em busca de ajuda. Na Índia, contamos com teorias, com professores, para nos ajudarem. 

Aqui também fazem o mesmo. 

Em todo o mundo o homem se volta para alguém que o erga da sua própria ignorância. Eu afirmo que ninguém os pode erguer da vossa própria ignorância. Vocês criaram-na através do medo, através da imitação, através da procura de segurança, e por isso estabeleceram autoridades. Criaram para vocês próprios esta ignorância que domina cada um de vocês, e ninguém os pode libertar exceto vocês mesmos através da vossa própria compreensão. Os outros poderão libertá-los momentaneamente, mas enquanto existir a causa de raiz da ignorância, apenas criam um outro conjunto de ilusões.

Para mim, a causa de raiz da ignorância é a consciência do “eu”, da qual surge o conflito e o sofrimento. Enquanto essa consciência do “eu” existir, tem que haver sofrimento do qual ninguém os pode libertar. Na vossa devoção a uma pessoa ou a uma ideia podem momentaneamente separar-se dessa consciência, mas enquanto essa consciência permanecer é como uma ferida que está sempre a supurar. 

A mente só se pode libertar dessa ignorância quando enfrenta a vida integralmente, quando experimenta completamente, sem preconceito, sem ideias preconcebidas, quando já não está mutilada por uma crença ou por uma ideia. É uma das ilusões que prezamos, que alguém nos possa salvar, que não podemos erguer-nos deste charco de sofrimento. Durante séculos procuramos ajuda do exterior, e ainda estamos dominados por essa crença.

(Krishnamurti - Oslo, Noruega – Palestra no auditório da universidade - 5 de setembro - 1933)

AJUDAR O OUTRO

 

Mark Eastment

A melhor maneira de ajudar os outros é começar a se compreender e mudar-se a si mesmo. Neste desejo de ajudar o outro, de servir o outro, existe um orgulho, uma vaidade escondidos. Se você ama você serve. O desejo de ajudar nasce da vaidade. Se você quer ajudar o outro, você tem que se conhecer a si mesmo, pois você é o outro. Exteriormente, podemos ser diferentes - amarelos, pretos, castanhos, ou brancos - mas todos nós somos impelidos pela ânsia, pelo medo, pela ganância ou pela ambição; interiormente somos muito parecidos. Sem autoconhecimento, como você pode saber das necessidades do outro? Sem se entender a si mesmo, você não pode entender o outro, servir o outro. Sem autoconhecimento você está agindo na ignorância, e assim criando sofrimento. 

JIDDU KRISHNAMURTI

 

O Homem Livre

Só se pode sentir o que é o amor 

ao compreendermos a maneira como vivemos. 

A maioria de nós deseja uma definição do amor, ou buscamos aquele estado que chamamos “amor universal”, "cósmico”, “divino”, etc. etc., sem compreender nossa existência diária.

• Não conhecemos, na vida quotidiana, nenhuma espécie de amizade, bondade, delicadeza? 
• Nunca somos generosos, compassivos? 
• Jamais temos o sentimento de ser espontaneamente bons para com alguém, ou em que revelamos grande humildade? 
• Tudo isso não são expressões do amor? 
• E, quando amamos alguém, não há então um sentimento total em que o “eu” é inexistente? 

O que geralmente acontece é que nos identificamos com uma pessoa, uma família, uma nação, um partido, uma ideologia, e, nessa auto-identificação com algo, encontro grande intensidade de sentimento, de ação; mas não nos esquecemos realmente de nós mesmos.
Pelo contrário, com a identificação nos expandimos.

O movimento, o partido, a ideologia, a igreja, ou o que quer que seja com que se identificou a mente, é um prolongamento do “eu”. O homem que, consciente ou inconscientemente, se identificou com algo, não tem amor, ainda que fale de amor. 

Quando falais sobre vosso amor à pátria, isso não significa que amais a pátria, constituída de pessoas, de entes humanos; o que amais é puramente a ideia de pátria, com a qual vos identificastes e pela qual estais dispostos a matar e a morrer. 

Assim sendo, consciente ou inconscientemente, a mente se identifica com alguma coisa — um movimento, um partido, uma ideologia, uma família, uma religião, um guru — e essa mente é incapaz de amar; afigura-se-me importante compreender isto, porque muita gente boa se perde por causa da identificação, por não perceber sua falsidade. 

E se a identificação, 

a que chamamos “amor”, 

não é amor, 

que é então o amor? 

Sem dúvida, o amor é o estado de espírito em que o “eu” perdeu toda a sua importância. 
Amar é ser amistoso. Compreendeis, senhores?
Quando amais, não tendes inimizade e não causais inimizade.
E vós causais inimizade ao pertencerdes a religiões, nações, partidos políticos.
Se possuís muitas terras, imensas riquezas, enquanto outro, pouco ou nada tem, causais inimizade, ainda que frequenteis os templos, ou mandeis construir templos com vossas riquezas.
Não tendes afabilidade quando estais em busca de posição, poder, prestígio.

Sim, todos vós acenareis com vossas cabeças e concordareis comigo, mas continuareis por vossos velhos caminhos; e a tragédia é, não a vossa falta de amor, porém, a falta de compreensão de vosso modo de vida, o não-percebimento do significado da maneira como realmente estais vivendo. Se realmente sentísseis isso, seríeis generosos. 

Por certo, a generosidade da mão e do coração é o começo da afabilidade; e onde há afabilidade não se necessita de justiça por força da Lei. Existindo afabilidade, há bondade, compaixão espontânea. Ocasionalmente, tendes sido amistosos, afáveis, sem pensardes em vós mesmos, sem estardes preocupados a respeito de vossa pátria, de vossos problemas.

E quando transcendemos tudo isso, surge algo completamente diverso — um estado em que a mente é compassiva e, todavia, “indiferente” . Conhecemos a indiferença no sentido de “desapego”, sendo este o resultado de cálculo, um ato concebido pela mente, a fim de proteger-se contra a dor. 

Conhecemos também a indiferença da mente que diz:
“Passei por muitas penas e angústias, e agora vou ser indiferente.”
Ora, isto é também ação da vontade.

Mas eu me refiro a uma indiferença totalmente desligada da indiferença intelectual concebida pela mente que deseja resistir ao sofrimento. Há uma indiferença originada da compaixão; a mente é compassiva e, todavia, “indiferente”. 
Já tivestes alguma vez tal sentimento?
Ao verdes um ser a penar, tratais de socorrê-lo e, entretanto, sois “indiferente” nesse próprio processo de socorrer.

Mas, em geral, que fazemos nós?
Apiedamo-nos porque vemos sofrimento, e desejamos alterar as coisas, promover uma reforma e, desse modo, nos lançamos de corpo e alma à ação; mas a mente de tal maneira está empenhada em produzir um resultado, que perde o “senso” da compaixão. 

Assim, se observardes o funcionamento de vossa própria mente, vereis que todas essas coisas se passam no quotidiano viver. Conheceis momentos de compaixão, momentos de amor, de generosidade, porém eles são bem raros.

 Todas as nossas ações calculadas 

se baseiam nesse processo de 

“vir a ser” algo importante, 

e só a mente que esta livre do “vir a ser” 

pode conhecer aquele amor 

que dissolve nossos numerosos problemas.

Jiddu Krishnamurti

Meditar sem o observador

Pooya Ahmaripour

O silêncio da mente chega naturalmente – por favor ouçam isto – chega naturalmente, facilmente, sem qualquer esforço se você souber observar, olhar. Quando você observar uma nuvem, olhe para ela sem a palavra e portanto sem o pensamento, olhe para ela sem a divisão como observador. Então há uma consciência e uma atenção no próprio ato de olhar: não a determinação de estar atento, mas olhar com atenção, mesmo que esse olhar possa durar apenas um segundo, um minuto – isso é suficiente. Não seja ganancioso, não diga “Tenho que ter isso durante todo o dia”. Olhar sem o observador significa olhar sem o espaço entre o observador e a coisa observada, o que não significa identificar-se com a coisa que é olhada.

Portanto quando se consegue olhar para uma árvore, para uma nuvem, para a luz sobre a água, sem o observador, e também – o que é muito mais difícil, o que precisa de uma maior atenção – se você conseguir olhar para si mesmo sem a imagem, sem qualquer conclusão, porque a imagem, a conclusão, a opinião, o juízo, a bondade e a maldade, estão centrados em torno do observador, então você descobrirá que a mente, o cérebro, se torna extraordinariamente tranquilo. E essa tranquilidade não é uma coisa a ser cultivada; ela pode acontecer, ela acontece sim, se você estiver atento, se você for capaz de observar o tempo todo, observar os seus gestos, as suas palavras, os seus sentimentos, os movimentos do seu rosto e tudo o mais.


Krishnamurti

É possível nunca ser magoado?

Qual a sua responsabilidade nos problemas do mundo que você critica?

Vivemos há algum tempo uma grande crise, política, económica, social, colectiva, e como sempre, “queremos ordem no mundo, politicamente, religiosamente, economicamente, socialmente”, como disse o célebre filósofo indiano Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986) no documentário de 60 minutos, “The Mind of J. Krishnamurti” — “Nas nossas relações uns com os outros, queremos ordem, queremos alguma paz, alguma compreensão“, diz ele, e confronta esse desejo com a atenção à nossa crise “interna”, pessoal, individual, que, segundo ele, é a verdadeira crise:

“A crise não está lá fora, a crise realmente é interna, e nós não estamos com vontade de resolver isso“.

Interna como?
As palavras que ele usa para definir interna são “psicologicamente” e “na consciência“.
No documentário ele afirma que “a consciência está uma confusão, em contradição”.
A forma mais simples de entender isto talvez seja ver que o que se procura como ordem no mundo não está a corresponder à desordem que se vive internamente — desordem psicológica e desordem da consciência.

Há uma frase atribuída a Sigmund Freud, no livro “Presentation on Transference” de Jacques Lacan, onde ele pergunta: 

“Qual a sua responsabilidade nos problemas do mundo que você critica?” 

Nesta entrevista, que Krishnamurti concedeu ao escritor Michael Mendizza, ele mesmo refaz a pergunta para entender o que Krishnamurti quer dizer com crise interior.
Krishnamurti fala da nossa super-adaptação aos vários sistemas vigentes, que seguem inquestionados: “Quando eles oferecem sistemas e você os aceita, você está fechado, seguro, protegido, e você sente isso. E a maioria da pessoas quer se sentir protegidas psicologicamente. Mas as instituições nunca salvaram o homem, politicamente, religiosamente; elas nunca realmente libertaram o homem da sua tristeza, dor e tudo o resto. Sabemos disso, mas os sistemas têm um apelo extraordinário para aqueles que não pensam”.
Mais do que a ignorância, Krishnamurti cita a “preguiça” como factor que justifica a manutenção dos sistemas.

Como ele sempre diz, se as pessoas têm dúvidas, que se perguntem, sincera e profundamente, sem se apegar a padrões de respostas já existentes, e assim chegariam a respostas verdadeiras.

Temos de fazer algumas perguntas ao nosso interior neste cenário de crise actual: 

• Queremos que os políticos se interessem e se dediquem aos problemas e às necessidades comuns, mas será que fazemos isso quando vivemos os variados eventos da nossa rotina? 
• Será que quando entramos em debates, por exemplo, não ajudamos a torná-lo uma discussão dividida, oferecendo resistência e defesa, ao invés de torná-lo mais inclusivo e compreensivo? 
• Será que não estamos a agir apenas em prol de agendas individuais, com graus de segregação e ausência de fraternidade – e a desejar que o mundo tenha justamente isso, para podermos então ter essas mesmas coisas nas nossas vidas, de fora para dentro? 
• O que leva a essa expectativa? 
• O que leva a projectar a responsabilidade sobre o outro, ou sobre um sistema? 
• Qual a minha motivação quando divido, engano, rejeito, ataco? 
• Quem acredito que sou, ou preciso ser, para pensar e agir assim? 

“Já está provado, por mais e mais vezes,
que querer ordem externa no mundo
sem ordem interna
só gera mais desordem”.
— Jiddu Krishnamurti

                                                             


Krishnamurti with Michael Mendizza:

M: The world crisis is unquestionably growing more and more acute. You have said that the outer crisis, in society and the world, reflects an inner crisis in human consciousness. What do you mean by that?
K: I think that is fairly clear. The psychological content of consciousness of man is almost universal. The content of one’s consciousness is greatly similar to all other consciousness of mankind.  In that consciousness man suffers, goes through a great deal of agony, conflict and depression and elation. He has enumerable beliefs, great many images about himself and about others. There is fear and the pursuit of pleasure. And there are the various types of religious divisions with their superstitions, illusions, saviors, and all that.  That is the content of one’s consciousness which is really the content of humanity.  Because all humanity, whether it is in the East or West, in Africa, Russia, or wherever it is, human beings go through this crisis in consciousness.

M: I’m not clear of the relationship between the crisis in our consciousness and what we see in the world?
K: Sir, to put it differently, we want order outside in the world, politically, religiously, economically, socially, we want order in our relationship with each other. We want some peace.  We want some understanding.  If the inward psychological state is not orderly, not conflicting, not contradicting, if that state in consciousness is quiet, steady, clear, then you can bring about order in the world.  What we are trying to do is try to bring order legislatively, nationally and so on, order out there in the world, which has been proved over and over again that it totally brings about disorder.
That’s why I am saying that without inward order, in consciousness, which is in a mess, which is in a contradiction, without bringing about order inwardly, psychologically, you cannot possibly have order outwardly.  And the crisis is there.  We think the crisis is national, economic, social and so on.  The crisis is not out there! The crisis is really inward and we’re unwilling to face that.  We are all so superficial.  We think by various legislative orders we’ll have some kind of peace in the world, without having order in one’s self.

M: You have said often that it is absolutely essential that man change radically. And yet for centuries man has continued in the same old patterns, the same old traditions, the same old ways.  What are the consequences if he does not change?
K: The consequences are very clear.  Consequences are constant wars throughout the world.  I do not know if you realize that for the last 5,000 years, every year there’s been a war, human beings killing each other.  And we are an accumulation of armaments, technological advancement, and the scientists, and the nationalists, and the religious people who are divided are sustaining this mad accumulation - the things that are necessary for war.  It’s so obvious.  Any fool can see this.

M: We have gone on without destroying ourselves so far.  Is our time running out?  How acute do you see it?
K: Now it’s becoming more and more dangerous.

M: How so?
K: Nuclear war. The emphasis of all the poor nations as well as the rich nations on building up armaments.  One day there will be a clash, inevitably. It is the job of the generals and the politicians who prepare for war, to plan for war.  That’s their job.  They are maintaining it.
I wonder why human beings throughout the world don’t see this simple fact that you cannot possibly have peace on Earth if you’re nationalistically divided.  Nationalism is really the beautification of tribalism and every politician right throughout the world maintains this tribalism, this division.  This has been the history of mankind and nobody has applied his mind and said, let us stop all this.  The scientists are sustaining it.  The so called religious people are sustaining it, of course, and the politicians, it’s their job to keep everybody fighting each other.

M: It seems that for centuries our personal daily lives have been filled with fear, pain, suffering, and yet none of these have been sufficient to bring about fundamental change in us. Why?
K: Either it is indolence.

M: Ignorance?
K: No, I won’t call it ignorance - indolence, which is a form of laziness. That is, you have gotten into a habit and you sustain that habit, keep on thinking the same pattern, living the same kind of life, the parents, the grandparents, the children, they’re all following the same old mold, conforming to the same ‘cada”, framework, and really one should ask a question why human beings, though they have extraordinary knowledge, technological knowledge, know all the dangers of war, know all the dangers of poverty, the disease, they know it quite well.  You hear it on television, in books. Everybody knows this and yet nobody’s willing to change.  Why?  Is it that they find security in the habit, in the pattern, in the mold?  And they’re frightened to break away that mold.  To break that pattern and see if there’s something different. Apparently very, very, very few people are willing to do that.  Scientists do it in their own profession, in their own way, to break the pattern.  But even though they are scientists, as human beings they’re just like everybody else.

M: So what is it going to take?  What other pain or what is it going to take before we’re willing to make the change?
K: This has been really a question that’s been asked over and over again all over the world, in India, in the West and here and so on.  Has suffering changed man - human suffering, pain, anxiety, fear? Though mankind has had this series of agonies that seems to have not changed man.
I am not being personal, sir, but you have heard all this, you as a human being, have been through a great deal of anxieties, suffering insecurity and confusion.  Why don’t you change?
What prevents you?  If each one of us asked that question, not verbally or merely intellectually as an entertainment, but asked that question most seriously and deeply, what’s your answer?  What’s your answer to this problem that human beings have lived this way for millennia upon millennia - why haven’t they changed?
Why haven’t you who are listening now, why haven’t you changed?  You know if you don’t change - what the consequences are. You will be national, nationalistic, you will be tribal, insular, isolated and therefore having no relationship globally, fighting, fighting, fighting, building up more and more armaments to destroy each other.  Now, why don’t you, if you are at all serious in this matter, why don’t you ask yourself that question? Why am I, a human being, who have been through all this, why haven’t I changed?  What would be your answer?
Either, you’re not serious. You want to live a very superficial life, and that superficiality temporarily satisfies you, or you really don’t care.  As long as you have immediate pleasures, immediate satisfactions, you really don’t care.  You don’t care for your children if they’re murdered.  You really have no deep love, affection for them.  If you had you would prevent all wars. So, apparently none of these things mean anything to you. Or probably you’re so deeply conditioned psychologically, of course we are biologically conditioned, that is a different matter, but psychologically conditioned, and one is not aware of it.  Unless there is freedom from that conditioning you will go on this way.
And I also noticed, if I may point out, very few people, at least I haven’t heard anybody, talking about the disastrous nationalistic division.  Nobody talks about it.  Why?  Is it that it’s not popular?  Is it that each government says, we’re in power, we stay in power, as long as we can?  Whether we are disorderly, whether we are messy, whether we are corrupt doesn’t matter, we stay as long as possible in power and guide the people in their confusion.  They are confused and so out of that confusion I try to bring order to those people who are governed.
Now why don’t you change?  We have explained, not only verbally, intellectually, but deeply, we have explained the causes that prevent you from change, break those causes, break those patterns, and not keep on holding to them as if they are something extraordinarily precious. They’re not.  They’re impractical.  War is the most impractical on Earth and yet we go on.

M: We’re going back into time. In 1929 the notion of a path represented a very rigid system for the members of the Order of the Star.  When you said that truth is a pathless land, many people saw that as simply a reaction to Theosophy.  Is that what you meant?
K: No, sir.  If you have noticed, all religions, especially the organized orthodox religions, have always said there is only our path, our savior, our system, out belief, our rituals and only through those you will find salvation.  The Hindus put it their own different way.  The Christians do it very, very systematically and very clearly that there’s only one savior and if you’re not saved by that person you then go to Hell or are out of the field of light. This has been a constant song of all religions.  And in India especially, they have four different kinds of paths to attain truth.
And I happen to have said many, many years ago that there’s no path to truth.  Truth, according to them, is a fixed point.  And if it’s a fixed point you could have as many paths as you like.  But if it is not a fixed point, it’s a living thing, moving, movement in the sense not in the world of time, which is a different matter, naturally there’s no path to it.  But you see, we don’t want such a dangerous outlook.  We want everything fixed.  We want every object to be final, which has continuity.

M: We, as individuals, feel psychologically dependent on a system.
K: Of course.

M: Why don’t these systems bring about this sense of spiritual progress that we think that they’re there to do?
K: What does a system mean?  A pattern, a mold, a framework which will help you to become more peaceful, more loving, more charitable, generous and so on and so on.  But in that pattern there are divisions - your pattern, my pattern, the Christian pattern, the Hindu pattern, the Buddhist.  So, patterns may be dangerous altogether, because they divide people. And religions have divided people. The Protestant, the Catholic, the Hindu, the Buddhist.  They’re all patterns, ways of thinking. They are rituals.  They are beliefs.  They are faith. They are saviors. To break away from all that requires intelligence, it requires investigation, study.  Nobody is willing to do that.  You don’t believe in any of all this nonsense but you keep going.

M: You seem to be the only person that says there is no path.  Everybody else is offering paths, selling paths. Why are you the only one that seems to be saying that there’s no path? Why is that?
K: To see the truth of pathless land you must have a free mind.  Your mind must be inquiring, asking, doubting, and to doubt is the most dangerous thing for most people, to question whether the systems really do help, or have they become rackets.  Whether the racket is introduced by Indians or by the Westerners, it’s still a racket.  And when they offer systems and you accept them, you are enclosed, safe, protected, you feel that.  And most people want to feel protected psychologically. Naturally systems are very popular.
Institutions have never saved man, politically, religiously; they never really freed man from his sorrow, pain and so on.  We know that, but systems have an extraordinary appeal to the thoughtless. And if anybody says there is no power in a system, not conforming to a pattern, to a system, has such great beauty and strength in that. You rejected it because you are accustomed to this, you feel safe, protected.  At least you are certain in this that is uncertain.

M: We want somebody to tell us what to do.
K: That’s right, sir.

M: And yet you refuse to tell us what to do.
K: You see again, who is there to tell you what to do?  When we are children the parents tell us what to do.  That same mentality is cultivated right through life.  In school we are told what to do.  In college you are told what to do.  In the university, right through life somebody tells you this is right, this is wrong, this should be done, that should not be done. Which means what?  There is no self-investigation.  There is no saying, I am really the rest of mankind, which you are, because every human being goes through a great deal of suffering, a great deal of pain, a great deal of anxiety, uncertain, confused, insecure, like you, like the rest of the world.  We don’t accept that. We think that our suffering is totally separate from other people’s suffering.  And so, we have this mentality that I must have somebody to tell me what to do - right from the Pope down to the poor parish priest.

M: Let’s go into this idea that ‘You Are The World.’ You brought it up just a moment ago. We live as individuals, that individuality expresses itself as race, nationality, class, and yet you just finished saying that we represent all of humanity. How can we represent all of humanity and yet manifest so many divisions?
K: Sir, first of all one must question deeply whether you are an individual at all.  You are the result of your parents psychologically and genetically.  You have inherited certain conditions as an American, as a Russian, as an Englishman and so on.  And according to religion, you are a separate soul, so your actions are individualistic.  But is that so?
Are you not the result of vast time, great evolution, inherited the experiences of thousands of people?  Are you not the result of education, given information about various subjects which you use skillfully or not?  And you are conditioned to be a Christian, to be a Hindu, through years of propaganda.  So when we begin to inquire seriously if we are actually an individual, you begin to doubt this whole idea of individuality.
Individuality apparently means freedom. That is freedom of choice, but the choice is to move from one corner of the same field to another corner.  And this movement from one corner to the other corner you call choice, progress and all the rest of it.  That narrow field is your conditioning as an American, national, tribal and so on.  So all through the world a pattern exists. So, one questions basically if we are an individual at all.
You have been told that you are an individual, you are an individual soul, God will save you or Jesus, somebody will save you. That pattern after 2000 years has been established in the Western world and probably 3000 to 5000 years in the Eastern World that you are a separate human being because you have a separate body, separate name, and so on.  From the physical they move into the psychological, which becomes the individual, soul. Personally I question all of that because your consciousness is similar to the rest of mankind.  So we are not an individual.

M: When the psychological separation disappears we begin to perceive the one movement we talked about.
K: One global unity movement.

M: You have said that the perception of that by a single individual, that the energy this releases or creates or brings about can affect the totality of humanity.
K: Even the scientists are saying this. It is the old idea of the Hindus, that each group has its own consciousness. That is, the wolf pack or the whole wolf group – when one in that group understands some danger it conveys it to the whole group. If one monkey learns something suddenly it is transferred to the whole.  You have seen those monkeys in Japan.  So, in a similar way, as we are the result of the animals, monkeys and so on, our consciousness is common to all mankind.  I am the mankind.  I am not separate from mankind.
It’s our Earth, the Earth in which we all live, it’s our Earth, not British Earth, English Earth and French Earth and American Earth.  It’s our Earth on which we have to live.  But we have separated ourselves, the South, the North, East, West and so on; to have a global concept, a global feeling that this is our Earth to live on and we can only live in right relationship with each other, not with the labels, as English, as French, as German, American and so on.  So in the same way life is one. Our consciousness is not my consciousness or your consciousness; it’s the consciousness of all mankind. When one human being who is part of all this radically changes, surely it affects the rest of the consciousness of man.

M: How is it that the change in one human being can affect the whole?
K: Sir, look, it’s an unfortunate case, has not Hitler affected the rest of mankind?  Has not the idea of a savior affected a certain part of mankind?  The Buddha 2500 years ago - he has affected the whole of the East.  Napoleon affected the whole history of the Western World.  So, if one person is rational, sane, healthy, logical, and therefore sacred, it affects the whole of mankind naturally by his thoughts, by his books.  This is what is actually happening.

M: When we see ourselves as separate individuals, what happens next?
K: You have wars.

M: How does that relate to how the concept of individuality affects the rest of humanity as well?
K: Sir, the concept of individuality is illusory.  It has been maintained some time - and one has never really gone into it. We have accepted it. My question is also why do we accept that? Why do we accept what somebody says, psychologically?  Biologically I have to accept.  If the surgeon tells me I’ve got a certain disease that must be operated, that’s right. But psychologically why should I accept what somebody else says, when I realize that I’m the rest of mankind? Mankind is me and me is the history of mankind, the book of mankind.  If I know how to read it I don’t depend on anybody.
So can I, without distortion, without prejudice, without choice be aware of the content of this book which is me?  To read it very carefully, never distorting it, requires a great deal of attention, great deal of energy, intensity, immediacy. We are not willing to do all that because we think that it’s too tiresome. Tell me quickly about the book and I will do it or I will not do it.  We generally may not do it.
I personally think that the psychological guidance by another, whether it is the religious guidance or the guidance of the psychologist is totally wrong. Because you’re making humanity into children who have to be guided, told, encouraged. We are all grown up human beings after five or ten million years.

M: Let us go on to another area.  You say that we need to be a light to ourselves.  What does that mean?
K: It means don’t seek light at the feet or the knees of any person. There is no savior, you are the only savior.  You are responsible for all the things that you are doing.  When you send your son to war you are responsible for that, which means you don’t love your son, which means you love yourself, your comfort, your position, your daily safety. So you sacrifice your son for your own personal comfort.  And it means also to be a light to one’s self.  That’s really a marvelous sense of freedom without a single burden because then, if you are a light to yourself, there is no shadow in that light.

M: You have said often that what we generally consider relationship is really made up of the images and conclusions, that the relationship is image to image and therefore it has no depth.  Help me understand, what is a relationship?
K: Don’t get irritated, don’t get angry, but let’s look at it.  Let’s investigate.  Let’s go into it peacefully not reacting to it and saying yes, it is right, no it’s wrong, but let’s look at it.  What is a relationship?  You cannot live on the Earth without relationship.

M: The question is - most of what we consider relationship is based on images.
K: So what is actually relationship?  What is now called relationship - a man and a woman?  The man is perusing his own objects, his own fulfillment, his own desires, his own pleasures, and the woman is too.  So they’re like two parallel lines never meeting.  That is, perhaps, in bed. But that’s not relationship.  That’s not love.  So, as it is now, there is no relationship.  As it is now the man builds an image about her and she builds an image about him.  Each human being has not only the image of another, but also he’s got innumerable images in himself about her, about his neighbor, about the government, about the religion and so on.  Now, is it these images between the man and the woman that have relationship, these pictures, these symbols? Is that relationship? Obviously not.  But we are satisfied with that - because I am an individual, I must have my way, you’re an individual, and you must have your way.  And that’s considered freedom and that’s leading us to some hideous world conflict.

M: What is love and what happens when we try to define it?
K: Through negation of what is not the positive exists.  That is, love is not desire.  Love is not pleasure.  Love is not a remembrance.  Love has no sense of imagery. That becomes romantic, romanticism, emotionalism and all that kind of thing.  Love is not emotionalism, sentimentality.  It’s as strong as death, as vital as life.
But, we have associated love with sex, which is pleasure.  We have associated it with all kinds of trivial things.  Love is not jealousy.  Now can one be free of jealousy?  Where there is love there is no ambition.  Where there is love there is no authority. Where there is love there’s no possession, attachment.  If you intelligently and logically observed that love is not all this and you put it out of your psychological system, then the other flowers, but it is a perfume of its own.
But when you begin to describe what it is – it is not. So the verbal explanation, the verbal measurement of what love is destroys love.  And you see, love can only exist when there is no suffering.  Suffering is personal.  Suffering is also global.  Man has suffered endlessly and he tries to combine that suffering with what he calls love.  And so there’s always this contradiction, this duality. Whereas, if you deny all that which is not love, then the other thing has this immense beauty, great strength and vitality.

M: I believe we said that the only concern of religion is the total transformation of man.
K: The only function of religion, the real religion, not the accepted traditional saviors, rituals, authoritarian guidance - when you are totally free from all that, which is really nonsense, it has no meaning anymore in life because it doesn’t affect life, it doesn’t change my anxiety, one’s pain, loneliness.  So, when you put away all that intelligently, after investigation, carefully, then man doesn’t invent God.
We have invented God.  If God did exist at all and if he created us, he must be a pretty poor God.  So we have created him. The image that exists all over the world is the result of thought, is the invention of thought, and thought is not sacred. It’s born of knowledge, experience, knowledge and memory. There’s nothing sacred. Thought is a material process.  So a very, very complex question arises out of that. Can thought, time, end?  That’s possible only in deep meditation.  Here again the word meditation has been spoiled by all these silly gurus that have come to this country.  Meditation is something tremendously serious, not something which helps you to relax, do better at work or get more money.  It’s really total abnegation of the self.

M: The function of religion is really to bring about transformation.
K: That is, transform a human mind from its conditioning, and no religion is doing that.  No religion has produced a good human being.  By good I mean holistic, in which implied whole means healthy, sane, rational and also it means holy, a sacred human being. They have not done it.  So they [religions] have no value.  Man must be free from all this to find out that which is beyond time.

M: What is sacred?
K: All that we have been thinking, the rituals, the symbols in a church, all the temples and so on, they are all put there by thought.  Thought has invented these things.  You can’t deny that.  Is thought sacred?  Or is thought a material process, which is - there’s an accident, I learn from that accident and I call it into play as a memory.  Memory is the result of experience, knowledge stored up in the brain cells. Thought is never complete. That is logical, rational, and thought has invented all these things called sacred. It invented the savior, invented the temples and the contents of the temples.  So thought in itself is not sacred.  When thought invents God, God is not sacred.  So the question arises then, what is sacred?  That can only be understood or lived or happen when there’s complete freedom from fear, from sorrow, and the sense of love and compassion with their own intelligence.  Then, when the mind is utterly still, that which is sacred can take place.