(Abstracts of the Madras ) K Group Discussion 30th October, 1947

It is an (experientially) realisable fact that one can bring about an almost instantaneous perception of what is Truth and (the insightful perception of) Truth is the liberating factor.
(For starters?) One should (try to become choicelessly or 'non-personally'?) aware of our words, gestures and thoughts. When (for instance) there is an awareness of (inwardly being attached to?) an idea, let the ( self-inquiring ?) mind pursue it till the full implications of (adopting?) that idea are understood. For instance, consider the ( idea of ) nationalism : on account of an (ignored ) feeling of (inner vacuity or ) emptiness, which we dislike, we ( instinctively ) identify ourselves with a nation, creed or idea which offers ( the very realistic illusion of) security, prestige and position - to us. To dissolve this 'nationalistic' sense in us, we must become aware of the fact that we 'are' (collectively inclined to be 'tribal' or ) nationalistic and also (realise that on longer term) nationalism is detrimental to us all .

In daily life, most of us do not act up to our (true ) convictions because of fear to lose our social status etc.; they are therefore (becoming ) 'hypocrites' to their relatives and later on to the people at large also. Most of us merely follow the old routine of habitual action and thinking.

Group Discussion 1st November, 1947

A mind which is conditioned (accustomed?) to live (safely) in a mental pattern controlled by a (personal or collective) creed or ide(ology) , can never know itself (by direct experience) . The mind can discover itself only when it is free of (thought) control and when there is a certain ( self-awareness &) spontaneity.
Discovery of the truth (or falsehood of something) liberates us; we then transform ourselves with joy, clarity and quickness. For example, to find the truth about the need for ( a self-imposed inner) discipline or (about its redundancy) , we must investigate the ( actual truth of this ) matter. Some say that if you do not discipline yourself properly there will be confusion. Is there not confusion even though you are disciplined? When you have only directed your attention on a particular thing excluding everything else, you still continue to be confused all round. Discipline means training the mind to a desired pattern in order to produce a certain result.
However a (self-) disciplined mind is static, and a static mind cannot understand the living problems of life. Similarly, the practice ( of any spirtual discipline ) cannot lead to (self-)understanding either . You cannot 'concentrate' (integrate) your ( mental & emotional) faculties through any method or through any practice.
The problems of your inner life are dynamic and living; therefore, to understand them, you must have a mind which is also dynamic and not disciplined. Again, ( the 'enlightened' perception of) Truth (also known as 'insight'?) can only come to you, you cannot go to it. If (you assume that ) 'you' can go to Truth you can try to discipline yourself in order to reach it – but you would only move from the known to the known and not to the Unknown. Therefore, ( the thought imposed ) discipline cannot lead you to freedom. No effort or practice can lead you to ( a holistic self-) understanding. Also, ( reaching the inner) freedom is not a gradual process. ( Self-) understanding cannot be through (our common thinking in terms of) time. Such (temporal thinking) can not produce the timeless. ( a self-imposed inner) discipline is a mere ( process of becoming in ) time and so it cannot lead to the Unknown, to the Timeless (dimension of Reality . ( Hint:) When conditioned by a ( self-imposed ) discipline, the human mind is ( becoming) insensitive to its (actual) problems.

2-nd K Public in Madras 1947 (reader friendly edited)

I would like to continue from where I left off last Sunday. I was trying to show the (2-way interactive) relationship between the individual and society. How society having been created by (older self-centred ?) individuals smothers the ( present self-centred?) individual through systems, through organizations, through religion and so on. I think it is very important to realize very seriously and profoundly, ( the individual responsability involved in the ) relationship between the individual and society, as well as the transformation of society (through) the regeneration of the individual (mind) .
Although you may assert that our relationship (should be) based on brotherhood, love and religious ideas and so on, if you analyze it very carefully you will see that it is actually based on sensate values - made either by the hand or by the mind. Sensory values are not 'eternal' (human) values, and this relationship based on sensory values has produced the present chaos which you see throughout the world.

( The deeper consciousness of ) man is ( presently in a state of ) despair, confused, in a sorrowful (condition) . ( Our 1000 $ existential question is:) Does man's happiness lie in the ( material) 'things' made by the human mind? Through self-knowledge we can discover what is the truth and right happiness and whether our happiness lies in things made by the hand and by the mind.
Now, what is ( the 'bestest' approach to?) self-knowledge? You have to know the total process of your whole being, that is, to be aware of everything that you are (in terms of) thoughts, feeling and action - that is the very beginning of self-knowledge. We cannot think seriously about a (psychological) problem unless we are ( becoming fully) aware of it. Therefore the ( ages old residues of ignorance & ) confusion has to be cleared within your mind, which does not mean you must wait till all the confusion in yourself is cleared before you act.

I do not think we realize fully the extraordinary nature of the present human crisis . As I have said in my previous talk, a crisis like this happens only very rarely and we are all confronted with one of the rarest ( case of) of catastrophes and confusions. And what is needed is a complete revolution in ( our existing) values and you cannot create new (spiritual) values except by awakening the 'individual' (integrated consciousness). (For starters?) when you walk down the (Madras) streets you are aware of the poverty of the people, of the ill-fed families and of the utter callousness of everyone who's passing by ? ( Hint:) we have created all this, and since we are not aware of it how can we transform it? Surely it looks simpl(istic intellectually) ) , but the most profound ( experiential) beginning is to begin with ourselves.
( The first difficulty is that) we have become (inwardly) dull and that we must (ASAP?) revivify and quicken our whole sensitivity. You can become sensitive (the hard way?) , when you become aware of yourself in action, in thought and in feeling. Surely ( the liberating perception of?) truth is not far away but very near, only if we knew how (and where) to look for it, but we do not look for it because we are not (inwardly awaken or?) aware. So what is of primary importance (for our everyday homework) is to be aware, so choicelessly, so penetratingly aware of every thought, every feeling that is revealed.

Question: In a recent article by a famous correspondent it was stated that wisdom and personal example do not solve the world's problem. What do you say?

Krishnamurti: As there are many things involved in this particular question we must analyses it carefully. First of all we are told what to think by 'famous' correspondents, because like you, they have their own 'axes to grind'. So, we have stopped thinking (out everything for ourselves) as we absorb what they think and what they do. So, one has to be extremely alert, not to absorb other people's ideas and demands.
(2) The (famous) 'correspondent' says that wisdom and personal examples are not enough to solve the world's problem. Neither do I think wisdom and personal example will save the world. But (following) the 'personal example' invariably leads to imitation ; while wisdom cannot be realized through ( following any?) personal example. Wisdom is something living, Real and in constant moving. ( The direct perception of Truth) is not (limited to ) a fixed place; it is not learned through ( reading tons of philosophical ?) books. What is necessary at the present time is a ( timeless?) revolution in (the quality of our) thinking, a 'creative' thinking. And that (inward) revolution can only be gained through you, the ( holistically integrated?) individual.

So there must be a creative revolution in thinking and that is extremely difficult (for the self-centred thinker?) . There can be a ( qualitative?) revolution in thinking only when the (thinking mind of) man is free from its (time-binding) conditioning, not only of the conditioning one is conscious of?) , but the many (un-conscious) layers of consciousness in which ( traces of time-binding?) conditioning exists. To liberate oneself inwardly from that conditioning is ( the function of any authentic ?) revolutionary thinking. ( Hint : that may imply that you have to cease to (identify yourself as a?) Brahmin, Hindu, Christian, you have to 'transcend' all fallacies, class divisions. But (on a second thought?) if you do change, what will your neighbours say! You might even lose your job ! Therefore you will go on shaking your head (in assent) but the world will go on more and more miserably and you will go on talking about changing the world.

So the start is not in the ( consciousness of the?) world of which you are unaware, but the world's problem can be solved (from the inside out?) if you are becoming aware of the misery and confusion which exists in you and therefore in ( the collective consciousness of?) the world. I assure you that is the only way out, and what is of the highest importance ( to be dealt with?) is what you are, your is your thinking, feeling & action 'now'.

Question: What did you mean when you said that ''we use the present as a passage'' ?

Krishnamurti: Last Sunday I said that ''we use the present as a passage to the future''. We use the present as a means of achieving some result, whether it is a psychological result or a personal result, changing oneself to become something. We use the present as a means of the past for the future, that is, this (time-bound ?) 'present' is the result of the ( whole mankind's ) past. Surely that is obvious. What you think is based on the past, your (self-centred?) being is founded on the past.
Now, without ( bothering to?) understand (its  roots in the ?) past, (our self-centred) thinking (functioning in the safety of its past knowledge?) goes through the ( living) 'present' ( creating its temporal continuity ) into the 'future'. ( It follows logically) that as this 'future' is the result of the past, it can only be understood through ( our full awareness in ) the present. The 'psychanalysts 'look to the ( hidden memories of the ) past to find the present difficulties, the conditioning, the complexes, and so on. But to understand the (active memories of the?) past the 'door' (key?) is the present, which is also the door (keys?) to the understanding of the future. That is, to understand the significance of the past the ( time-free dimension of the eternal ?) 'present' must be (properly) understood and not sacrificed for (an imaginary?) future. The (communalistic?) idea of sacrificing the present for the future has thus led man to disaster, to chaos and misery. But also the religious people use the present as a passage to the future. "ln my next incarnation I will (hopefully) do something with my life, (as there's ) nothing to do right now. Give me a (redeeming?) chance." That is also a 'sacrificing' of the ( living ) present. Surely the timeless is ( the eternal) 'now' and to understand the timeless you cannot approach it through ( the mentality of) time. Yet, if you do not change now you will never change. Wisdom is being (a light for oneself?) in the present, which is 'now', and this ( living?) present can be understood when the mind understands the ( constant interferences of the?) past and thus becomes inwardly aware of the whole content of our being now, of what you are now and therefore to understand the ( living dimension of the?) Now, you must look (out ) to the (interferences of) past, because your ( self-centred) thought is based on the past : you cannot think ( about anything) without the (objective memory of the ) past. But to understand the ( active interefences of the?) 'past', examine what you are now, be aware of what you are now and becoming aware of what you are now, you will see we are using (our living in ) 'present' as a passage to get somewhere.

So ( to recap:) if you use ( thinking in terms of) time as a means to reach the 'timeless' ( dimension of Reality ?) you will never find that timeless-ness because (inwardly-wise?) using the wrong 'means' you will produce the wrong 'end'. War is a wrong means to achieve peace, since the 'end' is not dissociated from the 'means'. So if you would understand the timeless, (the thinking which ) is ( currently) bound in time must free itself and... that is extremely 'arduous' since it demands a constant awareness of every ( self-centred) thought and feeling and a 'becoming aware' of how one is caught up in it.

3-rd K Public Talk in Madras 1947 (reader friendly edited)

K: I would request you to 'listen' to these talks, not so much with the idea of learning (something new) , but also by letting what I am saying to 'take root'. If it is true it will take root 'unconsciously', and if it is not it will just fall off and so you do not have to bother (about it anymore) . Because, what is (seen as) true is absorbed instantaneously by the 'unconscious' (layers of our total consciousness?) and what is not ( perceived as being) true, gradually falls off.
The other day we were discussing why each one of us, and therefore the world, is so consumed with the sense of property and class division. Why is it that each one of us gives such significance to acquisitiveness and to social, national and racial divisions? Why is it that they fill our minds? It would be worthwhile to discuss this with each one of you and really go into it but that is impossible because there are too many persons here. So I can only 'point out' the problem and I hope you will think about it afterwards (for homework) .

Now, why have these rudimentary demands taken such a deep hold of our minds? Is it not because we have no greater ( spiritual) values? If you are interested in something greater, the lesser would not have such predominating value. Secondary ( sensory?) values when given consuming importance bring disaster and misery as they are doing now in the world. So why is there no greater value (in our everyday life) though all the sacred books, say that there is a greater value? And if we did seek it, where has it led us to? Though you are (actively) seeking God and all the rest of it, the result is still the cultural division between the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Christian, the Muslim and so on.
So when the ( temporal) mind seeks security, certainty, there can be no greater value than the sensate. After all, our acquisitiveness and class divisions are 'psychological' factors. They are not materialistic values. They are psychological demands. So when 'psychologically' we are seeking security it only creates ( materialistic) values made by man's hand or by his mind and therefore there can be no ( place for ?) greater values and so the 'sensate' (hedonistic?) values become all important.

So, how is the 'greater' value to be found? (For starters?) if I am really interested in something greater (spiritually-wise?) , I will not give such significance to the lesser values. But how am I to find the greater? I can only find it by understanding ( the time-binding nature of my inner ) 'psychological' demand for security. I think this is the first problem which we have to face (inwardly)  : is there any 'psychological' ( self-projected?) security? We are all seeking (such ) security in ( academic titles & ) names, property, beliefs, definite ideas. This is the way in which the mind constantly seeks to be secure, to be certain, and we have assumed that there is such a thing as security and on it we are building our whole civilization, the whole structure of our thoughts, religious thoughts as well as those of every day existence. We have never asked ourselves, is there ( such a ) security? If there is not we will have to alter our whole existence.
So, is there psychological certainty? You are going to find it out only through self-knowledge. So, I come back to that point again with a different approach. I may tell you there is no such 'security' , but if you can discover ( the truth of) it for yourself, then it will become extraordinarily clear, which is not the result of our own projection. So, ( the direct approach to?) self-knowledge is important in the sense that while you explore your own mind you begin to discover whether such a thing as (an everlasting?) security exists.

( Hint:) Self-knowledge has an extraordinary creative significance, (only) if we treat it as a direct experiment – but not in order to achieve a result - if we experiment with ourselves and live experiment(i)ally then every relationship becomes a (potential) process of self-revelation; in my daily contact with you I am being revealed to myself, the way I think, the way I feel and act; if I am observant and aware of that relationship in daily life, the process of my thinking, my meditations, my demands become revealed to me. But I can only have self-knowledge if I am (inwardly?) aware. Then I can see that one of the major difficulties in the human relationships is our (ages old?) desire to be (totally?) secure ; and self-knowledge becomes extraordinarily significant when one begins to question the ( spiritual validity of a ) mind which is ever seeking, pursuing the ( illusory inner safety of living in the?) known.
I do not know if you have observed the process of your ( self-centred?) thinking, always moving from the known to the known, or ( optionally?) to an 'unknown' of its own creation which it then pursues until it becomes the worship of God. You have created ( a larger than life image of ?) God because it is ( providing) the ultimate security; and if you observe very carefully your own way of thinking & feeling, you will see that it is absorbed in ( the search for inward & outward) security. Yet truly, it is in 'uncertainty' that you can discover what freedom is, not in certainty, nor in possessiveness, nor in the divisions of beliefs or of names.
( To recap:) Property, belief have become all important because we have pursued certainty through sensory values that the human mind or hand can create, because in them there seems to be ( the solid proof of ) security. But, if you went deeply into this whole problem of security, then the sensory values would be of very small importance.

Question: Will you please explain further what you mean by 'meditation'?

Krishnamurti: First of all, what do we generally do when we sit down to meditate? Your ( superficial) mind wanders all over the place. So, because you have been told that you must concentrate on ( some serious stuff ? ) you try to concentrate on a picture or a (mantram) phrase or an idea taken out of a book. The mind being vagrant, wandering, disorderly, but still seeking some inner orderliness, pursues one exclusive idea, generally a verbal idea; and when someone can dwell completely in an idea and be identified with it, we call him a 'great man' . Yet... that ( great meaningful ) idea is a mere projection. Or the ( sacred?) word is ( constantly) repeated and you are putting yourself in a (self-induced) trance, and going far into that trance, you will call that (a successful) 'meditation', which is in fact only a ( subliminal) identification with a (self-) projected idea.

Now, since ( the Unmanifested ?) Reality is ( intrinsically) unknowable, you actually cannot 'think' about something unknowable, you can only think about the ( things that are?) knowable. And since what you 'know' is not the ( living ?) Truth, you only 'experience' a process of self-hypnosis. Is that Meditation? To go into a trance, to concentrate on a thing with which you are getting completely identified, which is a projection of yourself? Is that not what we are doing?

When your meditation is merely moving from the 'known' to the 'known', it is obviously not (allowing) the discovery of the Unknown. Then... what is the true 'meditative' process? How to discover (within one's own mind) the 'Unknown' is (crux of the ) the problem. After all the purpose of meditation is to discover ( the inward source of ) Reality, Beauty & Love.
Therefore, the ( ultimate experiential ? ) problem is : Is it possible to discover the Unknowable ? ( Hint:) If you try to experience it ( or 'enjoy it' ?) then it is not the Real ( .

How then would you find out (within yourself?) that which is not conceivable, that which cannot be formulated, that which is Immeasurable, the Real ? ( The meditating mind ) can only know the Eternal, the Timeless when (itself) it is not caught in time. (In other words) the ( meditating) mind can know the ( living dimension of?) Truth only when it is free from ( its psychological ties in the field of the?) known.

So the first problem is our (everyday ) mind which moves from the known to the known. This mind cannot see the Real unless it frees itself from the known. What is the 'known'? Our memory is constantly gathering ideas, possessions or distinctions. Can mind free itself from its own ( self-protective) creations? Can mind, which is the result of time, free itself from time? When it is free from (its thought-created continuity in ) time, the Timeless is. So, how can the (temporal) mind free itself from time, from the past, the present and the future? It can free itself only from time by becoming ( non-personally?) aware of all that it is doing now, of all its thinking & feeling. Now and not tomorrow ! For, the 'present' is the door to the understanding of time and in becoming aware of what you are thinking ( & feeling) now you will discover 'why' you are thinking and 'what' you are thinking. That is, in the constant awareness of what you are thinking, feeling & doing, you will find the beginning of self-knowledge, not only the knowledge of your conscious mind , but also of all the hidden activities. Therefore self-knowledge is the beginning of meditation and there can be no meditation without self-knowledge. To meditate there must be self-knowledge.

The question 'How to meditate' is a wrong question because it merely asks for a method, a technique which is (already recorded in the field of ) the 'known', in order to find the Unknowable. See how ridiculous it is ? If the means is the 'known' then the end also is the 'known' and therefore it is not the Unknowable, the Timeless.

So (to recap:) the right beginning of meditation is also the beginning of self - knowledge. That is the ( meditating) mind begins to be aware of its own activities ; and to know ( by total immersion?) the whole process of the ( self-centred) mind is not a question of time ; you just begin by being aware (non-personally & ) choicelessly, that is, without condemnation, without justification, without identification, and then (the meditative approach to ) self-knowledge becomes extremely creative. After all that is Creation, the Real

Question: I am beginning to realize that I am a very lonely person . What am I to do (in order to fix this 'psychological' problem) ?

Krishnamurti: Do you know what this 'loneliness' really means and are you aware of it? I doubt it very much because ( generally speaking?) we have smothered our ( deeper feelings?) in various 'activities', which really prevent us from being aware of loneliness. So, what do we mean by 'loneliness'? It is a sense of feeling inwardly empty, of having no anchorage anywhere, the sense of real inexhaustible pain, an (existential) pain that cannot be covered up, though we are constantly trying it.
So, when you start feeling lonely you try to 'escape' it by picking up a (thriller?) book, or going to a cinema, or you worship and pray, or... you write a poem about loneliness. (In short?) you seek an escape (a relief?) , and (therefore) that escape becomes more important - your (social) activities, your knowledge, your gods, your radios (& tweets?) all become important. As I said, when you give (primary) importance to secondary values, they lead you to ( an exponential increase of?) misery and chaos; and our ( materialistic?) civilization is founded on that and – this is an easily observable fact.
Have you ever tried to 'be' alone? How extraordinarily intelligent we must be to be (inwardly) alone, because the mind becomes restless, it busies itself by trying to fill that ( deep existential loneliness ?) which we do not know, with the things we know (namely, with ) knowledge, relationship or ( man-made ?) 'things' .

Now when you realize ( the truth regarding ) what you are doing , do you still think you can fill this 'inner void of loneliness' ? Have you succeeded in filling it or have you merely covered it up (temporarily?) ? If you have merely covered it up, it is still there. Therefore, it will come back ( one of those days?) and if you are able to escape it altogether then you must have become ( inwardly) very, very dull. Can this ( profound sense of existential) emptiness, this inner void be ever filled (with 'things' ?) ? If not, can we keep running away from it, escape from it? (Hint:) meditation can also be such an escape.
How will you find what to do about this ( inner sense of) loneliness? You can only find what to do when you have (wisely?) stopped escaping. When you are willing to ( intelligently ?) face 'what is', then that (existential ) loneliness is ( getting) completely transformed. If you understand (holistically ?) 'what is', then 'what Is' is the Real. But to see (the holistic aspect of?) 'what is', not only requires a great deal of awareness of one's ( inner) action, but it also means 'turning your back' to everything that you have built up ( for various physical & psychological reasons?) - ( the gut-attachment to ) your bank account, your name ( & form?) and to everything that we call (modern?) civilization. When you see ( the truth regarding?) 'what is' you will find how loneliness is transformed (ASAP?) .

Question: Are you not becoming our ( new spiritual) 'leader'?

Krishnamurti: First of all, why do you want a (spiritual) leader ? Because we are ( inwardly & outwardly ) confused and we want somebody to protect us. Politically ( this 'protection') may son be the tyranny of a dictator. That is what is happening and what is going to happen.
When there is confusion in the outer world (and also) misery, chaos, exploitation by the rich & by those who have got a ('fool proof') system and create a political party and because we do not want anarchy we let them lead us. We do not want to be confused, we want somebody to tell us what to do. And so, we create leaders. Now (psychologically-wise?) what happens? You not only create a leader but you become the 'follower'. And are you not destroying (the integrity of ) your own thinking when you follow a tradition blindly, or follow a leader or a party ? There is certainly a (generalised ) confusion but nobody is going to bring order except yourself.
So, exploitation exists not only between the worker and the (profit oriented ) owner, but also between the 'follower' and the 'leader' and here the exploitation is mutual. As the leader depends upon your vote and you depend upon the ( charismatic?) leader where are we going to be led to? ( Psychologically speaking) your desire to create (and follow) a 'leader' is a (sublimated ) form of self-fulfilment. You fulfil yourself in a leader and he fulfills himself in you, by seeking to guide you.

Now (speaking personally?) I do not believe in self-fulfilment, it leads to misery. And as I do not depend on you financially or for my psychological demands, I am not your (spiritual) leader. It does not matter to me whether there is one, many, or no none, to listen to me. I do not believe in mutual exploitation and therefore you are not going to make me your ( spiritual) leader. Because the true Reality is not found through following anybody - it comes into being only when the 'self' (consciousness ) is absent, when there is freedom from psychological demands, when the mind is free to act in pursuing anything ( true?) . This pursuit is indicative of creation and when all ( worldly?) desires cease then there is Reality.

Question: What is the difference between belief and confidence? Why do you condemn belief?

Krishnamurti: First of all let us see what is 'belief' and what is 'confidence'. Why do we have to 'believe'? Is it not because we have a desire to be certain, to be secure? So, belief is a demand to be (inwardly) secure made by the ( self-centred) mind and therefore the mind takes the beliefs of others and then what happens? Belief divides (people) . When you seek security in your particular belief you become separated from those who are seeking security in other forms of belief. Therefore, all organized beliefs are based on separatism, though they may preach brotherhood. That is exactly what is happening in the world because belief is a hidden psychological demand for self-fulfilment.
So (in a nutshell?) belief is formed because of a desire for self-fulfilment, for security; and because we demand security and strive for it, we have an end and the end is a projection of ourselves. If the 'end' were unknown we would not ( need to) 'believe' (in it) .

And what do we mean by 'confidence'? Most of us feel a certain confidence in something. If you have practised something, read books, etc., it gives you a certain self-confidence, done it over and over again with confidence. It is a (sublimated?) form of competitive aggressiveness - "I can do something and you cannot." Self-confidence in an (academic title, bank account or?) in another (lucrative?) capacity - such (self-) confidence is ( a sublimated form of) aggression. Is it not? Such confidence is also self-exploitation which again is akin to belief. Therefore belief and confidence are similar. They are the two sides of the same coin.
Now, there is another kind of (inner) 'confidence' which comes through self-knowledge. When there is a (non-personal inner ) awareness, when the mind is aware of what it is thinking, feeling, doing, not only in the superficial layer of consciousness but in the deeper hidden layers, when we are fully aware of all the implications, then there comes a sense of (inner) freedom, a sense of ( self-) assurance, because you 'know'. When you know something is 'poisonous' ( or 'fake'?) there is a (sense of) assurance, a sense of aliveness when the 'self' (consciousness?) has been explored and all its tricks and corners are known to the mind, then the mind is assured of its Creator. Therefore it ceases to create and in that cessation there is creation.

Sirs, please do not get ( subliminally influenced or ?) hypnotized, but (for a change ?) try to be in that receptive mood when the seed (of truth) is set in place and takes root. I hope sincerely that the 'seed' ( of truth) is being planted because what is going to free you, to deliver each one of us from 'sin & suffering' is the awareness of 'what is' (going on inwardly?) and to perceive it without (thought's ) obstruction brings freedom. This is (the ultimate ?) freedom and through that freedom alone can Truth be known.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 12 Jul 2018.

K Group Discussions - abstracts

10th November, 1947

The ( thought-addicted?) mind can be understood only when it is 'slowed down' so that each thought, as it arises, can be followed out with a sense of inner freedom; the ( totality of our) mind has to dedicate itself to that understanding.
In order to slow down the (thought addicted ) mind to understand it (in real time?) , the ( holistically correct?) approach is to become aware of its restlessness and in the very process of following carefully each response up to its completion, the mind has already slowed down.
The ( holistic quality of the ) approach is therefore much more important than the problem. Through a part, the whole cannot be understood; and ( thinking patterns of the?) organised society and of organised religion are only parts. Understanding leads to right action. Being afraid to act (now) , most of us say that anyway, eventually, we shall find Truth. But, we will never see, if we do not see it now. If we do not (have free access to the intelligence of 'selfless?) love' now, will we ( have access to this) love tomorrow?

13th November, 1947

We saw that the mind has to slow itself down if its restlessness and vagrancy are to be understood. The ( meditative?) quietening of the mind was regarded as a problem outside; but in following each of its responses completely, the mind had become naturally quiet and alert – and it has to be (inwardly) quiet in order to understand each response fully.
Thus, the problem is (in) 'you' and not outside you and therefore, its (non-dualistic ) approach is very important. To understand Truth, the mind has first to free itself from the framework of organised society or religion.
A holistic understanding leads to right action and to an urge to speak of that understanding. A truth, probably heard by you (here) , ceases to be a ( living) truth when you merely repeat it; it will be a truth to you only when you, for yourself, have discovered it to be true. Propaganda is mere repetition of another's truth; it ceases to be propaganda when you yourself have discovered the truth.
As fear is one of the chief impediments to right action it has to be understood. In trying to understand fear - whether physical or psychological - we shall be making a wrong approach if we discuss fear as a problem outside us.
Physical fear: - Physical body is alert and the instinct of self-preservation makes the body act even without any ( self-) conscious effort of the person who experiences fear - e.g., the nearness to a ( rattle) snake.
Psychological fears: - Fear of losing (i) things, (ii) relationship, i.e., people connected to us and (iii) one's ( self-identified continuity or ) ideas, beliefs etc.
At the very moment of ( a 'psychological' reaction of ) fear, the person who experiences that fear and the quality of fear are one. It is a joint phenomenon. Immediately afterwards, there is a separation and you say that you must do something about it. The first moment of fear was unexpected and you met it unprepared; and at that moment (for an inwardly sensitive person) there is only a state of most heightened sensitivity, which contains no nameable quality. As it is physically impossible (for the temporal brain ?) to continue in that state without collapsing or without getting mad, the instinct of self-protection leads to ( the steady state of) the 'thinker' separated from that quality; in the case of fear, the 'thinker' wants to get rid of it by developing courage or developing a more philosophical attitude ; yet, the fear continues to lurk inside all the time.
Therefore, the ( holistically) correct approach to the 'fear' problem is not how to get rid of it but to realise that there will be (a lingering shadow of) fear as long as we are protecting ourselves (psychologically by getting identified with our) property, relationship, ideas, beliefs, etc. If we let go any of these, we feel that we are nothing; therefore, we (better be the lucky owner of our ) property, title, ideas, etc. Thus, (subliminally) frightened of being (as) nothing, we hold on to property, etc, and thereby create a lot of (collateral) misery in the world. (On the other hand?) if we would tackle (non-personally the abyssmal ) desire for self-protection, then, there will be a (qualitative inner) transformation, and property etc. will have altogether a different significance.

15th November, 1947

Life is a (cvasi-?) continuous ( process of) challenge and response. Whenever there is an (unexpected) challenge there is a direct (spontaneous) response which almost immediately becomes a conditioned response which almost immediately (is recognised, processed and recorded in memory and therefore ) becomes a ( 'known') conditioned response - fear, love, jealousy or something else. But at the very moment of a (spontaneous ) direct response there is only the (surge of an ) intense alertness, without any qualification whatsoever; in that state, there is no dissociation between the (self-conscious) 'entity' who experiences it and the quality which is being experienced. As it is extremely difficult (& inwardly uncomfortable ?) to live for any length of time in that state of heightened sensitivity, the ( survival oriented ) mind which is seeking self-protection (at all levels) , gives it a (verbal) qualification according to whether pleasure or pain is apprehended; and instantaneously there is a separation of the 'experiencer' from that (wanted or unwanted) quality. (On longer term?) this leads to a 'conditioned' response.
For instance, when ( a potential source of ) pain is apprehended, the mind gives that state the qualification of fear and, instantaneously, the person who is in a state of fear has separated himself from the quality of fear. Then the person (generates ) a conditioned response by thinking "how to overcome that fear" or " how to run away from fear." If we examine closely, we shall see how our whole education, culture, and philosophy are based on running away from conditioned responses (such as greed, envy, or) fear. The mind finds itself continually engaged in (the boring routine of) going from one escape to another - only to find ultimately that every such attempt is futile.
When (a sensory ) pleasure is apprehended, the experiencer identifies himself with the quality of joy, etc, and (stimulated) by the memory of what he experienced, seeks to have a similar experience again. Another experience of a similar nature only strengthens the memory and therefore strengthens the desire for that same experience again. Then, with a view to having absolute security, the conditioned mind projects the idea of God and seeks God. A conditioned mind can only think of the known and not of the unknown. Therefore, the conditioned mind can never find Reality, God.

(To recap) We are trying to understand ( the psychological nature of?) fear. We have seen how futile is the attempt made by the ( self-centred) mind to overcome fear or to run away from fear. We have also seen how fear is primarily based on the mind's desire for self-protection. This problem of fear has not been ( experientially) solved because we pursued (our particular ) fears which are of a secondary value, instead of pursuing 'the desire for self-protection' which is the primary (cause) value. We gave importance to the symptom and not to the cause, to the secondary values and not to the primary. When we are (becoming holistically?) aware of both fear and of the ( previously ignored) process of 'the desire for self-protection' the mind is free of fear.
( For further 'meditation homework':) In understanding ( & ending the psychological causation of) fear, one opens the door to the extraordinary (inwardly regenerative?) meaning of Death which is the Unknown, as God is the Unknown. ( Hint:) If we do not understand 'death', we cannot 'love'.

K Public Talk 16th November, 1947

It would be very interesting if we could take the journey together into self-exploration and it would be beneficial if we could all 'play the game' and be creative, and not only watch one person think, feel, live. The difficulty with most of us is that we got (inwardly unperceptive & ) accustomed to being told what to do, what to think and what the right action is.
So, if we can, let us not be mere 'spectators' but let us actually partake in what is being discussed; which means we must establish a 'fully communicable' ( duplex ?) relationship between you and me. The (experiential) difficulty is to go beyond that 'verbal' level to a deeper level (of our consciousness) so that we can understand the ( truth of ) things instantly.
We have been discussing the last few Sundays about the search for happiness and the overcoming of sorrow. We want ( a permanent state of) happiness and yet our constant companion is ( frustration & ) sorrow, (because) we seek our 'happiness' through (material) things, (and/or) relationship and (or) ideas, (not noticing that) when we seek happiness through something, those 'things' becomes important and not happiness.
Now, can ( the creative) happiness be found through anything? Things made by the hand or by the mind are obviously 'impermanent', so if we seek happiness through things we find that there is no ( abiding) happiness. If we examine a little bit more closely we will find that happiness does not come through ( possessing lots of?) things. If you observe it very closely you will also find that there is an extraordinary impermanency in relationship, though we try to anchor ourselves in relationship and make it a refuge and a security. Similarly with ideas. One system of ideas can be broken down by another system of ideas and so on.

( In a nutshell:) We do not seem to realize the impermanency of all things – (all material) things are impermanent; they wear out. In the case of relationships, there is a constant friction. The same is true for ideas and beliefs which have no stability. Yet we seek our happiness in them because we do not realize the impermanency of things, of ideas and relationships. And ( eventually ) sorrow becomes our constant companion – since orrow is inevitable as long as we seek happiness through something- and the overcoming of sorrow our (major existential) problem. Can I happy when I (have stopped) seeking happiness 'through anything'? Can happiness exist by itself? To find that out we have to explore the River of Self knowledge, which is in oneself. Our ( experiential) difficulty lies in that we have to follow not only our 'conscious', but also our 'unconscious', motives, demands and purposes.

Those of us who have listened earnestly, must have made the experiment of following their conscious 'thoughts and feelings' - and by becoming aware of our conscious thoughts and feelings and ideas, we may also begin to receive the 'unconscious' thoughts and intimations. So in order to begin following the Stream of Self-knowledge there must be a clarification of the conscious mind, that is to become aware of the conscious activities - which I assure you is quite difficult - the unconscious thoughts and hidden intentions and motives can be (exposed &) understood. So, as the conscious is the present, the ( whatever we are?) 'now', through the present the unconscious and hidden thoughts can (eventually surface & ?) be understood by becoming intensely aware of the present and by freeing ourselves from those complications, incompleted actions and thoughts that are constantly creeping into the conscious mind.

To make it still simpler, the conscious mind is surely occupied with the immediate problems, the job, the family, studies, politics, and so on. So, without our understanding those problems of the conscious mind and doing away with them, how can we proceed further? And to 'sweep them clear', is this not our constant problem of (modern) living? With these problems we are occupied, the state, nationalism, class division, property, relationship and ideas that constantly (are siphoning) into the conscious mind. And if we do not clear that up, surely we cannot go very far and follow up the stream of self-knowledge.
So what we want first is that extraordinary beginning of taking a 'first'step. So those of us who want to make the journey across to the 'other shore', to see and discover where self-knowledge leads them, must first become aware consciously of what they are thinking, feeling and their daily habits ; that ( first step?) will reveal how the mind is working and from there you can proceed further ( inwardly) and as you proceed you discover; the discovery of the Real is ( bringing its own?) happiness. It is not ( a happiness coming ) through something, but a ( sense of creative) happiness which 'is' in itself - as love is in itself – eternal.

Question: I have been told that you do not read any philosophical or religious literature. I can hardly believe this as when I listen to you I realize that you must have read or at least have some secret source of knowledge. Please (try to?) be frank.

Krishnamurti: I have not read any 'sacred' literature, and there is no 'secret' source of knowledge either, because (after all ?) you and I are the reservoir of everything and of all the knowledge. Because we are the result of the past, and in understanding ourselves we uncover the whole knowledge and therefore all wisdom. Self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom and we can find ( or have free access to?) that (universal) 'wisdom' without reading a book, without going to any leader or following any 'yogi'. ( Except that...) it requires enormous persistency and alertness of mind – but I assure you that through self-knowledge, through your 'self', you can discover the eternal. It is really a most arduous task, for self-knowledge has no beginning and no ending. You begin ( by seeing?) where you are, and you can only be awake when there is (an experiential) spontaneity. (Hint : there are moments when even the disciplined minds, are getting spontaneous and in these spontaneous moments (of inner clarity) we can discover, we can go beyond the illusions of the self-centred mind). ?

So, as there is no 'secret source' of Wisdom in any (man-made) book you will (eventually) find out that the Real is very near, for it is ( subliminally encripted?) in your 'self' - ( However, reading?) this Book requires an extraordinary inward activity, a constant alertness. Self-knowledge does not come by studying (the Masters of Wisdom?) in a room by yourself. If the mind is alert yet passive you can follow (reading this Book) every second of the day and even when one sleeps the mind is functioning. If during the day you are alert, extraordinarily awake, you will see that the mind has received intimations, hints which can be pursued during the night.

So really a man who wants to (independently) discover Truth, the Real, the Eternal, must abandon all books, all systems, all gurus, because 'That' (inner light?) which is to be found will only be found when one understands oneself.

Question: At present in this country our government is attempting to modify the system of education. May we know your ideas on education and how it can be imparted?

Krishnamurti: Sirs, in considering education we will have to find out the purpose of living. What are we living for? What are we struggling for? If that is not clear to you education has no significance. Are you merely being educated in order to get a job? Then you make living a means to a job and you make of yourself a man to fit into a groove. Is that the ( spiritual?) purpose of human existence ? And if there is any 'higher' purpose to our lives and if we do not discover it, then ( our everyday) life has very little significance; it is as if we committed suicide when we make ourselves into machines, either religious machines or political machines. So if we do not discover what the purpose of life is, education has very little significance.

Then, what is the (true) purpose of our living? ( In order to find it?) we must turn our back against ( man-made) divisions and distinctions, and (try to?) find what is the Real, what is God, what is Eternity and what is happiness; because a man who is already (inwardly free & ) happy loves everybody. For him there is no class distinction. If ( this creative?) happiness is the end, then what we are doing now has no ( spiritual) significance. To find Reality there must be (inner) freedom from conditioned thinking, so as to discover if there is something beyond the sensate values. Can parents, environment give freedom? If so, environment becomes extraordinarily important because parents must be (re-?) educated as well as the educators. If the (parent or the ) educator is culturally conditioned, narrow minded & limited, the ( holistic development of the?) child will suffer.
That means the parents and the teachers should be (re-) educated first. But...do they want to be (re-)educated ? Not in the least, for the very simple reason that they want (to keep their job) permanency.

You are asking what I would do ( for a new education?)
(For starters:) to (re-) educate the 'educator' -which is far more difficult than educating the child, because the (modern) educator is (inwardly unperceptive & ) dull for the very simple reason that he has not located the source of confusion which is ( to be found in) himself. How can such an (inwardly blind ?) man awaken intelligence in another? That is one of the problems (to be fixed... ASAP?) . And, what (about ) the child? He is already conditioned, is he not? He is the result of the past and the present. The idea that if given the full freedom (to express himself) , the child would develop naturally seems to be fallacious since in order to give freedom to a child you must first understand yourself, the 'giver of freedom', the educator. If I have to educate a child but do not understand myself, how can I awaken intelligence in him? So that is (the second) part of the problem.

Then there is the question of nourishment, care and love. Most of us have no real ( intelligent?) love for our children though we talk about it. Sirs, education is something tremendous and without (an intelligent & self-less affection) I do not possibly see how there can be education. The moment you love somebody you understand the person, your heart is in it. If we ( have the intelligence of?) Love there must be instantaneous communication, on the same level and at the same time and because we ourselves are inwardly dry & empty.

I am afraid you will say that I have said nothing 'positive' ( more specific that can be done ) about education. Is not the 'negative thinking' (by negation of what is false?) the highest form of thinking ?
Sirs, surely to transform the ( Consciousness of the?) world there must be (a spiritual) regeneration within ourselves. We have (standardised) blueprints to educate our children, but these blueprints have no (compassionate intelligence nor?) 'love'. Therefore you produce ( self-centred thinking ?) machines.
(For extra homework ?) Is there a (holistic?) efficiency inspired by ( selfless intelligence & ) love which is greater than the efficiency of machinery ?

Question: The traditional method of reaching Adepts or Masters by training given by them or through their disciples is still said to be open to humanity. Are your teachings intended for those who are on that path?

Krishnamurti: Sirs, let us really go into ( the truth or falseness of) the various paths leading to the Ultimate Reality. A ( pre-established) 'path' can only lead to that which is known, but that which is 'known' is not the (living spirit of ?) truth. The known, the (crystallised knowledge & experience of the ) past is caught in the net of time and therefore it is not the Truth, it is not the Real. You take (the shortest ) path to your village, or to your house, because you know where the house is in the village and there are many paths to your house, to your village. But ( the Ultimate?) Reality is the immeasurable, the unknown.
So, is there any path to Truth? We have thought so far that there are many (spiritual) paths lead to truth. But does the ( wordly?) path of the ignorant, or the path of the man with ill will lead to truth? A man who is addicted to the acquiring of knowledge cannot find truth because he is concerned with ( gathering & using that ) knowledge and not with (the living ) truth. Will the 'man of action' find ( the Ultimate?) Reality? Obviously not, for the simple reason that by following a particular (way of action) we cannot find the whole(ness of life) . That means knowledge and action (taken) separately cannot lead anywhere but to destruction, to illusion, to restlessness.

So a man who really seeks ( the Ultimate Inner?) Reality must have devotion, knowledge and action. (Hint:) They are not three separate paths.
It is only those who are (spiritually?) mature will ( eventually?) find the Truth. He who is (inwardly) mature never 'pursues' ( a prescribed 'path' ) because the particular path belongs to (thought &) time. If you love (selflessly?) , in that love there can be no contention and no conflict. Love is when there is no possessiveness, when there is no (desire for) self-fulfilment.
To the man who is seeking (God or Truth ?) , the search itself is ( an intelligent act of ) Love, that itself is devotion, that itself is knowledge. Through a little crack of the window we do not see the sky, the marvellous clear sky and the man who can see the sky clearly is the man who is in the open, away from all paths, from all traditions and in him there is hope and he will be the 'saviour' of ( the consciousness of) mankind.

Question: What profession would you advise me to take?

Krishnamurti: If you want a right answer we must go into it fully. What is happening in this world? Is there any choice of profession? You take whatever you can get. You are lucky if you can get work. This is so in all parts of the (Free?) World. Because we have lost all true values we have but one aim: to get money somehow in order to live. Since that ( survivalistic) value is predominating in the world there is no (real?) choice. By becoming a soldier can you solve the world's problem? And you know what it is to be a lawyer - a cunning man without much substance behind him. Can you join a man who makes money in the midst of this economic chaos? Can you know what starvation means?
So , the right thinking brings about right profession and right action. You cannot know how to think rightly without self-knowledge. Are you willing to spend the ( necessary quality?) time to know yourself, so that you can think rightly and find the right profession? Those of you who are not compelled to choose immediately a profession, surely you can do something (along this line?) . Therefore, those of you who have some leisure have the responsibility, those who have time to know and to observe. When our (global) house is already on fire you still want to hold on to a few ( personal) things.
( Parting words:) Through right thinking alone can there be right action. Right thinking is not achieved through (churning) past memories or through (projecting?) future hopes.

Group Discussion 18th November, 1947

Before we continue the discussion about fear, death and love, we should discuss quite an important subject - the 'art of listening'. Our (self-conscious ) mind is so filled with thoughts & problems, that it is almost impossible to really listen to somebody. When you 'love' ( or have selfless affection for) somebody, there is a sense of full communication. I think it is important during these ( group) discussions to listen with ease but yet with a a right 'psychological' tension, as the string of a violin must be tuned just right. Similarly, it is possible for us to listen in such a way that communication is possible instantaneously, at the same time and the same level.
We found that the desire to protect oneself ( physically & psychologically in time) projects (its own collateral) fear, and that merely dealing with the symptom and not with the the cause is utterly futile.

We came to the point of studying what Death means (inwardly) . We said that as ( the inward essence of ) Reality is unknown, so Death is also unknown. We have spent centuries in studying (the outward) Reality, but we have hardly spent five minutes in studying the (inner) significance of Death.
Let us try o become aware of the significance of death on all the different planes of our consciousness. We have seen the effects of death on a physical body, to a bird, to a falling leaf, the (irreversible?) wearing out of the physical organism. But that is only a part of awareness of death. Seeing that all that is known to it (sooner or later?) comes to an end, the mind apprehends its own 'coming to an end ' and seeks permanency by anchoring itself to something which it considers to be secure. As long as the mind is ( functioning exclusively in the field of ) the known, it translates the unknown or any new experience that comes, in the light of the known. However, in the Unknown, there is no such ( long lasting) security because we do not know it at all. The moment the mind is uncertain (about its 'unknown' ) future , it becomes anxious, and therefore it must have the (inner certitude of the?) known all the time.
But if our mind is moving from the known to the known, it cannot possibly become aware of the inner significance of Death ; so we put it away and think about God. We deny Death and hold on to God although we do not know what God is either.
( In a nutshell:) Our mind is ever seeking continuance through various means. To us, 'God' is the (ultimate guarantee of ) continuance and Death the ultimate denial of continuance. Because (our self-centred thinking) is the result of the past, it can only think in terms of time, today, yesterday and tomorrow, in terms of the known; and ( whatever is ) this 'known' it wants it to continue. When it proceeds to (thinking of) God, it is only projecting itself into the unknown and seeking (a higher form of) security there, therefore, its projection of 'God', is the ultimate guarantee of its continuance. As long as the (thinking) mind is moving from the known to the known, it is (inwardly?) 'dead' , and a 'dead' thing cannot understand anything. When the mind realises that it is (inwardly  ?) 'dead', there will be ( an awakening to?) life. We can discover something amazing when we realise (the sad truth?) that (inwardly) we are 'dead' and are 'alive' only verbally (& intellectually?) .

Group Discussion 20th November, 1947

I think it is important that we should understand the whole (inward significance of psychological) of death because, in it there is ( an opportunity of spiritual) renewal. That which ends has always a new beginning. That which continues without an end has no renewal.
As ( the self-centred) thinking moves from the known to the known, there is no ending of ( the movement of) thought; therefore, there is no ( empty inner space for?) renewal; and it is only in (thought's ending or in its ?) 'death' there is renewal. ( The self-identified) thought abominates coming to an end, that is, to be uncertain of anything, and it wants continuance.
In the physical sense, we desire to continue through ( identifying ourselves with whatever ?) property (we've got?) , with our job or through our ( daily ) routines. Psychologically, we continue through ( constantly recycling & updating?) our 'personal' memory  and also by thinking in terms of the ( after-life) continuity of the 'soul'. So thought is primarily concerned with its own (temporal) continuity and not with Truth or God. Continuity is a 'time- thought' process and there cannot be a renewal in the time-process.
Psychological memory is the (karmic) residue left in the mind of our incomplete experiences; when an experience is 'complete' there is no residual memory left .
Some say that the mind is the instrument of the Spirit. But the moment we say 'there is Spirit', this is a (verbalised) process of thought. When we are thinking about something 'beyond', it is also the process of the thinking mind and therefore it is 'unreal' (not an actual fact?) .

To say that God is (always present in) 'me' is ( technically ?) incorrect, as God or Truth cannot exist in a contradictory state ( of consciousness?) because we are in ourselves both the evil and the good. If God is ( already present?) in us, we would not need to purify ourselves or renew ourselves.
Every (incomplete) experience is leaving a residue and we call it memory. When we meet an experience anew, it will not leave any residue; that occurs when we meet the experience direct without a ( self-protective mental) screen. When we are thinking about death, because we are not looking directly at (the inner) facts but through a screen or a conditioning or a belief, we are not finding the truth of it. When we are facing a (first degree encounter with the?) Unknown, we withdraw and translate it in terms of the known. We think we can thereby have ( an after-life) continuance. But we cannot understand ( at first hand?) either Death or (the Ultimate) Reality through ( translating them in the field of) memory. There is no (authentic inner ) renewal through continuance. Because we are caught up within the ( self-protecting) walls of memory we are ( metaphorically speaking ?) 'dead'. Only when the walls break there is going to be renewal.

In order to bring about an ( authentic inner) renewal we must 'die' (to the known?) ; meaning that we must start (everything) anew by putting away completely all ( the 'dead ?) memories' of the past.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 14 Jul 2018.

 K Group Discussion 22nd November, 1947 (experientially-friendly edited )

We have been discussing the ( 'psychological' aspect of ) death and fear and we said that any form of (self-projected mental) continuity is (resulting in a form of psychological stalemate or creativity?) 'death' because continuity implies a constant movement of thought within the fortress of the 'known'. Thought is always moving ( within this field) from (something already?) 'known' to ( something 'new' but still within the ? ) 'known', from a memory to another memory, from continuity to continuity, as it cannot think of the 'unknown'.
Because the (self-centred) mind is (constantly) moving (back & forth?) within the field of the known, it also gives ( reality & temporal ) continuity to itself through family (ties) , through property, through responsibility, through the ( well oiled) machinery of (its daily) routines, ( and optionally?) through ideation and through belief. Memory is merely the residue of ( our knowledge & ) experience. We 'experience' ( everything new?) through the ( safe) screen of the past and therefore there is no new experiencing at all but only a modification of ( our past ) experience, so there is never an experience, free from ( our survivalistic?) conditioning. When (our temporal ?) continuity through the family, through the name, through relationship, etc. is threatened, there is fear; and the ultimate threat to our (psychological) continuity is death. There is no inner renewal or rebirth in that state; a (spiritual) renewal can only be effected in ending.

Meditation is ( creating the right inner environment for the self-identified process of?) ?) thought to free itself from ( its time-binding) continuity and then there is ( a real opportunity for inner) Renewal, Creation and Reality.( However, the hidden difficulty is that?) our whole structure of thinking is based on (our brain's survivalistic?) desire for continuity. In understanding ( the truth regarding the spiritual validity of this?) continuity we can understand the significance of (inner) rebirth or renewal.
Our process of (self-centred) thinking is based on 'time' - yesterday, today and tomorrow. ( The emotionally charged memories of) yesterday coming in contact with ( the ongoing realities of) today creates our 'present' thinking - which has its root in the past and so, the thinking process is a process of time and therefore a process of ( constantly updating & processing our past) memory.
As long as we do not understand the ( subtle intricacies of our ) process of thinking, which is ( both) the result (and the creator?) of time, merely to deny ( or trying to arrest its?) continuity is completely useless. If we want to understand ( by full immersion?) the truth of ( our pychological) continuity, we must watch it, go with it, every ( available?) moment of the day.

( Hint : ) We are not concerned (in the context of a time-free meditation with the daily worries regarding our  ?) physical continuity. We are primarily concerned whether through (getting subliminally identified with materialistic?) things (& values?) there is ( a residual) psychological continuity - we are concerned with the (psychological) value we give to the material world . We have seen that one of the causes of the havoc and destruction in this (materialistic) world is our extraordinary adherence to (personal) property. We certainly need a certain amount of food, clothing and shelter. But, the moment we bring our 'psychological' values into it - like when we use our social position or property as a means (to optimise our?) own psychological continuity, there is ( a 'trump'-enhanced ?) chaos.

When we feel a (physical) pain we take immediate action to arrest it. But we do not seem to take such (urgent?) psychological action with regard to property, which means ( that inwardly?) we are not aware of (the psychological) consquences what we are doing – our ( subliminal) desire for (psychological) continuity has made us inwardly insensitive and inactive . Psychologically we have given ourselves over to ( the hedonistic pleasures & values associated to ?) property and so we are ( creatively?) 'dead', because things are dead. So, we have (empirically?) discovered the truth that the moment we have (projected our psychological) continuity through property, we are ( creatively speaking, 'as good as ?) dead'. The same is the case with regard to our closest relationships. When we seek continuity through the family, we give importance to (our personal ) continuity and not to the family, and thus ( further down the line?) we are creating the (group identification ?) which leads to disaster or to death (which ever comes first?) . It is only when we ( humbly?) recognise (that inwardly?) we are (virtually ?) 'dead' that there can be ( an inner awakening to?) life. If we recognise ( the sad truth?) that (inwardly ?) we are (blind or?) 'dead', there will be a revolution in our daily life. There will no longer be the psychological attachment to name, to family and to position. There will be an (qualitative inner) revolution with regard to our beliefs, which implies the cessation of beliefs.

We have seen and heard about several (outward) revolutions which have all brought about (their own part of human) misery. But this (on-coming inner) revolution is a revolution of values, a revolution of thought, which can only come about by the recognition of 'what is'. There is a revolution in ( my way thinking?) when I come to know ( that inwardly?) I am 'blind'. Then I will be very tentative, very watchful; I do not accept, but listen, I move very slowly, (therefore the whole quality of my inner ) being is revolutionised. ( On the other hand?) if I do not realise that I am (inwardly) blind, I cannot find what Truth is , because truth may be (found) in ( the non-dualistic perception of ?) 'that which is' and not away from it.

  Third K Public Talk, Madras 1947 (experientially friendly edited)

K: I think there is an ' art of right listening' : to listen as though we had no (verbal) background at all, as we would listen to a song or ( indian?) music. Likewise when there is a 'right' ( quality of ) communication when there is ( selfless?) affection, love - a comprehension at the same time, on the same level . It is very rare ( nowadays?) to find people who (have this quality of selfless & intelligent ) 'love' for each other so completely that there is a complete understanding.
if I may suggest, it would be worthwhile if we could listen with that quality of creative attention, as though we were meeting (someone or) something anew. (Even ) an (universal) truth that is (constantly) repeated ceases to be a ( living) truth - it becomes a ( mechanical) repetition and so it ceases to be the (living) truth. Whereas if you listen with that intense creative understanding, it will be your ('live' discovey of) truth and this ( inner light of truth ?) is what liberates you and gives you (the creative ?) happiness.

I do not know if you have listened to the songs of the birds in the morning. It is new, it is something very lovely because your mind too is fresh, untroubled by the day's activities and capable of hearing it 'as for the first time' even though their song is as old as the hills. Similarly, please listen to whatever I am saying as though you were hearing it anew, and you will see an extraordinary thing taking place in yourself, because ( the inner sense of creative?) happiness is not something that is old, but something that is constantly renewing itself.

As I said in last week's talk , when hapiness is sought through an object - material or psychological - that is merely ( a materialistic ) gratification which is always impermanent. Surely, becoming (personally ) happy and being (creatively) happy are two wholly different states. The first is continuous, but have you noticed that that which is continuous is always time- binding ? If ( happiness?) it is merely (a matter of self- ) gratification, it is ( soon) becoming merely a habit. To put it differently, there can be (a space of inner) freedom only in virtue because it is orderly, clear and free, while the (less-than-virtuous ?) man is disorderly and unclear and his mind is confused. Virtue is not an end in itself, but it creates that (basic state of inner) freedom without which ( the direct perception of?) Reality cannot exist; but when we translate this inner virtue as a means of (spiritual) becoming, then there is friction. Virtue is ( intimately linked to self-) understanding, is it not? That which you understand ( as being wasteful & false?) brings freedom. Now, is understanding to come through ( will-power or ?) effort, or is there an ( open ?) state (of mind) in which effort has ceased for understanding to be? If I want to understand (the truth regarding?) what you are saying, must I make an effort to listen? If there is ( a vital) interest (to find out the truth of the matter ?) and if there is ( an authentic) communion, then there is no ( need for any mental) effort. After all when you see a picture or a painting, do you ( have to ) make an effort? If you want to criticize, to compare, or to find out who painted it, then you have to make an effort. Or (for a change?) you can sit quietly in front of it and in that ( natural ) quietness in which there is no distraction, you understand the beauty of the picture. Similary (the inner ?) virtue comes without any effort and if you ( would really want to ?) understand the 'what is', you have to give it your whole attention, you have to be significantly aware of its extensional values.

Do you need to make a mental effort in order to understand ( the hidden workings of ?) 'what is'? To understand 'what is', you surely must look at (whatever is going on?) without condemnation or justification. If we would use for understanding 'what is' all the energy now wasted in trying to change 'what is' (into its opposite?) we would find an extraordinary (opportunity for inner) transformation which comes when there is an ( inner) stillness, (instead of) striving to become other than 'what is'.

Question: What is the difference between introspection and ( choiceless?) awareness?

Krishnamurti: Introspection begins with the desire to change myself (inwardly) into something different . I am feeling unhappy and I look into myself to find the cause of my unhappiness. In that process there is (a subliminal evaluation or ?) condemnation. I am angry but I must become peaceful. So, introspection is a constant struggle to change the 'what is', whereas ( the choiceless?) awareness is the ( non-dualistic) recognition of 'what is' and therefore the understanding of what is.

Let us take a simple example to make it clearer. When the man of introspection, is (becoming) aware that he is greedy, what is his reaction? He either identifies himself with it and therefore pursues it or he denies it and puts it aside. Therefore the reaction is always one of justification, condemnation or identification because he is always translating 'what is' (going on within his own psyche?) in terms of ( optimising his ) becoming. This is what we are doing in our daily life, and we are spending our life in this constant transformation of what is, that is, we are striving to be free from greed and still we are greedy, we are confused and weary. After all, the action of a man of introspection is residual, his action springs always from the residue of yesterday, whereas for the man of awareness there is no residual response. He is simply aware, which means, he is not translating, not condemning, not justifying and not identifying himself with anything aunderstanding nd therefore his response is non-residual, it is spontaneous.

So, there is a great 'qualitative) difference between a residual response and awareness, the one is a becoming and therefore a constant strife, and the other is being aware of what is and therefore understanding what is and going above and beyond what is, which the introspector can never do. If you really go into it very deeply you will see the extraordinary creative quality of being aware and the destructive quality of introspection. The man of introspection, the introvert, which is unfortunately, a psychoanalytical phrase, is a man who is concerned with changing what is and he can never be creative. He is only concerned with improving himself and he can never be free. He is only moving within the fortress of his own desires and therefore he can never find reality. He is never happy. Reality will shun him because he is immersed in the idea of becoming righteous. You know that a respectable man, a righteous man, is a curse, which does not mean that the sinner is not also a curse. But at least the sinner is aware and is inquiring and therefore there is a possibility that he will see more than the man who is respectable in his enclosure. Whereas a 'man of awareness' understands directly 'what is', and in that ( compassionate?) understanding of what is, there is an extraordinary transformation, an instantaneous transformation, which is Creation.

Question: Do you believe in (the psyche's ) immortality ?

Krishnamurti: What do we mean by 'immortality'? We will perhaps better understand it if we can understand the ( psychological value of) ending ( one's temporal attachment to?) things, then we shall be able to understand that (innermost spiritual essence ) which is imperishable, immortal.
Therefore to understand the 'immortal', the 'imperishable' (part of oneself ?) we have to understand the ( significance of?) 'ending', which we ( improperly ?) call 'death'. Death is the (mind's entrance to the?) Unknown, is it not? As Reality, the Imperishable, (are part of ) the 'Unknown', so Death is (also a part of ) the Unknown. You have for centuries given all your (higher) thoughts to finding Truth - which is also (part of ) the Unknown- but you have avoided thinking (seriously ) about (the spiritual significance of) Death. And you have shunned death because you fear the cessation of (your psychological ) continuity. Is this not very odd? And after investing in God you ask, is there immortality, because you want a further guarantee and the man who assures you of (your soul's) immortality, will gratify you and you will be pleased.

Surely our ( experiential?) problem is not whether there is ( a soul) immortality or whether there is not, but to understand our anxiety or fear of death. Why there is this 'division' (separation?) between Reality and Death; why you pursue ceaselessly, generation after generation what you call 'God' -not knowing what it is- and always avoiding the thought of Death ?

What happens to any (living) thing that 'continues' ( 'keeps going & going & going' ) ? It either decays , or it becomes a (self-energised living ?) mechanism . When you start thinking that your life will cease to continue ( some day) you become afraid. If you are ( non-personally) aware of that fear you will see that the fear ceases. Only then will you be able to understand that there is no division between Death and Life. Death is ( the inward Door to ?) the Unknown, but a mind that has its being in the 'known' can never find the Unknown. The 'known' is always ( functioning in its self-generated continuity?) and the (time-bound) mind is always moving within the 'House of the Known' and it is this ( reality of the?) 'known' which wants to be continued.

Surely that which is ( gathered , stored & recycled in the mental space of the?) known can never know the 'unknowable' ; it is only when the mind is freed from the 'net of time' that there is the Timeless. Then only there is a (different dimension of) life that is not 'thought of' in terms of time or continuity. To understand death there must be no fear (of the Unknown?) . But a man who desires ( his temporal) continuity is frightened and the escapes that civilization has created to allay his fear have made him so (inwardly insensitive & ) dull, that he cannot see the ( true) significance of death. Surely ( in the meditative context ?) the experience of (psychological) 'death' is as lovely as is the ( outward experiencing of ?) 'Reality' , because both are the Unknown, but a mind that is merely functioning within the (field of the?) 'known' can never understand the Unknown.

Question: Please explain further what you mean by the 'clarification of the conscious (mind) '?

Krishnamurti: I said that the superficial consciousness must clarify itself and be clear, in order for the hidden (content of consciousness?) to project its hidden motives, unconscious and subconscious demands, pursuits, ignorance and darkness, ( Hint:) this 'hidden' (content ?) being not the Real (spiritual essence?) . (Briefly put) the immediate mind must be calm. There is ( in the common wisdom) a phrase, 'sleep over a problem for the answer.' What happens is that your conscious mind, not understanding ( all the implications of?) the problem puts it aside and having 'detached' itself from it, has become clarified; and then the 'unconscious' (or the deeper) layers begin to project themselves into the conscious (mind) and when you wake up, the problem has been very simply solved.
But even the 'conscious' mind ( the upper layers of our) consciousness must be 'clarified' so that the mind can always be tranquil, so that it can receive ( in real time the?) intimations or hints from the hidden layers. But... have you not noticed that the superficial layers (the waking consciousness?) is never still? It is always battling and striving, being very cunning with everything ( outwardly) , so alert with (its wordly?) knowledge and education. So, how can such a mind be receptive?

Surely, Sir, a (living) room is useful only when it is empty (of useless stuff?) and ( similarly) a (self-) conscious mind that is not ( 'psychologically) empty' is not good for anything ( creative?) except for a civilisation which is so utterly degraded and degenerated, because it is the product of the upper (outward oriented) layer . The upper layer is (repetitive &) mechanical, ( but nevertheless?) swift and cunning when it comes to safeguarding itself. Is not our modern civilization mechanistical and industrial, even though the upper layer may talk about beauty and the modern dance and so on? And if the upper layer of consciousness is not still, how can it receive (the highly symbolic) intimations of things deeply hidden, of of things unknown?
So, what is important is to be aware of 'what is', aware that the superficial mind is restless, aware of all its destructiveness and all its clever substitutions. And you will see that by 'being', not (just?) 'becoming', aware of it, the superficial consciousness becomes free to act.
When you are interested in something you listen to it. You are observing now the picture which I am painting and therefore the superficial layer is very quiet. The next ( experiential?) difficulty lies in being aware of all the extraordinarily rapid ( subliminal ?) activities of the ( thinking ) mind. To 'slow it down' is very difficult, but you can do it if every ( passing train of?) thought(s) is followed through fully, without fear and without condemnation. (In a nutshell:) It is only in the clarity (transparency?) of the upper layers of consciousness that one can receive intimations of the hidden.

Question: You have realized Reality. Can you tell us what God is?

Krishnamurti: Sirs, is not what I am saying the truth? Even if I am the most perfect human being, if what I say is not the truth why would you even listen to me? I know the whole tradition says 'Be with a man who has realised God.' All that you can do is to keep company with him, which is extremely difficult nowadays. There are very few 'good' people, in the real sense of the word 'good,' who are not after something. (Hint:) Those who are seeking (to achieve) something or are (going) after something ($$$) are ( actual or potential?) exploiters and therefore it is very difficult for anyone to find (even) a companion to love. We idealize those who have Realized (God?) and hope that they will give us something ( of their realisation?) which is again a false relationship.
How can the man who has realized, communicate, if there is not (an open hearted listening) ? That is our difficulty. In all our discussions we do not really (have any affection or ?) 'love' for each other and we are 'suspicious'. You want ( to get) something from me, knowledge, realization, or you just want to keep company with me - all of which indicates that you do not (have the intelligence of?) love. If we would really (have) love for each other then there will be instantaneous communication. But since our 'heart' has withered, you want to know God because you have lost the song in your heart and you pursue the 'singer' and ask him whether he can teach you how to sing. He can teach you the technique but the technique will not lead you to creation. You may know all the steps of a dance but if you have not ( an inward link to?) Creation in your heart you are only functioning as a (dancing) machine. If there is love (in your mind & heart?) you will understand the Unknown, you will know what God is, and nobody need tell you and that is the beauty of love. It is eternity in itself ('is' its own eternity?) . And because we have no love we want someone else like (the mercy of?) 'God' to give us that. If we really loved we would not invest our ( hopes for?) happiness in ( material) things, in family, in ideals. We would be ( creatively?) happy and therefore the (material) things, family and ideals will not dominate our lives. They are all secondary things. Because we do not love and because we are not happy we invest (our hopes in) in things, thinking that they will give us happiness and one of the things in which we invest is 'God'.
Now, you want me to tell you what ( the Ultimate?) Reality is. Can the indescribable ( inward experience ?) be put in words? Can you catch the wind in your fist? And if you do it, is that the wind? If you measure that which is the immeasurable, is that the real? If you formulate it, is that the real? The moment you (try to) describe something which is indescribable, it ceases to be the ( direct experience of the?) Real. The moment you (try to?) translate the Unknowable into the ( field of the?) known it ceases to be the Unknowable.
Therefore, instead of asking what God is, why not give your whole attention and awareness to 'what is' (going on within yourself?) ? Then you will find that the Unknown will come to you, that (inner) silence which is extraordinarily creative, that ( inner state of?) creative emptiness in which alone Reality can enter. It cannot come to that (self-centred mind?) which is ( engaged in self-) becoming ; it can only come to that (integrated mind) which is being, which understands what is. Then you will see that (the Ultimate?) Reality is not far off, it is ( holistically enfolded?) in 'what is'. As the answer to a problem is ( to be found ) in the (creator of the?) problem, so ( the Ultimate?) Reality is ( to be found in the unfolding of?) What Is, and if we can understand It then we shall know Truth.
But ( experientially-wise?) it is extremely difficult to be ( non-personally?) aware of ( one's inner) dullness, to be aware of greed, to be aware of ill will, ambition and so on. This (compassionate?) awareness of 'what is' is ( an active factor of?) truth. It is ( the inner light of?) truth that liberates, not your (personal) striving to be free.

So (in a nutshell:) ( the Ultimate?) Reality is not far from us , but we place it far away because we use it as a means to self-continuity. It is ( present) here, now, in the immediate. The timeless 'is' (in the eternal) Now, but the 'Now' cannot be ( experienced or?) understood by a mind which is caught in the net of time. To free (one's ego-centric ) thinking from ( the limitations of?) time is only possible by 'right meditation' - a 'complete action' which (happens naturally?) when the thinking mind understands (the truth regarding the time-binding) continuity of its 'psychological' memory ( Hint:) as long as this (survivalistic ?) memory functions the mind cannot understand 'what is'. But ( on the positive side?) one's mind, one's 'whole being', becomes extraordinarily creative, passively alert, when we understand the significance of 'ending', because in ending there is renewal while in continuity there is death, there is decay.

Group Discussion 25th November, 1947

Before we proceed with our discussion about continuity and death, I think we ought to (re-) consider (a) the 'art of listening' - to listen (freely) without any apprehension, without any fear of loss or fear of pain. Such communication is possible only when there is love. And (b) we should consider that there is ( a sharing of inner) beauty only in a real communion, which can only come with love. When there is, on the part of one, the attitude of ( someone) learning, and ( someone else) teaching, this communion really ceases; and without communion, without partaking, without sharing, and without 'being together in good company' , any clear ( insightful?) thinking is almost impossible.
During these few weeks of discussion, I was not 'teaching', but we were travelling together in deep (meditative) communion, and therefore there was an ( insightful) understanding simultaneously, at the same time and at the same place. A man who is merely 'teaching' is not living any more than a man who is merely 'listening'. If we can alter fundamentally this (mental) attitude of 'learning' and 'teaching' (something which is already known ?) , we can enter into ( a sharing?) communion with each other. If you are (inwardly) enthusiastic and eager, you will be able to share the wisdom or the truth with another. After all ( deeply down?) we all ( potentially intelligent?) human beings, not divided into the teacher and the pupil and all the other absurdities. Afterall, we are here to find out ( for ourselves, experientially?) what is Reality, what is Love, and not for me to tell you, and for you to follow. So, if we can establish a proper (compassionate & non-personal) relationship, there would be a real affection and therefore a quick(ening) response.

In discussing ( the 'psychological') continuity, we have found out that we seek continuity through ( gettingsubliminally identified with our?) name, property,( etc.) and tha our genetic (pedigree?) continuance and our physiological continuance have become extraordinarily important, as long as psychological continuance is maintained. This ( strong ego-centric) 'psychological' continuance is doing great havoc in this world, as can be seen from history and from what is happening nowadays and which ultimately beings about agony and misery.
The (psychological ) continuity is ( a by-product of our 'personal' ?) memory. ( In a nutshell:) all our life is an (endless series of) challenges and responses. There is the response to an ( environmental) condition and that condition is altered according to circumstances, and any new challenge which comes along is met through a ( self-protective ?) 'screen' of ( pre-) conditioned responses. Therefore, the new experience is always broken down to (suit) a particular condition and therefore, there is never a (sense of) complete action.

So, we carry ( our memories of) yesterday to today and from today to tomorrow - always ( a residual) burden of psychological memory. The older we are, the heavier (this burden?) becomes. (Living trapped in ) this ( constantly refreshed) continuity is really ( a sure recipe for psychological) decay, and the older we are the more mentally sterile we are.
( Hint:) I do not know if you have noticed that any experience that is followed through completely, leaves no residue.
This accumulated ( psychological) memory is ( of a) static nature . It has no life unless we inject into it new (energy) - by recalling (or refreshing) this memory, we revive it. By this 'static' ( standing wave of psychological) memory which is ( creativity-wise ?) 'dead' we translate life which is a living thing.

Realistically speaking , we do not know what God is, what Death is, nor what Love is. These are the three amazing (Universal ?) principles in ( any spiritually integrated?) life, of which we do not know, though we like to talk about them - we say that we 'love' our family but if we eliminate the principle of pleasure there is nothing left, and so... there is no 'love'. Therefore, to understand what ( Universal ?) Love is, we must be free from (thinking in terms of personal ?) pleasure and pain. There are certain extraordinary moments in our life when we (have the sense of Selfless?) Love - very rare and extraordinarily beautiful moments.
Therefore, how can our minds which are caught in (Time's ) 'net' of pain and pleasure be freed? ( Hint:) If we are looking at it through a screen (of verbal recognition?) we are not directly faced with it. The moment we face and recognise the 'fact' without a ( self-protective) screen, there is (an insightful perception of?) Truth. However, if we are ( consciously or un-consciously) unwilling to face the fact, we became ( 'psychologial' ?) hypocrites. So to get out of the (Time's?) net, we have, first of all, to become aware of the fact that (inwardly?) we are 'hypocrites'. The ( spiritual) implications of this are tremendous, since Love and Hypocrisy (aka : Self-Delusion?) can never go together. The very recognition of the (truth of the ) fact that we are 'hypocrites' or ( potential?) 'exploiters' will bring about an instantaneous change in ( the course of ) our actions.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 18 Jul 2018.

Morning Discussion 27th November, 1947( 'reader friendly' edited)

K: We have met in this discussion group not for learning as in a classroom but to discuss with each other; and, in exchanging our ( intimate?) thoughts, we begin to discover our own process of thinking. This is a self-revealing process, for our everyday self(- centred consciousness ) which is working through you and me. Without ( this holistic) self-knowledge which is being aware of our own actions and our own feelings, there can be no right thinking at all.
Such 'self-knowledge' is not a matter of learning ( about the hidden parts of yourself?) from another; it can come about only through ( a holistic self-?) awareness. Such (an insightful ?) understanding comes only through communion, which is possible only when there is deep (sense of selfless affection aka : ?) 'love'.

It is no good discussing theoretically what Love is. We can only start by examining and becoming ( non-personally?) aware of "what is " - our present relationship is based on ( open or subliminal expectations of?) pleasure and ( personal) gratification. Now, this desire for gratification pulls us along and pushes us also along into a mass of ( collective assumptions & ) beliefs - we talk of having a duty, a responsibility, etc, which are all words having no significance, because they are merely based on gratification.
Some of you say that ( meditating on Universal?) Love gives you a sense of unity with one-another. The ( devious attempt of ?) self-immolation in identifying oneself with the 'beautiful', is intensely gratifying. We call that 'devotional love'. Has this 'love' any (spiritual?) perfume or is it merely gratification? Similarly, you would not seek 'God' if you do not want an ultimate ( spiritual) permanency. In yourself you are ( feeling) insecure, the ( psychological state of the?) world around you is catastrophic, and therefore, you want to identify yourself with what you call 'God'.
Therefore, you are not seeking 'God' but only self- gratification. Same case with the man who identifies himself with an 'ideal' like Beauty and pursues it. As any ideal is only a creation of the (thinking ) mind, that too is impermanent, and that exists only as long as you find gratification in it and accept it.

(In a nutshell:) due to our inward poverty, we constantly seek self-gratification through things, relationship, and ( superior?) ideation such as God, ideal, etc. There are however certain rare moments when the state of non-(dualistic) relationship exists, but in that sense of complete self-(forgetfulness?) , there is no asking (anything from anybody) . At those moments, you are left silent. It happens to one in a million, and he is a happy man. Once he knows what it is, it is like a scent that is perfuming his whole life.

( The 1000 $ question is then:) Why are we not awake to such moments ( of Love & Grace?) much more often? Why do we not realise that our pursuit of a ( spiritual?) 'ideal' is only a ( form of ) avoiding to face the actual, and therefore reduces us to a state of ( knowledge-plated ?) dullness and insensitivity? These various hindrances are only covering the lack of ( selfless & intelligent ) affection. By (becoming aware of ) these hindrances, they can be dissolved.
Isn't our 'psychological' memory, a hindrance to understanding? Let us think this out : what is this 'time-bound' (activity of) memory doing on a regular basis ? Either going back in time and looking into the past pleasures and pains, or going to the future with its hopes and ambitions. So, this mind has separated itself in the present from the (time-thought) current, as though it is a separate entity and it looks on itself as the 'thinker', the 'perceiver', which goes back to the past and says "I remember". It also conceives of the future, thus giving rise to three 'entities' - the 'thinker', its 'past', and its 'future' - as through they are different from one another.

The ( academical ?) problem now is "Can this (time-bound) mind separate itself from the past?" The 'thinker' cannot go back to (his memory of the ) past unless he is (also) the product of the past; therefore, he and the past are one and not separate. So, when I say "I remember", I am making a (dualistically ?) false statement. ( The streaming of our psychological?) memory is ever continuing from the past, in the present, and into the future. The (memory streaming of the ?) 'past' includes my forefathers and also the mankind with all their accumulations, traditions, superstitions, fears and conditions - social, economic, racial, religious, etc. Thus when we enquire what is our (psychological) memory, we should know who (or what?) the 'enquirer' is. The 'enquirer' is the ( self-conscious center of the thinking ) mind which has separated itself from its own past. This (internal) division (btw 'thinker' & his thoughts) is a 'false' (a dualistic mental?) action, because any product of the (temporal) mind must, like the mind itself, be also a product of the past. ( In short:) the 'observer' and the (inner stuff which is being?) 'observed' are ( having) the same (roots in our personal & collective memory of the past ?) ; therefore, the (self-identified ) 'observer' is making a false statement when it says "I am looking at the stream and can go back to the past (or go forward into the future) ". We now see the ( dualistic?) absurdity of the whole process - the 'observer' imagines himself to be separate from, and superior to, the ( psychological content which is being) 'observed'. Now, ( after countless failed?) attempts to (objectively) examine the 'observed' he realises ( the elementary fact ?) that he is not separate from the (psychological stuff which was being) 'observed' and the separation was 'false' (QED?)
( In a nutshell:) In seeing the false as ( being) false, Truth is perceived.

 Afternoon Discussion 27th November, 1947

K: It is necessary to understand the true nature of Meditation. As practised by most of us, meditation is a (though-controlling ) process by which a pre-conceived result is ( hopefully?) achieved (or... not?) . This process or system involves (following) a (mental) routine which makes the mind (very disciplined, but also?) mechanical and dull, very similar to 'going to the office' day in and day out, and regularly on time. To discover the truth of ( what is the authentic purpose of ?) Meditation, you have to understand the ( hidden ) problems involved :
(a) in following a particular discipline, there is always the implication of ( accepting ) authority – by studying the behaviour of persons known to you and who have been following ( a spiritual) authority. Or, if you try to read all the 'reference' books, you will find that the authors who are (supposed to be) 'experts' do often contradict one another. Therefore, after reading all that they have said, you would feel confused.

(b) by studying yourself (as you function) under (the umbrella of some spiritual) authority. If you analyse your own action you will find that you have followed some authority when you have found it profitable to do so. You also have rejected equally good authority when the following of such authority was found to be unprofitable. From this it is clear that our seeking of profit or craving creates the authority (of the 'one-who-knows-best' ?) .

From the analysis of the above standpoints, you arrive at the (realisation of the outwardly obvious ?) truth that our craving or desire for profit, creates authority. (Experiential hint:) You can see ( the inward implications of this universal) Truth only when you are able to see the false as (actually being ) 'false' . When this is seen you are released for ever from the 'false' .

( So, for starters?) Meditation is reall the thinking out of each thought ( or 'train of thought'?) fully and completely so that you see the Truth of that thought.

[ NB : at this meeting, one and a half hours passed away like a few minutes when all the persons present at the meeting followed and completed each thought without any effort but with awareness. This was a real Meditation when "time" ceased and the "Timeless" came into being. ]

 K Group Discussion 29th November, 1947

The desire to listen (for achieving a 'personal' profit?) and the action of ( holistic) listening are two quite different states. Most of us are concerned with the ( acquisitive) desire to 'learn' ; and in this ( the personal) effort is involved. But if you are ( vitally?) interested in what is said, you listen without any ( mental) effort, and ( if lucky?) there is ( shared-learning?) communion. So let us listen (to each other?) as though we are really enjoying it.

We were dealing with ( the intricate workings of our 'psychological'?) memory, an extraordinarily subtle ( slippery?) subject, since the majority of us have not even thought about this; therefore it requires an attentive mind to follow the swift movement of this ( ego-centric 'psychological') memory. I would suggest that you do not look on me as (your spiritual) authority, but listen with affectionate and thoughtful attention.
We saw that ( by functioning in the field of its psychological ?) memory (the self-centred mind) is ( deriving the sense of its own ) continuity. The ( resulting) self (- consciousness impersonating  ?) the 'I' or the 'me', is a bundle (a mechanical mixture ?) of qualities & tendencies accumulated through the residual experience of the ( collective?) mind which is ( sustained by thought & ) desire. This stream of ( personal & collective?) continuity which we call 'psychological' memory, is a 'time-thought' process - the ( memory of the?) past, ( actualised in the ) the present and ( projecting itself into?) the future.

The ( thought-addicted ) mind shuttles back and forward in this continuity, and it is not aware that it is still a part of the 'continuity' (thought-process) , when it separates itself from the stream of continuity, and says 'I remember', 'I recollect', 'I hope', which is future action. When the particular mind says 'I remember', it considers itself to be separate from ( its background ) "continuity" and looks back to the past or forward to the future.
We have to understand why this ( self-identified core of our ?) mind, which is the 'thinker', the 'observer', the 'experiencer' has separated itself from this constant stream of continuity. The 'mind' is not merely the superficial layer of ( our waking) consciousness but also the 'unconscious' (& subconscious?) with its many, many layers which is all ( recorded in our collective ) memory .
( Hint:) The understanding of ( our 'psychological' ) memory is directly related to the understanding of 'Love', "Death', 'Reality'.

Why does the ( particular ?) mind separate itself from the Stream of ( collective thought-) continuity and say 'I' remember ? This 'I' is non-existent if its ( memorable?) qualities are removed. The 'I' ( our 'self-consciousness' ?) is non-existent without ( its personal) memory, its tendencies, gifts and so on – without its ( background) continuity of the racial past ( which) in conjunction with the 'now' is flowing to the future. If we cannot understand that, we cannot bring about an inner regeneration or an ending.
We have also discussed that ( consciousness-wise?) what is 'continuous' - in the physiological as well as the psychological consciousness - is (limited & time) binding, and there is ( an opportunity for inner) renewal only in ( the 'ending' of this thought-created continuity – aka : 'psychological) death' . There can be (such 'psychological?) death' as an (inner) renewal only when ( in our meditation?) the whole (self-) consciousness is completely empty. For this to happen, every action that you meet should leave no (psychological) residues, and meet anew every (life) experience as it comes.

( The 'hidden' difficulty being that ?) our whole existence is ( organised along a guide-line of temporal ) continuity which generates our daily routine - an (orderly collection of?) habits and any habit is a form of ( psychological) continuity. Therefore, we have to discuss the validity of memory in all our daily activities. We know (the benefits of a ) factual memory, i.e. dealing with facts, talents, expression of talents and so on. ( But ) we do also translate them 'psychologically' in order to suit ourselves ( or to 'play safe'?) with any ( personal) challenges we meet.

Q: What is implied in 'thinking a thought through'?

K: Take for instance the (widely accepted ?) thought  that we have only 'factual' memory and nothing else. When I understand ( what is) 'false' in this statement I am free from it and therefore I can see the ( wider?) truth.
The 'factual' memory is the ( self-protective) screen of the 'me' in action (ignoring) the residual, the unconscious 'me', which is hidden; therefore, there is always an (open or subliminal) conflict between the hidden ('psychological' memory) and the factual memory . We are generally aware of the 'facts ' of the immediate (reality) , whether this 'immediate' is two to three days, or two to three years.

The 'conscious' mind, that is ( the mental activity?) of the superficial layers of our consciousness, is aware of the 'factual', because it is the ( compounded) product of facts learned at school, the (general knowledge of the ) 'immediate' (reality) learned through books, through self- assertion, through techniques and so on. That is, the superficial layers of consciousness are (saturated with?) factual memories. Through these ( 'reality' ) layers everything is being translated and accumulated. The unconscious, the hidden layers are the residues of all (the experiences of?) humanity, as ( consciousness- wise) you are not one isolate human entity but the result of the whole of humanity. ( For obscure safety reasons?) you are only conscious in the superficial layers, i.e., only, factually; and the responses of these conscious layers are strengthening the 'unconscious' (ones) by adding to it more (subjectively distorted ?) 'facts of life'
As long as I have this ( 'knowledgeable' ) screen of facts through which I translate every new experience (the 'I' continues, but...the psychological) residues are falling below. If I have no ( need for this 'reality' ) screen then it will be quite different. The problem is that as long as my brain is (saturated with 'fake news' or with ) facts, techniques of the everyday routine, it cannot find the Immeasurable. With this mentality of the awareness of the factual, i.e., through the screen of the conscious mind , we are trying to understand That which is not 'factual', that which we call Love, God, Death, the Unknown.

( Self-) consciousness comes into being when there is friction, when I meet a challenge, or when there is disharmony. ( The integration of the total ?) consciousness begins when there is ( a continuity?) interruption. When I am awake and look at the trees there is no friction, there is no response (of the past) . I am only watching the tree.
The constant pursuit of pleasure and avoidance of pain is (the active factor behind the self-centred) consciousness. I am ( becoming self-) conscious when I want or I do not want something. Are you ( self-) conscious when there is no 'want' and... do you know that state? The fact is that I become ( self-) conscious when there is friction, pleasurable or painful, and all the subtle variations of that friction. All that makes me ( self-) conscious and from that I say 'My existence is pleasurable – or... painful'.
As long as there is ( a physical or mental ?) effort there is ( a residual?) self-consciousness, and yet you say 'I must make an (intelligent?) effort to free myself from greed'. Therefore, we are merely strengthening the consciousness of the 'self'. We are building walls and walls and how can such a consciousness free itself from effort?

( For more meditation homework ?) What is ( the 'psychological'?) memory? Why has the mind separated itself from ( its under-) current of ( continuity in ) time? How do I set about trying to find the truth (about all this stuff?) myself? (For starters?) I must study the problem (non-personally?) . I must not take sides about the problem. I must free myself from all prejudices. I must not be biased, for or against the problem. That means I must free my thinking from (any personal) bias about the problem, and I must come to it anew.
( Our psychological) memory by itself is static (or lurking in 'stand-by' ?) ; it is ( 'as good as?) dead', but is given life when 'I' recollect it either as pain or pleasure. And...who is the entity that recalls it? That 'entity' is the result of memory. This has to be pursued and understood (for extra-homework)

 Afternoon Discussion 29th November, 1947

We have already discussed about the various factors involved in meditation, and how meditation as generally practised involved ( an irrational) belief in gurus, in tradition or in a technique.
You follow a ( meditative?) technique only with a view to achieving something. But if you analyse your thoughts, you will find that you do not really know what (exactly?) you are seeking because at one moment you want something and at another moment another thing. Your mind is a battlefield of various thoughts and desires. Predominantly you feel some ( existential) pain or some ( personal) suffering from which you would like to be free. When you seek freedom from (immaterial?) suffering you find that you are restricted by many bondages. Without knowing the nature of those bondages ( inner spider-webs?) and how they arose, your attempts to be free from those (invisible?) bondages, always proves futile.
It is therefore necessary (in the first place?) to become aware that you are bound and what you are bound by - i.e. you must be aware of 'what is' (going on within your own mind & heart ?) . To understand ( the truth regarding) 'what is' you must give your whole being to it. If you feel any effort in this, it is an indication that ( the intelligent energy of?) your attention is divided between that understanding and some other 'distraction'.( Hint:) In your (modern) daily life, almost everything is (such ) a 'distraction' - cinemas, 'radios' (& other chats?) , ( not to mention the?) 'enjoyment of the senses'... which is mainly due to your ( self-interest guided?) thinking in relation to the objects around you. Every thought (or... 'train of thoughts'?) which is really the result of the past is ( meditation-wise?) a 'distraction'. When the ( thought-addicted?) mind realises that thinking itself is a 'distraction' it also realises the futility of ( such) thinking. You have only your (thinking) mind at your disposal and you have been depending only on it for all your (inward) understanding; and now you realise that that too is undependable.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 20 Jul 2018.

4 th K Public Talk 30th November, 1947( experientially-friendly edited)

To understand the whole purpose of existence we must understand effort, because our life is sorrowful as we know it. We are always in strife, we are always in struggle, there is never a moment's deep happiness when we can say 'We are happy'. And, as we do not know happiness, except at rare intervals, we have completely forgotten it. We do have rare happy moments when our everyday strife, struggle and phenomena stop, but we do not know how to sustain it. It seems to me that until we know how, our life will have no ( spiritual ?) meaning.
(The inner sense of creative?) happiness does not come through effort, nor joy through control and suppression and still all our life is a series of suppressions, series of controls, a series of regretful indulgences. Also there is a constant struggle with our ( physical) passions, with our greed and our stupidity. I think it is very important to understand what we mean by struggle, strife or effort.

( For starters?) We must be ( inwardly sufficiently ? ) free to see that ( the creative ) Joy and Happiness do not come through effort. When do you create? Surely when there is no effort, when you are completely open, when on all levels you are in complete communication, completely integrated. The moment of creation is not born of struggle.
So, we must very clearly understand this whole problem of (our inner) struggle and strife. There are many, many ramifications, many different sides to it, but if we can understand the ( psychological) 'core' of the problem of effort, then we can translate that (insight?) into our daily life.
Does not effort imply a struggle to change 'what is' into 'what it is not', or into what we should become (in the future) ? We are constantly avoiding to face 'what is' (actually going on within our own psyche?) by trying to get away from it or to transform the 'what is'.
So, (in a nutshell:) (the 'psychological') effort is ( the expression of) an (inner) struggle (aimed ) to transform 'that which is' into something which we wish to be. You may build with great care a marvellous ( 'brave new world' ?) society, using the infinite knowledge science has given us. But as long as our 'psychological' strife and struggle is not understood - and its psychological currents are not overcome - the structure of such society is bound to crash, as has happened over and over again.
So, ( inwardly-wise ?) effort is a distraction from ( facing) 'what is'.

The moment I accept (to face & understand non-dualistically the ?) 'what is' there is no ( more inner) struggle. Any form of 'psychological' (stress or?) effort must exist only as long as I wish to transform 'what is' into something it is not. Take for example ( the very common reaction of ) anger. Can this ( surge of?) anger be overcome by effort, by various (psychanalitical) techniques, by ( fake?) meditations, or by other (alternative?) ways of transforming 'what is' into 'what is not'? Now, suppose that instead of making an effort to transform anger into (a virtuous?) 'non-anger', you just acknowledge that you got angry - what would happen then? You would ASAP be(come) ( responsibly?) aware that you are angry and iff you are completely aware of it, without condemning or justifying it, there would be an instantaneous change. But this is extremely difficult because our whole tendency is to transform or deny. We deny ( our inner) ugliness thinking that we shall achieve beauty.

Surely ( the timeless quality of ?) virtue is not the denial of vice; virtue is in the recognition (or full awareness of?) of vice. The moment I know that I am angry and I do not try to transform my anger (into a more tolerant attitude?)  ; but rather, I cease to be angry. Try it (for homework?) and you will see how extraordinary is the creative quality of understanding 'what is'. (But, on the other hand?) there cannot be ( inner) freedom if there is no virtue.
As I said last Sunday the ( inwardly 'blind' or ?) 'stupid' man is an unvirtuous man. He is (inwardly) disorderly and creates outward havoc in society. Now, to be virtuous requires the highest form of intelligence; to bring order within yourself requires an extraordinary capacity to see things as they are. When you recognize the false as (actually being ) 'false' there is freedom . That is, freedom can only be approached 'negatively' , and to see ( and discard ) the false is ( allowing one) to see the 'true'. If you understand your anger, that is, if you are aware of it (non-personally & ) fully, without condemnation, justification or identification, you will see an extraordinary thing taking place; your anger drops away spontaneously.
So, ( inwardly-wise?) effort is (the result of) non-awareness. The moment you accept, look and observe 'what is', there is no effort (necessary?) ; then the thing that you observe, 'that which is', has an extraordinary significance (is seen in a different light?) . If you pursue that ( self-revealing?) significance through, you 'complete that (angry?) thought' and therefore the mind is freed from it. So, awareness is non-effort, awareness is to perceive the thing as it is without distortion. When you love (everything?) completely, every thought comes with such joy, clarity and happiness. This can only happen (a) when there is ( an inner) integration (of the thinker with its thoughts?) and (b) when there is no effort. (Such inner ?) maturity or integration can only come when there is complete awareness of 'what is'.

Many questions have been sent to me, but you will not have the right answer if the questioner himself is not in earnest. To find the right answer to a question we must study the problem, not merely wait for an answer. Life is an (endless ) series of challenges and to respond 'rightly' requires immense study; immense self-knowledge gained by yourself in your every day action and thinking. My answers are only ( 'pointer -style' ?) indications towards self-revelation. If you wait for a conclusion or an assertion from me you are going to be disappointed. But if together we study the problem, we will see and understand its many implications. So, please bear in mind that in answering these questions I am not offering you any (ready to use?) 'conclusions', because that which is 'concluded' is not the ( inner light of ) truth. Life is (intelligent energy in?) movement, and if we seek a (static mental) conclusion we are making our life very small. If we recognize with our minds our smallness we can then proceed.

Question: What are your views about the ( transcendental ) implications of the belief in reincarnation?

Krishnamurti: This is a vast subject and I can only give a few 'hints', point out certain significances, I cannot go into the whole problem, because it is immense.

First of all, let us put aside the superficial responses of the person who wants ( a jolly ?) good time ( on Planet Earth) and does not bother about ( the actual possibilty of a ) life after death. This ( worldly ) person acts as he pleases and feels no responsibility for his actions. But the moment we are not concerned with this (moral or ethical) aspect of the question since the man who seeks truth must travel the uncharted seas; he has no harbours, he has no havens, he must go out to explore.

Two things are implied in this question: (a)( the possibility of an after-death) continuation, and (b) (the karmic aspect of the inward ) cause and effect.

With regard to (a) we must consider the ( widely spread) idea that there is in each one of us a 'spiritual essence' which continues. It is said in ( sacred ) books and you also feel that there is a spiritual structure which continues after death.
So, is there a such a spiritual essence in man? Please consider its (meta-physical?) implications. All that is (truly) 'spiritual' is in essence timeless, it is eternal. Therefore this timeless (essence) is beyond (one's physical) birth and death, it is beyond ( the limitations of) time and space. So, you need not worry about things that are beyond time. And if this ( spiritual essence?) has no time, it means there is no ( temporal) continuity (either) ; then why do you hold on to ( the idea of?) it? If it is timeless, it would not be continuous. But to you it is of time, because you cling to it.

Therefore, ( what you are clinging to ?) is not spiritual in essence; because 'you'( the thinker ?) have created it, therefore you cling to it. If it were Real, it would be beyond your (thought's?) control. If it is true, you do not "know" it and yet... you cling to it. You say that there is a (self-conscious?) spiritual essence, which is the 'I' , and that it continues (forever & ever) , while at the same time you say it is timeless.

So in order to know whether there is ( within one's 'self'?) a spiritual essence or not, you have to understand the (crux of ) this problem of ontinuity: 'death'. What continues (from yesterday, to today to tomorrow) in our everyday life? 'I'( a self-consciousness ?) identified with its (personal) memories, property, family, beliefs. And this 'I' continues ( day after day) and I want to be sure that it continues (even after my physical death?) . Therefore, I do not really want to discover the ( spiritual) truth about reincarnation, but to ensure 'my' (self-conscious) continuity.

Now, what is it that we hold on so desperately, so fearfully, so anxiously? Is it not ( a bunch of personal & collective ?) memories?
Sirs ( if as a mental excercise you ?) remove your memories, ( who & ) where are you? These (psychologically active ) memories are given life by ( our physical brain through ?) a constant accumulation ( updating & ) recollection. ( The resulting self-conscious?) memory in itself has no ( true spiritual) substance, no (intrinsical) vitality. But the moment 'I remember' I am identifying myself with the ( personal & collective memories of) past.

That is, as long as the ( temporal) mind is concerned with (giving continuity to ) the results of the past, the 'thing' which continues is memory, a 'dead' thing to which you give life, which means that through a series of habits, accumulations and idiosyncrasies, the experiences are ( recycled and ) translated to produce all that you wish to have continued. (However ?) that (self-identified consciousness ) which continues (in time is also subject to ?) decay. That which is continuous is non-creative.

So, if we really go into this question of reincarnation , if we are (becoming ?) aware of its significance, we will find that, that ( essence of oneself ?) which is spiritual is timeless and therefore beyond our reach and therefore beyond continuity. But the more we cling to ( the traditional ideas regarding ) this spiritual essence, the more we are really distracted from it by false action, because the 'timeless' (spiritual essence?) cannot be 'known' by ( thinking about it in the field of the?) known .

( In a nutshell:) What is continuous ( in terms of time) is not immortal, what is continuous does not renew itself. It merely continues as a (thought) habit. It is only in renewal that there is creation, there is reality; and only in ending there is renewal, not in continuity. See the trees, they drop their leaves and fresh leaves come. They do not 'continue'. Because we are afraid, we cling to our memories and a man who is (inwardly) living in a (temporal) continuity is ( creativity -wise ?) a 'dead' man - and I am afraid that is what we are doing.

In this question there was also the (b) problem of cause and effect. (Psychologically-speaking ) they are not two separate processes - (since inwardly ?) the (old) effect becomes the ( new) cause (and vice-versa). However, when we view the 'cause' apart from (its psychological ? ) 'effect', there is an illusory 'time interval' which may lead us to the wrong conclusions. (Inwardly speaking?) the moment there is an effect, its cause cannot be far in the distance. They are (still) together although you may take time to perceive its (unfolding) . The moment you are ( becoming) aware of 'what is,'( actually going on inwardly) which is the 'cause', the 'effect' is also there. And therefore there is ( an unique opportunity for an instant inner ?) transformation. It means that if you (fully) understand 'what is' (going on inwardly in real time ?) , there is an immediate (possibility of inner) transformation - a (time-free ) change, not a change in time. Traditionally, we expect to change in time, to become something ( far better... ?) tomorrow. But if you perceive ( in the time-free Now?) the cause becoming the effect and the effect becoming the cause all the time, then there is an immediate 'cessation' of the 'cause' (or... the ending of 'time' ?)

That is, Sirs, to make it very simple, when you are (getting really?) angry, if you would see immediately the (unfolding ) cause of that anger and are ( becoming non-personally?) aware of it, there would be an immediate (inner) transformation, because then you are free from this (wide-spread) illusion that only in time you can produce a ( psychologically significant ?) result. The cause is ( contained) in the effect. Self-knowledge, or seeing what is false in the 'I' (in one's self-consciousness?) , is the ( awakening of one's timeless ) intelligence

5-th K Public Talk 7th December, 1947 (reader friendly edited)

Before I answer the many questions that have been put to me (in writing) I wish to make a very brief resume of what I have been saying, and then I would like to suggest how the answers to the questions should be received.

It seems to me that it would be a really beautiful world, if there were no ( spiritual?) 'teachers' and 'disciples'. Why look to another for (your own ?) enlightenment, or for spiritual guidance? Would it not be a peaceful and orderly world, if there were neither the seeker nor the thing which he seeks? The thing which he seeks originates, does it not, from the desire for gain and therefore out of this desire comes the conflict of duality, does it not? That is, I want to gain something, the desire to gain entails always the fear ( that I might not gain it?) and fear naturally creates the duality (observer-observed ?) and then the conflict of the opposites begins.

But if we can understand the ongoing inner 'fact' in itself, like anger for instance, then the conflict (created by the effort to achieve its ) opposite ceases; that is, if we can understand 'what is', the (inner conflict of ?) duality ceases. I think it is of the utmost importance to understand this problem of opposites as the only (holistic) way is through the understanding of the fact itself, without any attempt to overcome it by its opposite. In other words, 'what is' can only be understood through ( an integrated self-) awareness, not through condemnation or justification.
To be ( choicelessly & non-personally ?) aware of ourselves is extremely arduous. It does not require any 'book knowledge', but by beginning to be aware of yourself in everything that you do, you will soon discover what extraordinary depths thought can plumb and how free this awareness is.

Question: You have often talked of 'relationship'. What does it mean to you?

Krishnamurti: First of all to be, is to be related (with all that is ?) and without relationship there is no existence. Now, what do we mean by relationship? It is an interconnected (interactive ?) challenge and response between two people, between you and me, the challenge which you throw out and which I accept, or to which I respond; also the challenge I throw out to you. So, the relationship of two people creates society; society is not independent of you and me; the 'mass' is not by itself a separate entity, but you and I in our ( reciprocal ?) relationship to each other create the mass, the group, the society.

So, relationship is the awareness of inter-connection between two people and whstrong textat is that relationship generally based on? Is it not based on so-called interdependence, mutual assistance? At least we say it is mutual help, mutual aid and so on, but, actually, apart from words, apart from the emotional screen which we throw up against each other, what is it based upon? On mutual gratification, is it not? If I do not please you, you get rid of me, if I please you, you accept me either as your wife or as your neighbour or as your friend. That is the actual fact.
So, relationship is sought where there is mutual satisfaction, gratification, and when you do not find that satisfaction you change relationship, either you divorce, or you remain together but seek gratification elsewhere or else you move from one relationship to another till you find what you seek, which is satisfaction, gratification and a sense of self-protection and comfort. After all that is our relationship in the world and that is the actual fact. So, relationship is sought where there can be security, where you as an individual can live in a state of security, in a state of gratification, in a state of ignorance, all of which always creates conflict, does it not? If you do not satisfy me and I am seeking satisfaction, naturally there must be conflict, because we are both seeking security in each other and when that security becomes uncertain you become jealous, you become violent, you become possessive and so on. So, relationship invariably results in possession, in condemnation, in self-assertive demands for security, for comfort and for gratification and in that there is naturally no love.

We talk about love, we talk about responsibility, duty, but there is really no love, (as long as our mutual ) relationship is based on gratification, the effect of which we see in the present civilization. The way we treat our wives, children, neighbours, friends is an indication that in our relationship there is really no love at all. it is merely a mutual search for gratification and as this is so, what then is the purpose of relationship? What is its ultimate significance? Surely, if you observe yourself in relationship with others, do you not find that relationship is a process of self-revelation? Does not my contact with you reveal my own state of being if I am aware, if I am alert enough to be conscious of my own reaction in relationship? So, relationship really is a process of self-revelation which is a process of self-knowledge and in that revelation there are many unpleasant things, disquieting, uncomfortable thoughts, activities and since I do not like what I discover I run away from a relationship which is not pleasant to a relationship which is pleasant. So, relationship has very little significance when we are merely seeking mutual gratification, but relationship becomes extraordinarily significant when it is a means of self-revelation and self-knowledge.

After all there is no ( dualistic ?) relationship in love, is there? It is only when you expect a return of your love that there is a ( dualistic) relationship. But when you love, that is, when you give yourself over to something entirely, wholly, then there is no ( self-consciousness in that ?) relationship. Is relationship a mutual gratification or is it a process of self-revelation? There is no gratification in love there is no self-revelation in love. You just love. Then what happens? If you do love, if there is such a love, then it is a marvellous thing. In such love there is no friction, there is not the one and the other there is complete unity. It is a state of integration, a complete being. There are such moments, such rare, happy, joyous moments, when there is complete love, complete communion. But what generally happens is that love is not what is important but the other, the object of love becomes important; the one to whom love is given becomes important and not love itself. Then the object of love, for various reasons either biological verbal, or because of a desire for gratification, for comfort and so on, becomes important and love recedes Then possession, jealousy and demands create conflict and love recedes further and further, and the further it recedes, the more the problem of relationship loses its significance, its worth and its meaning.

So, Love is one of the most difficult things to comprehend. It cannot come through an intellectual urgency, it cannot be manufactured by various methods and means an disciplines. It is a state of being when the activities of the self have ceased but they will not cease if you merely suppress them, shun them or discipline them. You must understand the activities of the self in all the different layers of consciousness. We have moments when we do love, when there is no thought, no motive but those are rare we cling to them in memory and thus create a barrier between living reality and the action of our daily existence. So, in order to understand relationship it is important to understand first of all `what is', what is actually taking place in our lives, in all the different subtle forms and also what relationship actually means.

Relationship is ( an unique opportunity for ?) self-revelation, but because we do not (really) want to be revealed to ourselves, our relationship loses its extraordinary depth, significance and beauty. There can be true relationship only when there is love but love is not the search for ( personal) gratification. Love exists only when there is self-forgetfulness, when there is complete communion, not between one or two, but communion with the highest, and that can only take place when the self is forgotten.

Question: The Theosophical Society announced you to be the Messiah and world teacher. Why did you leave the Theosophical Society and renounce the Messiahship?

Krishnamurti: First of all let us examine the whole question of ( spiritual) organizations. There is a rather lovely story of a man who was walking along the street and behind him were two strangers. As he walked along, he saw something very bright and he picked it up and looked at it and put it in his pocket and the two men behind him observed this and one said to the other: "This is a very bad business for you, is it not?" and the other who was the 'devil' answered: "No ; what he picked up is truth. But I am going to help him 'organize' it".

Can you find truth through ( belonging to a spiritual?)organization? Must you not go beyond and above all ( fake?) organizations to find truth? After all why do all spiritual organizations exist? You understand that I am not talking about organizations formed for the mutual convenience of man in his daily existence; I am talking of the psychological and the so-called spiritual organizations. Are they necessary? They exist on the supposition that they will help man to realize truth and they are a means of propaganda: you want to tell others what you think, or what you have learned, what appears to you to be a fact.

But is truth ( something of a static nature that can be shared by?) propaganda? What is truth to someone, when propagated surely ceases to be the truth for another. Does it not? Surely, Reality, God or whatever you call it, is not to be propagated. It is to be experienced by every one for himself and that experience cannot be organized; the moment it is organized, propagated, it ceases to be the truth, it becomes a lie, therefore a hindrance to reality, because after all, the real, the immeasurable cannot be formulated, cannot be put into words, the unknown cannot be measured by the known, by the word, and when you measure it, it ceases to be the truth, therefore it ceases to be the real and therefore it is a lie, and therefore generally propaganda is a lie. And organizations that are supposed to be based on the search for truth, founded for the search of the real, become the propagandists' instruments, and so they cease to be of any significance; not only this particular organization in question but all spiritual organizations, become means of exploitation. They acquire property and property becomes awfully important; seeking members and all the rest of that business begins; they will not find truth for the obvious reason that the organization becomes more important than their own search for Reality.

And no truth can be found through any organization because truth comes when there is freedom (from the known ?) and such freedom cannot exist when there is belief, for belief is merely the desire for security and a man who is caught in his need for security can never find that which is.

Now, with regard to Messiahship, it is very simple. I have never denied it and I do not think it matters very much whether I have or have not (renounced it?) . What is important to you is whether what I say is the truth. Whether I am the World Teacher or the Messiah or something else is surely not important. What is important is to find out, if you are really earnest, whether what I say is the truth and you can only find out whether what I say is truth by examining it, by being aware now, of what I am saying and finding out whether what I am saying can be worked out in daily life. What I am saying is not so very difficult to understand. (However?) The 'intellectual' person will find it very difficult because his mind is perverted and the man of devotion also will find it extremely difficult, but the man who is really seeking ( the inner light of Truth?) will understand because of its simplicity. And what I am saying cannot be put into a few words and I am not going to attempt to say it in a few words because my answers to the questions and the various talks which I have given will reveal if you are interested in what I am saying.

Question: On two or three occasions in the course of your talks I have attended, I have become conscious of standing in the presence of one vast Void of utter Silence and Solitude for a fraction of a second. What feeling is this?

Krishnamurti: During these talks and discussions there have been moments when we perceived for ourselves certain states of consciousness and because we reached a point of great understanding and great depth, there was an absolute silence. But the (1000 $) problem is whether you have come to it through your own understanding or through ( an external?) influence, through (speaker's subliminal?) persuasion or through your own wise experience and understanding. Unless you have come to it through your own understanding, not merely intellectually and verbally, it has no ( truly spiritual ) meaning. But if you come to that ( presence of a total inner) stillness through understanding, through being aware, then it brings about the cessation of those (ongoing) conflicts and through that understanding there is quietness and in that quietness and in that solitude, in that (all-oneness?) there is Reality. ( Experiential Clue :) 'You' cannot enter It, but It must come to you. If It comes to you it is the Unknown, therefore the Real. But, if you go to it, you have already (created an image of ) what it is and therefore that towards which you go is the known and therefore not the Real. Therefore it must come to you. All (states of spiritual) Greatness, like Love, come to you. If you pursue Love it will never come, but if you are open, inwardly still & non demanding, it will come. Understanding or ( the inner) clarification comes when the mind is 'single' ( all-one?) , free, not distracted by effort. When you are interested in something, keen about it, you give your whole being to it. You are not distracted and in that giving of yourself, in order to find out what is true there comes that amazing creative emptiness, that absolute silence, unenforced and uninvited, and in that Silence, the Real comes into ( one's?) being.

Bonus questions from the previous talk

Question: You have said that a mind ( which is caught in temporal) bondage is 'vagrant, restless & disorderly'. Will you please explain further what you mean?

Krishnamurti: To ( experientially ) understand this question we must (also) consider the whole problem of (a 'self-knowledge integrated'?) meditation. I do not know if you have noticed that a mind that is in bondage, held (hostage?) by a (false?) idea or by an (insoluble material) problem, is always restless, because it is always seeking an answer to the problem. Therefore it is always wandering. A mind that is in prison is always seeking freedom and therefore it is restless, but only if it questions the 'prison' itself, the (psychological) bondage itself, then it is ( becoming naturally?) quiet because then it is pursuing the truth (regarding) that bondage and therefore not wandering away from the problem; the bondage itself 'is' the problem . If you are interested, not in the 'solution' of the problem but in the ( root of the?) problem itself, which contains its own answer, then surely the mind becomes free & concentrated, because it deals with the problem itself; therefore the mind becomes extremely effective, clear and capable of pursuing swiftly every movement.

So, meditation then is the understanding of the problem itself which contains its own answer. Meditation is thought (or...the thinking brain?) freeing itself from time because through time the timeless cannot be comprehended, and as the mind is the product of time, thought must cease if the real is to be. And the whole process of meditation causes thought to come to an end and it is very important to comprehend this because thought is the product of time, the experience of yesterday, thought is caught in the net of time and that which is of time can never comprehend that which is timeless, the eternal.

So,(in a nutshell:) our problem is to understand that the ( self-centred thinking ) mind which is constantly creating ( its own continuity in) time, is the product of time and therefore whatever it produces is of time. As thought is founded upon the (memory of the?) past which is ( the result of?) Time, it cannot understand the Timeless (dimension of Reality?) and therefore meditation is a process of freeing (our mind?) from time which means that thought must come to a (happy?) end(ing) .
Have you ever experimented with it ? Have you not found how extraordinarily difficult it is for ( the thinker & his?) thoughts to come to an end because no sooner does one thought come into being than another pursues it, and so ( the first ) thought is never completed. (The self-knowing integrated?) meditation is to carry through one ( thinker-generated?) thought right to the end, because that which ends knows renewal, that which is continuous is of time and therefore in that there is no renewal.

How then can one complete ( a thinker-generated?) thought? How is ( the dualistic process of ?) thought to come to an end? Thought can only come to an end when the 'thinker' understands himself (namely that) the thinker and the thought are not two separate processes (although the first has the upper hand?) . The thinker 'is' the ( self-identified part of?) thought, and the thinker separates himself from his thoughts for his permanency and therefore the thinker is continually producing ( the ) thoughts which is are gratifying.
So, ( for starters?) you have to understand that 'thinker' is not separate from the ( total process of self-centred thinking?). Remove the ( self-centred?) thoughts, where is the 'thinker'? Remove man's property & his ( particular) qualities, where is he (consciousness-wise?) ? He is non-existent. Similarly ( if in meditation?) if you remove the ( self-centred ?) thoughts of the 'thinker', where is the 'thinker'? Surely there is no ( self-conscious?) 'thinker' when the (self-centred) thinking process is removed, which means we must 'complete' every ( self-centred) thought that arises whether good or bad; (except that) to complete every thought through to its ( 'thinker' ?) end involves a slowing down of the mind. As ( the internal flaws of?) a fast revolving motor cannot be properly understood - save through being slowed down - so too, a ( meditating) mind which is (eager?) to understand itself must 'slow itself down'.

Again, it is a very arduous ( contemplative?) task to have one's mind go slowly, so (as most of our minds are 'vagrant, disorderly & confused') , in order to follow each thought through, write it down ( or... make a mental note?) if only for a period of two minutes. As in the case of an (action?) film, the quicker movements cannot be followed (very accurately ?) only when the film is slowed down can you follow the (actor's) movements. Similarly a mind that is ( thinking?) too fast can only be understood ( experientially -wise ) by 'slowing it down' in pursuing every ( train of?) thoughts as it comes.

As you are listening to me your mind is slowed down and not wandering because I am concentrated on what I am talking about, and it is an actual (live inner ) experience, you are following it actually, which indicates that you can slow down your (thought addicted ) mind and follow each thought through. But since you cannot be with me all the time, I suggest, you write down every thought and experiment with it and you will see what an extraordinary thing takes place (or...not?) . Your condemnations, your (subliminal?) attachments & prejudices, will come out (acting in slow-motion?) before an (awakened?) consciousness that is empty (of its past knowledge?) and is now capable of complete silence.
You will also see that when thought frees itself from ( the inertial process of thought-) time, it is not possible to indulge in certain activities.

The other day a man came to see me and he wanted to find 'peace of mind'. He wanted to find 'God' and he also stated that he was a ( black market?) speculator. We all want 'peace of mind', happiness, love and tranquillity and yet we are caught (personally entangled?) in activities that are not peaceful; we are caught in professions that are ( psychologically ) destructive such as ( …. ???) .
( Hint: ?) The ( 'live' ?) understanding of the process of your ( thinking) mind will itself create an (existential) crisis in your daily life (but?) if you pursue further (inwards ) that crisis, when the (mental) 'storm' ceases there comes an inner quietness like that of the pool when the breeze stops. So, the problems that are self-created come to an end, and there is a ( living) silence which is free from all problems and in that silence that which is 'unutterable' (undescribable?) comes into (one's) being.

Question: I have made the rounds of various (spiritual) teachers and I would like to know from you what is the purpose of life?

Krishnamurti: Apparently, the questioner must have been told by the various ( gurus & ) teachers what the purpose of life is and now, he wants to add my views to his collection and see which is the most suitable. Sirs, I know the person who wrote this question, a married man in a 'responsible' position. See the ( spiritual) tragedy of making a collection of purposes of life and choose one out of them. Sirs, it is tragic, not laughable, because it shows the state of mind of the majority of us. We are mature in office, in bringing up children, in getting money, but immature in ( our inward ) thinking and in life. We do not know what it means to love.

So, the questioner wants to know what is the purpose of life. Shall I tell him what it is ? Mustn't he find out for himself (as homework?) what the purpose of life is ? To remain ( or get stuck in the routine of ) an office day after day, month after month, ( & year after year?) pursuing money, position, power, ambition, is that the ( ultimate?) purpose of life? Is it the purpose of life to worship graven images, to perform rituals and indulge in their ( weekly?) repetition? Is it the purpose of life to acquire virtue and become 'walled in' by barren righteousness?

If it is none of these then, must you not 'go beyond' all these? Surely the man ( who realises the existential ?) sorrow (of such a life?) wants to be free of sorrow. But you see, we (avoid facing this ?) suffering and therefore we do not understand suffering. Can you go to another ( wise-man?) to find out? To find out the (way out of) of all this confusion, you should understand the 'one who is confused', which is 'yourself'. This chaos is the result of our own (self-centred) thinking & feeling, and as you proceed deeper and deeper in understanding yourself you will find out what is the significance of life. Merely to stand at the edge of confusion and ask what is the significance of life has very little meaning. Sirs, it is like a man who has lost the song in his heart. Naturally he is always seeking for somebody who has a song, he is enchanted by the voice of others, and seeking a 'better singer' because in his own heart there is no song. There can be 'song' in his heart only when he discards everything and ceases to follow the (providential?) teacher. There comes a time when you become aware of your desires, when you do not escape from them, but understand them. It requires earnestness, it requires extraordinary serious attention and he who is already in earnest has begun to understand and in him there is Hope (for all mankind?) . This hope (can be found?) only in yourself.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 23 Jul 2018.

John Raica wrote:
Surely the man ( who realises the existential ?) sorrow (of such a life?) wants to be free of sorrow. But you see, we (avoid facing this ?) suffering and therefore we do not understand suffering. Can you go to another ( wise-man?) to find out? To find out the (way out of) of all this confusion, you should understand the 'one who is confused', which is 'yourself'. This chaos is the result of our own (self-centred) thinking & feeling, and as you proceed deeper and deeper in understanding yourself you will find out what is the significance of life. Merely to stand at the edge of confusion and ask what is the significance of life has very little meaning.

well John , yes, as usual with most k words it seems rather easy intellectually, like when watching a thriller quietly sitting in a comfortable armchair...being just a watcher...

this all business with sorrow so suffering avoiding it or not is really something else...avoiding = more of it and much more ..properly living it = unpredictable discoveries...up to whatever god knows..

in both case thought is living some uncomfortable time...
whether in pain, ignorance and nonsense whether in the unknown part of what life is...

in one case there is "light" ,small, huge does not matter etc in the other no light...but some sort of darkness even if one is in the spotlight...famous, wealthy or well known spiritually etc

thought must be put in its right place...somehow..

cheers

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. (account deleted) Mon, 23 Jul 2018.

John Raica wrote:
As you are listening to me your mind is slowed down and not wandering because I am concentrated on what I am talking about, and it is an actual experience, you are following it actually, which indicates that you can slow down your (thought addicted ) mind and follow each thought through. But since you cannot be with me all the time, I suggest, you write down every thought and experiment with it and you will see what an extraordinary thing takes place (or...not?) . Your condemnations, your (subliminal?) attachments & prejudices, will come out (acting in slow-motion?) before an (awakened?) consciousness that is empty (of its past knowledge?) and is now capable of complete silence.
You will also see that when thought frees itself from (thought-)time, it is not possible to indulge in certain activities.

For me the mystery here will remain, about what is in bold letters, yet I have some sort of personal factual opinion on that but that is of no interest for others; I mean is k always talking from the now as it is happening or is he (too) talking from recalled vivid memories left by some experiences yet sort of living it again or at least very carefully revisiting them...the way he says it leaves place to interpretations.

I would have liked to know...matter of deep interest for me...

Anyway by no means I could do what he suggests here...talking being my cup of tea...writing is not..

Dan ...........

Dan McDermott wrote:
But I think the message that K. is trying to get across here is that that alertness that is 'watching' the thoughts unfold is actually a form of intelligence, not the normal state of non-alertness to what one is thinking, which is non-intelligence.

Hello " the other Dan", long time no see, how are things for you ?

Now by reading your post came back something.

In time of let us say "properly living sorrow" or whatever mental problem is there, if this is possible, there is a sort of thought's watching yet not listening to it occurring by itself..

Can it be triggered or not otherwise ? I do not know.It is a bit like if something in thought or "somewhere "else can now see thought yet not listen to it, able to do this and that ..
and not only this which would represent here the prerogative of thought..

I know that all this is quite unclear, and probably does not make sense...well adding to that that I am in one of those nice lazy day and mood...and I am enjoying it actually..

anyway I would tend to go along with what you bring here..interesting indeed..

cheers..

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. (account deleted) Mon, 23 Jul 2018.

John Raica wrote:

Daniel Paul. wrote:

this all business with sorrow so suffering avoiding it or not is really something else...avoiding = more of it and much more ..properly living it = unpredictable discoveries...up to whatever god knows..

In my view, Dan, the experiential issue of dealing with 'sorrow' is pretty clear: Are we dealing with it in the 'self-protected' mode or in 'full immersion'?. The first approach is like learning to swim on the shore, or maybe in a shallow pool with swimming 'props'- in which case 'sorrow' is hardly more than a philosophical or religious concept. The other 'live' approach is by no means psychologically safe, there's no guarantee of doing it 'right', etc

well you know yourself, the first approach is another thought's delusion and not only a waste of time but making it worse, only the other one is the only one, no net, no safety, no guarantee, not predictable etc

John Raica wrote:
My take of this, Dan, is that he was meditating 'live', in real time. In the later 'videos' maybe he 'copy-pasted' some stuff, but still, in each and every talk or dialogue there is at least one moment of authentic 'touch of Truth'.
The problem is that if we are not tuned on the exact wavelength ( in terms of our own inner experience) ...we won't be able to tell the difference between the 'copy pasted' (or recycled ?) truths and what was 100 % authentic

thanks for the take on that..agreed with the second paragraph..

Dan ...........

Dan McDermott wrote:
I may or may not react as personally as I would without that attention being there. So it's quite a different 'way' to be, as opposed to being on 'auto-pilot', which I think is alright when there is a technical task at hand but in the psychological without the 'awareness' of each thought, the split between thought and the thinker occurs and as is being pointed out, that arrangement leads to and perpetuates the fear and sorrow. It doesn't sound like a big thing but awareness of one's thoughts as they are being thought is 'revolutionary'.

Hello the other dan

well we are lucky not to have only many dan in this forum, as this would be complicated ;-)

yes this auto pilot point you bring used anywhere else than in technical task is one aspect of what brings mental problems...
can we say that it simply is not a tool for pure mental fields ? or something on that wavelength ?

As I mentioned out of experiments is that some unusual awareness of thought is there by itself in time of properly living sorrow-problems then possibly in time of living anything in k's case...properly living sorrow brings thought down to its knees and by passes it....roughly put..as the matter is complex to describe and quite extensive .

there may be something in that corner, I must say that I forgot a bit if not more about that aspect and yes well it is important, in the sense that it thwarts this auto pilot full power on the all brain.It is good to have that aspect in line somehow.

well only a vague approach here...but there is something.

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. (account deleted) Tue, 24 Jul 2018.

Abstracts from K's Group Discussion in Madras 1947 ( experientially friendly edited )

(9th December)

K: Not only at the present time, but since always, the fundamental truth is that ( the total) consciousness of man divides ( 'fragments' ?) itself by (identifying itself with credible ?) beliefs & systems. ( eg:) ( The psychological identification with?) 'nationalism' divides human beings, beliefs break up friendship and create animosity. At the present time, when the world is in such a frightful chaos when all the ( authentic human) values have disintegrated, those of us who have thought seriously about the cause of the misery and the antagonism that exists, should attempt to bring about a new (culture & ) society and not merely (keeping themselves busy with?) the reconstruction of the old, because the ( ages-) old (self-centredness) cannot be patched-up and even if it is patched-up it will remain still the old.

As ( common?) wisdom comes only with the knowledge of our everyday activities and feelings, we shall today take up the (topic of the wide spread ) ideas regarding (the nature of?) "evil" as a means of revealing the process of our own thinking. ( Clue: as all ideas are interrelated, by examining one profoundly and following it through, you will see how extraordinarily interrelated they are).
( For starters?) It is of no (experiential) use to think about 'evil' according to what is written about it in books or even of translating it according to our (personal) experience, which is always translating (anything ) through the screen of personal advantages and gains.
( The next step in order?) to understand a problem of such enormous significance your mind must be in a receptive mood and not to approach it from any single point of view , such as sense of guilt, personal experience, selfishness, etc.
(One wide spread idea is that?) whatever hinders man's progress, is 'evil'. What is progress, what is evolution? ( Technology-wise?) the cart-wheel has progressed to aeroplane, (but inwardly?) people have also become more ( self-centred & ) greedy and more competitive in a (highly) competitive society. In spite of the havoc and misery caused by the two world wars, many persons still consider that war is in the nature of things, (an ultimately it may be ) a means to Peace. Is all this progress? We have therefore to (re) consider ( our ideas of) 'progress' as a means of human happiness, towards human love, consideration, generosity and charity. Have we evolved (inwardly?) towards such freedom and happiness?

(Another wide spread idea is ) that 'God has a Plan' and anything that interferes with that plan is 'evil'. This is the old idea of the fight between God and the Devil ( where 'God' wins...ultimately?)
Look about you, and see what is happening in nature. One pray bird destroys another bird, the snake lives by its poison and the strong live on the weak. There is continual strife to live (or survive) by any means. Among us, the strong live on the weak, the clever live on the stupid (uneducated?) . And inwardly, there is a battle between the opposites, between 'what I want' and 'what I do not want'. Our everyday existence a constant battle, a constant strife. Has 'evil' any relationship to this battle in us between the opposites or is it something apart from this everyday existence? Does ( fighting the inner ) 'evil' mean to you a conquering of some temptation? Buddha is supposed to have fought with "Mara" and won. Jesus is supposed to have been tempted by the 'Devil' and conquered it.
So, to understand ( the ultimate truth regarding ) this , you must begin with yourself. You do something wrong and you have pain. There is a physiological and a psychological ( component of ) suffering; they are not quite clear-cut. But what is the cause of (our existential?) suffering? Some of you advocate suffering as a means to acquire ( compassion & ) intelligence. Is one to cultivate intelligence through suffering? Is not (such) suffering an indication of ignorance?
When my son (or...my beloved brother?) dies, and I do not understand the implications of his death, do I sit down (to meditate?) and find out (for myself) the ( universal) cause of suffering, or do I run away to seek relief from pain with the aid of a priest ? ( Hint:) If I want to go into the whole significance of 'death', I must have ( at least some basic compassion & ) intelligence. Surely you will get (awaken?) this intelligence only through understanding suffering, and not through enduring suffering.
So, when you say that suffering brings intelligence it is not an (inwardly observable?) 'fact'. But as you have been constantly seeking escapes from suffering, you have become 'clever' and ( knowledgeably ?) intelligent in escapes; but you have not understood suffering. To understand suffering, you have to live with it. To find the cause of suffering, you must go into it and not reject suffering. ( The holistic quality of?) understanding will come only when you give your whole being (mind & heart?) to understand the problem.

( Back to our main topic:) ? Is "evil", or " badness" the opposite of Good(ness) ? To understand anything (holistically?) there must not be a condemnation, nor an identification with it. When I am stupid and I want to become 'clever'. Is not "becoming clever" a part of stupidity? There is conflict between what I am and the thing which I want to be. The thing which I want to be is part of my own projection of stupidity. If I understood stupidity, then the problem ceases. The very awareness of the fact that I am stupid is the beginning of intelligence, and not trying to become clever. If I think in these terms, there is no opposite at all; the opposite may be a fabrication of the mind.
( In a nutshell:) You will never understand anything (holistically?) by thinking in terms of its opposite. If I (think that I ) am evil and I try to become good, that ( cultivated?) 'goodness' still has in it the seed of evil.
( So, for homework:) Instead of creating and pursuing the 'opposite' (virtue) , if I say 'All right, I am greedy, it is a fact' (and consider it holistically?) then, something 'happens' and... I cease to be greedy. The moment I realise ( what is wrong with?) it, it falls away.

(10th December)

K: On the last occasion, we saw the need to understand the problem without identifying ourselves either with religious or materialistic ideas. (And inwardly?) you have to be free from the conflict of the opposites. In fact, the opposite does not exist at all.
In order to see the true significance of all these (psy-biased?) approaches, you have to start from the ( self-conscious 'I' or?) 'me' which is really the result of your ( outwardly directed?) senses. Thus you have to give to the activity of the senses their right place. ( Hint:) Greed does the creates the conflict of opposites (when our self-centred thinking gets involved?) . Mostly due to your cultural upbringing, you think in terms of opposites - good and evil, anger and non-anger, arrogance and humility etc. This is because you do not know how to view things by starting from (the central cause) - from the 'me'. Instead of relating every ( attempt to solve any human) problem by ( relating it holistically?) to the ( true?) end-purpose of Life, you relate it to ( the traditional 'highly recommended' moral ?) opposites, and therefore your life is full of frustration. If you understand this (often overlooked point?) , you will be free of the 'conflict of opposites', since this conflict is wearing you out in your daily life.

( This hidden inner conflict starts with ?) the 'naming' of a feeling - when you contact something with any of your senses you give it a name to capture it, usually adopting the (verbal) conventions already set up. ( Unfortunately?) this is done (mechanically?) even in the case of the ( non-material ) feelings that arise in you though the feeling cannot be contacted by the senses. Therefore the ( common usage of the ) word which is 'sensuous', cannot adequately describe the ( 'existential'?) feelings which are 'non-sensuous'. ( Therefore, in the 'psychological' field?) ''The word is not the thing''. However, if to your ( thought addicted mind ?) the 'words' have become all-important, you will ( mechanically translate or ?) 'interpret' your ( true?) feeling through a ( culturally standardised ?) word. Therefore you miss the full ( holistic) significance of the feeling.
( For homework:) As this is one of the things which you are doing constantly ( but unawarely?) in your daily life, it is necessary for each one of you to realise that it is futile to use words which are sensuous to capture your (deeper existential?) feelings.

 (11th December)

We were talking about the (inner?) conflict of the opposites – the 'good' against 'evil', etc. Now, is the (best?) way of discovering the truth of anything, by bringing in the 'utilitarian' point of view? Is it not the ( more holistically?) correct way to view the thing 'as it is', and not get confused by its effect for the many or for the few?
Now, if a good action is ( propagated ?) as an example for others to follow, is it ( truly?) good? It ceases to be 'mercy' when somebody (consciously or not?) imitates mercy. Why do we ( need to think inwardly in terms of ?) 'good' and 'evil'?
After all, it is only when one understands the 'centre' which is the individual ('self'-consciousness ?) there can be a true revolution (in our total consciousness) . You are ignorant and you want to be enlightened; or you are ( just) ambitious and ruthless, and you carry on. Thus your whole existence is a conflict of opposites. Are you satisfied with this ? Should you not question it to find out the reason for this conflict, this ceaseless battle till you die and wanting it to continue even after ( the physical) death?
The conflict of the opposites manifests itself in all the different layers of our existence as the conflict of ( upgrading the condition of ?) 'what I am'. I have accepted this process of 'becoming' as the inevitable way of life . (But...) Is that the (holistic?) way to live? In order to understand the ( ultimate?) truth about this, I must ( wisely) put it aside.

Is there ( inwardly a temporal?) becoming at all? I know the tiny acorn becomes the big oak tree ; but this is a ( natural physical ) becoming. There is no 'natural becoming' of the acorn into a rose or a pine tree. If you can understand (rationally ?) the problem of becoming, then perhaps you will discover the truth about ( thinking in terms of?) duality.
You are 'A', and you want to become 'B'. Now, what is 'B'? Is it not a (mental rejection?) of 'A'? You are ( naturally self-centred & ) 'arrogant' and the ( traditionally recommended?) response is ( to cultivate the noble virtue of?) 'humility' and to become (100 %) that. You find ( that your cultivated?) arrogance not so pleasurable as you thought it was, because there is ( a certain amount of collateral) pain involved and perhaps that becoming (more?) humble will pay you. Thus, 'becoming' (more humble) implies a (well hidden ) profit motive : by becoming (inwardly meek or ?) 'humble' it can get you ( closer?) to God. This means that the real motive for a 'becoming humble ' is for a profit, psychologically (wise) . Because you (cultivated intellectual arrogance?) is not 'profitable' you want to become the opposite (virtue) which is 'humility'. It is only an ideologically (projected) thing which is not existent apart from A (there is a constant evaluation of the 'becoming' process ?) So... have you found out that the conflict between 'A' and 'B' is fallacious and does not lead you anywhere ?

As another illustration of this conflict of opposites is anger. You are (often getting) angry and what is your ( self-becoming?) response? " This is awful, what is the matter with me ?" and you create the opposite which is ( the very cool virtue of?) 'non-anger'. You were in a state which was very disturbing and you would rather like the state which is quite peaceful and more ( rewarding inwardly ). Therefore, you are ( mentally?) moving from 'what you are' to 'what you want to be' - the (reasonable ?) opposite of 'what you are', with a ( subliminal) motive for ( a higher moral ) profit. Now, the (thought projected image of the?) 'opposite' state is created on account of your desire for profit or benefit, for a result; it is non-existent (as such) . Therefore, the ( hapless & hopeless inner ?) fight between the 'what is' and 'what is not'. This ( moral) 'fight' is only on the verbal level. Therefore, the fight is a (self-projected?) illusion, a (psychologically?) stupid (inner) action.

( In a nutshell:) This ( thoughtless inner ) conflict between the opposites is non-existent (similar to fighting with one's shadow?) because,there is only one thing, 'what is': and any movement away from 'what is' is ( an act of 'psychological?) stupidity'. Therefore, this ( 'virtual reality'?) conflict has no ( true inner ) significance.

( For extra homework : ?) To ( holistically) understand this ( morally & ethically ?) disturbing state in which you may find yourself, you must (ASAP ?) stop this (personal involvement in ?) fighting with the 'opposite' ( by simply realising that inwardly it ?) is non-existent, i.e. you must give up the (inner) 'struggle to become the opposite'. ( Experiential Clue:) Do not 'condemn' that state nor 'identify' yourself with it. Then, watch it with your whole being and be ( non-personally?) aware of it.

( In conclusion:) Investigation into and ( the holistic) understanding of our ( 'existential' responses or?) 'feelings' which are ever in movement, demands ( a basic) freedom from (the habit of naming or terming them ?) since ( at the deeper levels of being ?) the term is not the 'thing' that it is supposed to denote. ( On the other hand ?) if such a (profound) feeling is investigated through a (specialised ) term(inology) , the ( intellectual processing of the ) term becomes important (rather than directly dealing with ?) the feeling. Moreover, when communicated to another, that other person interprets the term or the word according to his or her own (personal experience in dealing with that ) feeling. Thus, the (culturally standardised?) 'terming' influences, modifies, and shapes the feeling.

(12th December, 1947)

When applied to objective things, the words are quite (obviously ) apart from the things and you don't ( need to?) 'interpret' (or put a spin on?) those things through the (usage of) words as you can contact those things directly. ( However, in the case of ( our subjective) feelings and thoughts, their effect on the person concerned can be seen and felt by others. When a feeling arises, he names it in order to evaluate it according to the frame of references already established in his ( cultivated?) memory; he thus absorbs it into himself and strengthens the ( foundations of his 'psychological') memory, the 'me'. Therefore the naming of a feeling converts it to 'time', - i.e. ( to consolidate one's psychological) continuance - and ( generally) leads either to the condemnation of a painful feeling or to the ( self-) identification with a pleasurable feeling. ( On the other hand?) if the feeling is not ( noticed or ) named, it is not absorbed (into one's self-consciousness?) , therefore it runs its course and (eventually?) ceases without in any way strengthening the 'me'

In our 'actual' ( inner) life, we always ( like to recognise, evaluate &) 'name' the pleasurable feelings thus giving them (a temporal) continuance, and we always avoid painful feelings. A man seeking God by avoiding ( vulgar?) sensate values in still pursuing his pleasure on a higher level. But by avoiding the painful feelings and pursuing the pleasurable ones he wreaks ( collateral?) havoc to (the culture of his) society and causes a great deal of ( psychological?) harm to others. You have to understand the implications of this and ( for homework try to ?) 'seriously experiment' with not naming the ( thoughts & ) feelings as they arise in you.

(13th December)

( Intro:) I think one should distinguish between 'hearing' ( what is going on?) inside oneself and (the outward?) listening. Listening is surely ( directed to?) something outside. ( The inward?) hearing is much more subjective. Let us 'hear' each other rather than 'listen' to each other, as these ( exploratory) discussions are really meant to reveal the ways of our own thinking, feeling and acting. Right thinking begins only in discovering what is exactly taking place (inwardly) in each one of us - being aware of all our illusions, (hidden) motives & intentions leads to a 'right thinking' which only can come into being through sel-knowledge and not through any book, not through any listening to a (inspirational ) talk but by being aware of every 'thought and feeling' movement in ourselves.

We were discussing the ( ages old?) problem of 'duality' , whether the (inner) conflict ( of opposite thoughts & desires ?) was inevitable - this conflict between ignorance and knowledge, between arrogance and humility, between anger and (inner) peace, and so on. This conflict between the opposites has apparently been accepted by us as an inevitable fact in ( order to improve the quality of?) our (inner) life.
Is ( man's inner) life meant to be an (endless) series of conflicts in the 'corridor of opposites' or is this (conflict ridden ) approach wrong?
( Hint:) Any ( split between the 'observer' & the 'observed' ?) always creates its opposite. I am something and I want to become something else. I am arrogant and I strive to become humble. Now, is the opposite a 'fact'? If my (carefully cultivated?) humility is a result of (fighting a natural tendency for ?) arrogance, that 'humility' contains the ( psychological) germ of arrogance. You may find that arrogance is a disturbing factor; and you have been told that arrogance is 'taboo' (a definite 'no-no'?) both ethically and religiously; and therefore you strive to become (inwardly & outwardly ) humble which is more profitable. But your (hidden?) motive is still the desire to gain, the desire to become something ( better?) . So ( your cultivated?) humility contains the seed of ( your past?) arrogance.

Now, the ( actual) 'fact' is that (the self-protective shield one's ? ) arrogance is existent, but the ( desire of ) becoming 'non-arrogant 'or 'humble' is not a fact. Your (cultivated?) 'humility' is existent only in theory but actually is not (100% true?)
( In a nutshell:) The ( inner quality ) 'A' being arrogance creates (the desire to become the desired inner quality ) 'B' which is humility; but the 'B' in itself is non-existent (per se?) apart from 'A'. So if one realises that the (inner strife) to become 'B' is false, then the conflict ceases ( by lack of personal involvement?)
( In a nutshell:) The 'goodness' , which is (cultivated as?) the opposite of bad(ness), is not (100%) 'Good'. If love is ( an inner quality cultivated as?) the opposite of ( personal resentment or?) hate, surely it is not Love. If ( the inner) peace is the ( cultivated?) opposite of violence, then it is no longer peace. Therefore, ( inwardly – wise) the ( cultivated moral) conflict between the opposites is really a fallacious ( a 'fake' ?) conflict; though we may indulge in ( cultivating?) it, it does not lead us anywhere. If this is realised and understood, the conflict ceases.

Why do we name any ( disturbing psychological) quality? Perhaps, if we do not name it or term it, it may have a different significance (or it might be seen in a different light?). If I do not term a ( disturbing) 'quality' that arises in me - such as arrogance - what would happen? Then, if we shall not confuse its 'name' with the feeling; then the feeling will have a different meaning, a different inner significance. (For instance?) if you understand and realise that the term 'God' is not ( the 'actual') God, you are free of all the (cultural) implications of what was being accepted as 'God'. Then the temples will have no ( higher spiritual?) meaning, whether we go to it or do not go, therefore we are at once (or...ASAP?) free from ( the spiritual authority of) all priests, churches and so on. ( Hint :) The ( man-made) image is not the Real and if you realise (this inner truth) the ( psychological authority of the man-made ?) 'image' disappears.

(To recap:) The 'term' (the name?) is not the actual feeling though it is (traditionally intended ) to represent the feeling. Now, why is an ( emotional ) quality or 'feeling' named? (i) to communicate the quality to others and (ii) to 'pin down' and to (morally) evaluate that quality in terms of our old (ego-centric?) frames of references. Therefore, even as the feeling itself is in the present and is therefore 'new', by naming it we relate it to ( our previous experience from ) the past, the new is interpreted ( processed &) and modified in terms of the old, thus strengthening ( our self-centered) memory, i.e. the 'me'. The ( newness of that?) feeling is thus absorbed into the ( good-old?) 'me' and is given continuance in time as the 'real' memory (of what I 'know 'about myself?) .

Without ( being recognised & processed by?) memory, there cannot be evaluation. The feeling, when it arises, is new and in the present; but when that feeling is termed, it is translated or modified so as to fit it into the old (self-centred) framework of reference, thus strengthening ( one's 'psychological' ) memory. So, the ( self-conscuiousness of the?) 'me' is strengthened; and the person feels 'stronger' ( empowered?) : when he says "this is my property", he feels already ( better ? ) .
( Our 'daily double' question is :) What would happen to a ( new?) feeling if you do not name verbally that feeling or quality? (Hint:) when there is (an emotionally loaded?) response to a challenge, if you name the response, you give it continuance (because it is absorbed into the 'known' frame of references). ( The ordinary self-centred ) consciousness in all its different layers is ( the virtual display of a residual ) memory which is the result of your parents and grandparents and so on, or the result of books.

Now, suppose a new ( emotionally loaded?) reaction arises and you do not name it. Rather than absorb it into ( your 'known' self-) consciousness, but you are merely aware of it. ( As a result?) that feeling and the ( thought-controlling ) responses would cease running their course; the feeling is not judged or evaluated and it is not absorbed into ( one's psychological) memory.
Take for instance, the case when someone 'treads on your feet', you may have the reaction of pain, which cannot be helped; but you do not ( think ASAP of ) hitting back the man who has trodden on your feet. Though the (physical) reaction is there, it is not put into the old frame of references. The ( mental processing of that) pain has now a different significance. Next time you will be more careful where you put your feet. Thus, by understanding the (redundancy of your verbal) reaction, you would be observant and alert and be more aware of what is actually taking place without the framework of references. This is ( giving free space of action to one's natural?) intelligence.

At present there is an ( exponential???) increase, all over the world, in sensate values - more theatres, more cinemas, more drinks, more clothes, more and more (of anything) . The ( first reaction of a ) 'spiritual' person seeing this ( scary global trend?) , says 'I do not like it' and denies the sensate and goes after the ideation, as the ideation gives him pleasure. Thus, this 'spiritual' person is still following the pleasurable (but on a different level than) the man of the sensate.
The man who is pursuing sensate values is destroying the world; since he is (assuming) that there is nothing more ( to human life?) than the sensate and therefore is indulging in the sensate in the most irresponsible manner regardless of the consequences on others . The result of this (globally irresponsible attitude?) has been shown over and over again by wars after wars. We say that such a man is a stupid materialistic person and we try to pursue our ( higher) ideations.
( Yet, both?) the man of the sensate and the man of the ideational are meeting at the same point, both their values are based on the ( primary or secondary activity of the?) senses, though (incidently?) the man who is following the ( spiritual) ideation may do less harm in society. But because he has confused the (intellectual) 'terms' with ( the real?) Reality and the term becomes very important, as the ( 100%) sensate man, he creates havoc in the world, the man of ideation with a framework of references also creates mischief; in fact, the latter does more harm. We can deal with a sensate man, because he is pursuing his pleasure through things; most of such men are poor and have relatively few ( material) means. But the man who is pursuing his pleasure through his ideas is ( culturally-wise) doing more harm and as he creates division between belief and belief, man and man; if he really gives his concern to men and to things, he would organize society on a different basis; there would not be your belief as something superior to mine. But he would not do that because 'his ideas' are more important.

( In a nutshell:) It is not the 'things' that are dividing man, but the ideas. If that is understood, life would become very simple.
There is enough scientific skill in the world to produce enough food, clothing and shelter; but the ideas of ( isolationistic?) nationalities such as the Americans, the English, the Germans, the Russians and so on, are preventing man from making it effective. Therefore there is this mess and misery in the world. If I would say "I will begin to understand the sensate", I ( could perhaps?) proceed step by step into the deeper things. Then, I can find out whether there is ( an Ultimate Inner?) Reality or not. But to assume the existence of this Reality is a (very convenient?) 'idea' which leads to illusion.

( To recap:) When we do not put a feeling in the (known) framework of references, the feeling comes to an end, withers away. ( As a result?) if we do not term our 'feelings' at all, both the painful feelings as well as the pleasurable feelings, the mind will be still and (eventually) the feelings will wither away.

Thus, the ( in-famous?) 'conflict of duality' (more specifically - the conflict between the 'opposites', or btw the observer & the observed ?) exists only when there is the naming of the feelings, and ( it follows +/- logically that?) if we do not term ( stick a name on ?) our feelings, there is freedom from the conflict.
What is then important for you (as optional homework?) is to find out, in your daily life, the truth of this, and then you will have a more peaceful, serene and intelligent life. When you come to that point you can find out the significance of life, what it really means to 'love', and then we can talk of other ( existential?) subjects like 'dreams', and so on.
This ( experiential?) understanding of Truth gives freedom and therefore happiness.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 26 Jul 2018.

6-th K Public Talk Madras 1947 (experientially friendly edited)

K: Those of us who are accustomed to listening ( in the 'self-protected' mode ? ) , really hardly ever understand anything (of a deeper nature ) because their understanding then is merely on the verbal level. But 'hearing' (with 'mind's ear'?) I think is different. Such hearing is obviously more 'subjective' - you are hearing ( primarily to) what is taking place in yourself rather than ( focussing your) listening to someone outside. So, it would be a waste of time if you merely listen to ( my ) words and do not 'hear' within yourself their (deeper psychological ) significance - it would be then just a gathering of informations from (someone outside ) outside rather than hearing your own process of thinking and feeling. And, as we are trying to find out what is true , it demands a certain letting down of ( our self-protective) verbal ( firewalls or ?) 'barriers', a certain ( degree of ) freedom from our everyday prejudices, because we must go beyond. So, if we can, at least temporarily, put aside this (self-protective listening mode) , then perhaps we will be able to go beyond the verbal level and bring an understanding into our daily life and action.
( Experiential clue:) If there is no integration between our thinking, feeling and action, we merely live in ( watertight mental & emotional ?) compartments – a rather destructive and distracting ( way of living?) and this is what is happening at the present time. We have developed the intellect so abnormally that we have lost ( almost ?) all our inner sensitivity.

I want to take this evening very briefly the problem of 'suffering'. The creative happiness is not ( achieved by?) the denial of sorrow, but by a (holistic) understanding of sorrow. Most of us think that through suffering you will awaken understanding and intelligence. But if you examine it a little more closely you will find that suffering -like pain and conflict- really dulls ( the inner perception of?) 'what is' and to regard suffering as a means to understanding or intelligence is really fallacious .

What do we mean by suffering? A sense of ( major existential?) disturbance, is it not? ( Clue:  : I am not for the moment dealing with the outward suffering, diseases and so on, but with the inward existential ?) suffering - like when you feel your existence has no ( deeper) meaning, and when the future becomes all important, or when you regard the past as more beautiful & happier than the ( boring ?) present. That implies a dissatisfaction with your present (state of being?), an utter sense of ( existential emptiness or ?) void that can never be filled. What is our natural and instinctive response  (when we realise this sad 'inner' condition) ? We try anything to get away from that constant ache, pain and suffering. Even the ( introspective ?) inquiry into the cause of suffering, is it not also (ultimately becoming) a (respectable intellectual) escape? If we would examine it with a little ( more intelligence, compassion & ) care, we would know very well what is the cause of suffering. It is obvious ( in the frustrated continuity of one's self-interest? ) , is it not? So, what generally happens ( if we avoid tackling the central cause ?) is that we become very clever in our escapes, but suffering continues, while pursuing various ( diversions & ) escapes is called (the modern way of ?) living. That is, you 'progress' through (upgrading & reshuffling ? ) the objects of escape, but ( a profound existential?) suffering, in some way or other, continues.

So, how is this (deep existential ?) suffering to be understood ? (For starters?) by not running away from it. And ( then ?) the more you are (getting) acquainted with it, the more you invite it & talk with it, the more it gives off its ( holistiv ) 'perfume' and significance.
(In a nutshell, this deep 'existential'?) suffering is really to be understood (through a compassionate ?) self-knowledge, which is (going hand in hand with?) right thinking. ( Clue : such 'right' thinking is not possible when you condemn suffering or become identified with it , but when you live with it, take it 'as it is') You do not deny ( the sense of inner?) beauty, but you accept it ('as is') . Similarly if we deny ( dealing intelligently with our existential ? ) suffering we also deny beauty, happiness. When you deny the one you deny the other. Only the 'right' (compassionate & non-personal?) thinking which comes through our awareness of every day thinking, feeling & action, can dissolve the (inner) causation that brings about pain and suffering.

Question: I heard your last Sunday talking about 'duality' and the pain of it, but as you did not explain how to overcome the 'opposite', will you please go further into it?

Krishnamurti: Let us go into it very delicately. Let us find out its enormous significance. We know the conflict of the opposites. We are caught in that long corridor (or...labyrinth ?) of pain, always overcoming one (poor inner quality ?) and trying to become the other (better one ?) . That is our our everyday struggle in life, a constant battle of becoming, of (redeeming ourselves by) transforming 'this' into 'that'. I needn't go into more details concerning the conflict and the pain of the opposites.

Now, what exists ( here & now) is only the actual, while the opposite is only the (product of our wishful thinking ?) regarding 'what is', is it not? It has no existence apart from `what is.' That is : I am arrogant and that is a fact and the negative response to that is humility and I accept (to pursue ?) humility as an opposite because I have found my arrogance ( uoproductive or ?) painful; (unless in a politically correct environment ) it is taboo. So, since it no longer pays to be arrogant, I would like to become humble, the ( politically correct ?) opposite. What actually happens is that (my faked ?) humility is an ideal which I would like to realize. It seems to me an utter waste of time to meditate or try in some other way to become the opposite.

To put it differently, the ( what one is inwardly in the ) present is the result of ( what one was in) the past and it must create its ( upgraded ?) 'future' which is still the net of time. I see the present as the passage of the past into the future. On the other hand, if I want to understand ( in real time ?) 'what is', I must give my whole ( undivided) attention to it and not be distracted by the ( alternative realities created by ?) opposites. The opposite is non-existent, it is merely the negative wish of 'what is'.

So, that is one point. The second is why do we name any ( spontaneous ?) feeling? When you term it, what happens? You ( impose a controlling) framework of references to a living feeling and thereby absorb the living feeling into ( thought's continuity ?) time, which only strengthens ( one's self-centred) memory, which is the I. Now what happens, if you do not name the feeling, what would happen to it? Does it not come to a (natural) end?
Try it ( for your meditation homework ?) and you will see what happens: the feeling soon(-er or later ?) withers away. Experiment with it and try it out for yourself.

So, any '( emotionally charged ) response to a challenge comes to an end when you do not name it and put it in (a mind controlling) frame of reference. We have just learned that a painful reaction can be got rid of that way: don't name it, it will ( ASAP ?) vanish. But, will you do the same thing with more pleasurable feelings? That is, if you have a pleasure and if you do not name it, it will also wither away, will it not? So, both the pleasurable and the painful reactions do wither away ( ASAP ?) when they are not absorbed into thought's ( controlling) framework of references. You will see if you experiment with it that it is a fact.

Now, is 'love' also an (emotionally charged personal) reaction not to be named and so left to wither? It will wither if it is an opposite of hate, because then it is merely a response to a challenge; but surely ( the Selfless Love ?) is not a response to a challenge. It is a state of being. It has its own eternity. But you cannot try to cultivate ( the selfless ?) love, surely. Love can be known surely only when the sense of (self-) becoming which creates the opposite ceases.

So, this ( meta-physical ?) problem of duality which all your life have struggled to transcend - but in which you are still caught - seems to me fallacious. In the understanding of how the opposite is created , duality ceases to exist. The 'opposite' exists only when you try to avoid what is, in order to become something which is not; but in understanding what is, which for instance is arrogance with all its implications, not only at a particular level but through all the layers of one's consciousness - in the ( experiential) understanding of this arrogance without naming the feeling, you will see it wither away. That process of ( temporal self-) becoming must entirely cease before love can be.

Question: Gandhiji says in a recent article: "Religion and nationalism are both equally dear to man and one cannot be bartered away in favour of the other". What do you say?

Krishnamurti: In this question is implied the acceptance of authority; some one tells and you accept. In acceptance there is blindness and total lack of ( independent) thinking. If you have lost the critical ability to inquire, you will never discover what ( the living dimension of ?) Truth is. And to find out what Truth is you must have an open heart and open mind and have ( the freedom ?) to think for yourself and venture out into the open, uncharted seas.
Now, it is said that "religion and nationalism are both dear to man and we cannot barter away one in favour of the other".
Now, let us find out the truth of this (analytically)

( a) What do you mean by 'religion'? Surely, ( the authentic spirit of ?) religion implies the search for God, for Truth, the search after ( the Ultimate ?) Reality and in this inquiry after Truth, the ( experiential) approach must be ( by negation )since Reality is the unknown. Therefore any (affirmative ?) approach to the Unknown will make it 'knowable' and therefore that is not the ( living ) Truth. Truth 'is' when the 'known' ceases to be. The Eternal ( Now ?) is not to be approached not through ( the knowledge of ?) time. The Eternal 'is' when ( the 'thinker' & its ?) 'thought' which is the result of ( man's long evolution in ) time, comes to an end.

And ( b) what is 'nationalism'? The ( collectively shared ?) feeling of belonging to a particular nation or country? When you call yourself a Hindu, does it not give you the feeling of being united with something you consider greater than yourself, which is also giving me a sense of ( peronal & collective temporal ) continuity.
In myself I am feeling empty, shallow, poor, I am nothing; but if I identify myself with something called India - which is really myself enlarged, I do invest in my 'nationalism' all my feelings, it takes even the place of religion, and that is what is happening now; Gods are disappearing and the States are taking their places.
Both are ( thought-projected ?) ideas and that you barter one for the other is of very little importance, because you are really, fundamentally seeking continuance through a concept, and whether it is India or God or Germany or something else does not matter as long as you, as a (self-centred) entity, can continue in some form.
I do not see much difference between nationalism and organized religion. Both have brought misery to man because through beliefs and through patriotism they separate man from man.

Surely, ( for homework ?) you must 'go beyond' these petty ( although ... larger than life ?) images created by man's mind or hand, to find Truth, must you not? You must cease to be 'nationalistic' however stimulating it may feel, and you must cease to belong to any particular religion in order to find Reality, must you not? As both nationalism and organized religion are inventions of the human mind, of time, to understand the Timeless, you must be ( inwardly) free of ( thought's continuity ) time. This is extremely difficult as the modern world is geared for a total ( self ?) destruction - which nationalism or organized religion render inevitable-
Therefore a man who desires to find Truth must leave these two behind, for ( the living spirit of ?) Truth is to be found not in any (larger than life ?) 'image' made by the hand or by the mind.
But ( on the plus side ?) when ( the self-centred process of ?) thought ceases (inwardly) ; the ending of thought is the ending of time. Truth can only be understood through self - knowledge, and not by following the assertion of any leader.

Question: You have talked of exploitation as being 'evil'. Do you not also exploit ( your wealthy sponsors?) ?

Krishnamurti: I am glad that you have still the capacity to criticize (the Speaker?) and I am quite willing to expose myself, and I will.

( In a nutshell:) Exploitation begins when the 'need' becomes 'greed', when ( the physiological ) needs become (translated as?) 'psychological' necessities. These (temporal) needs which are 'food, clothing and shelter' have very little ( spiritual?) significance in themselves and a ( creatively?) happy man is not bothered by these, because he has other riches, he has other (inner ressources & ) treasures. ( On the other hand?) the man who has no (inner access to such ?) treasures, makes the sensate values ( overwhelmingly?) predominant and this creates such ( economic & social?) havoc in the world. So, if I may be personal, as I do not use the ( bare?) essentials of ( a civilised?) life for my psychological aggrandizement I am really not 'exploiting' anyone. You may call me an exploiter, but in my heart I know I am not.
The problem of 'psychological' exploitation is much more difficult (to examine objectively as long as ? ) we ( are subliminally attached to?) things, beliefs or ideas. That is, inwardly ( our attachment to) 'things, relationship and ideas' fills our psychological emptiness; that is, being inwardly poor, insufficient, fearful & uncertain, we seek ( our long lasting temporal) security in things, or in relationship, or in ideas. (This redundant?) search for security is the beginning of real exploitation - it leads to ( family feuds and ?) the social chaos and degradation as exist in India and elsewhere at the present time. Things have become extraordinarily important to you, because they fill your psychological emptiness.
If you are ( getting subliminally identified with?) these 'things' and someone takes them away , where (or who?) are you ? And in relationship too, what happens? Being 'inwardly' empty you depend on your husband, on your wife, on your friends and therefore there is jealousy, fear, possessiveness and ( only optionally?) all the (psycho-analytical) bother of trying to overcome possessiveness. Similarly when you are inwardly empty, ideas and beliefs become extraordinarily important, the (spiritual?) leader, the messenger, the saviour become important.

So, ( the darker side of?) exploitation begins deeply only when you, the (self-centred) individual have that painful, psychological emptiness of which we are aware sometimes, but which is generally very carefully concealed. So, things, names and ideas become extraordinarily significant when through them 'you' are expanding (your 'psychological empire'?) . That ( self-)expansive process is the beginning of real exploitation.
You cease to exploit when you recognize the (inner non-)significance of property for what it gives you, which is very little. When you see the significance of a relationship in which you seek self-expansion through gratification, that relationship becomes very painful. ( Hint : our everyday relationship with people, things & ideas can -optionally?- be a process of self-revelation, a means of discovering your own way of thinking, of feeling.
So, the 'real' exploitation takes place when there is self-expansion whether it is in the name of God or in the name of anything else. Exploitation can be understood and really brought to an end only when you understand your own way of thinking, feeling and acting, that is, through self-knowledge you begin to perceive the utter emptiness of your (self-centred) existence, which is a (well hidden inner?) ) 'fact' - covered up over by ideation & by 'things'. When you realize that emptiness and do not try to escape from it through any means, then 'that which is', is ( qualitatively?) transformed.

Question: What is the difference between ( the traditionalistic ) 'surrendering' to the Will of God and what you are saying about the acceptance of 'what is'?

Krishnamurti: Surely there is a vast difference, is there not? If you know ( the ultimate truth of?) Reality, you cannot 'surrender' to it. The 'you' ceases to exist and It comes into (one's inner?) being only when the ( living in the?) 'known' ceases. The 'known' is a creation of the ( self-centred thinking ) mind which can only create ( an inner space filled with?) what it knows. So, when you 'surrender to the will of God' you are surrendering to your own (XXXL self-?) projection; it may be a very comforting feeling , but it is not the Real.
To understand 'what is' is much more difficult, it requires greater intelligence, greater awareness  & one must give the whole (undivided?) attention to it. So, it is extraordinarily difficult and 'arduous' to become aware of what is, because our everyday thinking has become a 'distraction'. We do not want to understand what is. We look at what is, through the (self-protective) 'spectacles' of prejudices, of condemnation or of identification, and it is very arduous to remove these 'spectacles' and to look at what is. Surely, ( seeing ?) 'what is', is seeing the Truth (about it?) and all else is an escape (a mental diversion?) . To understand 'what is', the inner conflict of duality must cease, because wanting to become ( in the near or far future ?) something other than 'what is', is the denial of the understanding (in the active present ?) of 'what is'. If I want to understand ( my subliminally cultivated ) arrogance, and I do not name it 'arrogance', it ( does eventually?) ceases, which means that in the problem itself is ( contained) the ( experiential) answer and not away from it. So, it is not a question of 'accepting' what is, but one of of realising the ( truth about the?) fact, ( then) it ceases to have any significance; but a mind that is trained to think in terms of (its) past or of (its) future, or trained to run away in multifarious directions, such a mind is incapable of understanding (the truth regarding?) 'what is'. But without understanding ( the truth regarding?) 'what is', life is a constant battle where in pain and suffering continue. The Real can only be understood by ( holistically?) understanding 'what is' – and the mind can only understand that within which it is caught. The understanding of what is, being aware of what is, reveals extraordinary depths is which is Reality, happiness and joy.

  Excerpts from K's Group Discussions Madras 1947 (reader friendly edited )

December 15th

What is (the actual process of your self-centred?) 'thinking'? You realise that this is an entirely a new question and your ( outward experience stored in) memory does not furnish any framework of reference with which you could ( properly ) answer this question. There is, therefore, a 'hesitancy' or ( a gap of) silence on the part of the ( conscious ?) mind. To the (holistic) challenge involved in this question there is no ready-made response from you because the question is absolutely new. There is therefore a ( silent) gap between the challenge and the response. What is the state of mind during this gap? In this state, the ( inwardly sincere ?) mind does not refer to any ( previously known) framework of reference and at the same time it is extremely alert though passive. Therefore, ( a quality of non-verbal ?)iIntelligence comes into being; this state of a 'new' mind facing a new challenge can be (only experientially) known by you, though it cannot be verbalised.

16th December, 1947

I wonder how far ( in your homework ?) you have been experimenting with what we have been discussing, namely, the problem of conflict and effort which brings about (the 'observer - observed') duality, and the problem of (naming ) terming a (spontaneous) feeling. I wonder whether it had any fundamental effect on your daily activities ? Do you translate into action anything that you hear (here) or do you just let it pass by?

Today, let us find out the (experiential) significance of not ' terming' a feeling our daily life relationship - whether with your family, your boss, or your office clerk
Let us suppose that you are really serious in experimenting with this in your relationship with your wife. What will this lead to? You are (suddenly) irritated with your wife when she says something (really mean?) which you do not like. You may retaliate (angrily ) but a few minutes later, (on a second thought ?) you may say to yourself, "Well, what about the K discussions we had in regard to 'not naming a feeling'? I will (from now on try?) not name the (angry) feeling in future." Then, if(f?) you experiment with this earnestly, you will find that the time-interval between the instinctive (angry ?) response and your (more) thoughtful responses gradually gets less and less, and that, in the end, you don't really need to respond instinctively, but you (can leisurely ?) watch without naming the (spontaneous) feelings that arises in you. You are now (getting ?) more calm and quiet (regarding) whatever your wife may say or do. At this stage you may (succeed to) turn (your mind?) away from the sensate (temporal) values, but (unfortunately) your wife may be (still ) caught in sensate values. You try to talk over matters with her but she refuses to listen to you and becomes firm in her stand for (materialistic) things. What do you do? You realise the need for your wife and yourself to understand each other and when you sincerely (try?) to understand her, you will have consideration and affection for her (as human being?) . In understanding her, you will understand her ( ages old ) desire for (gathering & possessing) things. ( And hopefully?) with mutual understanding there will be love; and the problem will then cease. So, if you do not term ( your instinctual ego-centric ) feelings, the implications are extraordinarily significant in relation to your wife or even in relation to society.

( In a nutshell : ) if you are not naming a quality or terming a (spontaneous ) feeling the feeling (eventually?) dies away . Similarly, if the quality of ( greed, aka) 'acquisitiveness' is not termed (as good or bad?) , the acquisitiveness withers away ; (Hint:) naming a feeling is giving it continuity. Therefore when you do not name the feeling, then ( one's inner?) life becomes very simple.
To name a feeling, whether it is pleasurable or painful, is to give it continuity, to 'give birth' to itself repeatedly.

Identifying oneself with the feeling of acquisitiveness, is one of the problems which is creating terrible havoc in the world. If you do not understand its whole significance, the ( karmic?) remnants of that acquisitiveness will still remain in the mind. This ( issue) is really difficult ( to transcend?) because, psychologically, you 'are' (100% identified with your?) property. The moment you let it go, you feel lost. To let go ( one's attachment to) name (& form?) , title, and property requires an extraordinary inward richness; it means freedom from outward things; you can let them go only when you have found something Real in yourself. You do not let them go for the simple reason that the (psychological memory of your?) property 'is' you, as the title 'is' you, the name 'is' you; this means the ( self-identified memory with the ) sensory things 'are' you. The moment you do not identify with your name, and do not name the (inner?) feeling of being nobody, (the anxiety related to ?) it comes to an end. Then the ( attachment to your) property will drop away and you will not care two pins.

When you have (a free ) inward (access to spiritual ?) riches, property does not matter; but... there can only be ( free access to those ) 'inward riches' when you do not name the feeling; through that Door you find the imperishable. ( Hint : The man who is talking about the imperishable (Now?) and is naming & (cleverly marketing ?) his feelings is a hypocrite).
It is only when you do not name your ( gut attachment to?) property that your acquisitiveness will cease to be. Then, you will know the difference between your real needs and acquisitiveness. You need food, clothing and shelter. But, when you seek ( to enhance your) 'psychological' satisfaction through (gathering) property, name & titles, they become potent factors in making you more and more ruthless in acquisitiveness. From this, you will see that only when you would understand the whole (inward & outward?) significance of not naming ( your possesive ) 'feelings' in relation to title, property and relationship with others, there will be (a possibility for?) a 'rich' transformation within yourself, whereby you will bring about a creative society.

17th December

Let us consider the 'truth' or the (holistic) significance of 'falling in love' in relation to the understanding of what thinking is in the light of our previous action.
When you ( really?) 'fall in love' it is a new experience to you. For starters you realise how all 'frameworks of references' imposed by society (you are old, you are poor, etc) are all hindrances; when you understand them as such, all those hindrances fall away (ASAP?) . When they fall away, ( one's natural) intelligence has begun to operate and you find that while you are (really) in love, there is 'self-forgetfulness', a complete 'giving over' of yourself to another; but also a continuity of the self which seeks sensuous pleasure in the past or in the future. This means that ( the newly found love & ) self-forgetfulness is in contradiction (in a conflict of interests?) with 'clinging to self'.
This ( subliminal conflict ?) is really an indication of lack of ( an integrated?) Intelligence.
When you think (deeply & widely ) over this, you realise that society is hindering you at every stage in your search for Truth; you are mis-informed and forced to adopt ( ' standardised & sanitised' cultural ?) frameworks ever since your childhood, and none can help you to find Truth. You then realise that you are 'alone' - and you have to be alone (or... 'all-one' ?) if you seek Truth. In the history of the world every ( authentic ?) seeker after Truth has found himself alone as (very briefly ?) explained above. This has been mistaken as a need to 'run away' from the ( culturally standardised?) world in order to seek God, Truth.

18th December

On the last occasion, we found that the conflict of the opposites is really fallacious, because the opposite is the non-existent, which has been created from 'what is'; and that the becoming into something other than 'what is' is the opposite; we also discussed the whole significance of terming a feeling, the reaction to a challenge, and that from that naming there are a series of reactions and in these reactions we get lost. So, the becoming is the conflict. Then the naming of the feeling is perhaps wrong because the feeling is new but it is put in the framework of references, thereby interpreting the new feeling through the framework of old references and therefore misinterpreting the feeling. If I had not termed it perhaps I would have a different reaction to the feeling, and the feeling may then subside. A feeling which is termed, whether unpleasant or pleasant, can come strong textto an end if you do not name it, then you will see that it withers away. But, is (the selfess ?) love a feeling which, when not named, will come to an end? We have discussed further about terming a feeling and what effect it has in our daily life. We also discussed about property and what happens if we do not name it.

19th December

In your search to understand the inner significance of 'falling in love', you came to the point when you knew that you were in love and that your mind was wandering backwards and forwards - to the past and to the future - seeking pleasure in thinking of the past actions when you met the object of your love, or of the future when you would next meet her. At this stage, most of you want to get a result or condemn the sensuous pleasure which you get out of the memory of your company with your object of love. You have to understand the (inner) truth of this.

All ( our material) existence is sensory. Pleasure and pain are also sensory. If you exclude any pleasure you must exclude all. If you exclude all, you will cease to live. Therefore, you realise that in life there are three important inescapable principles, Love, Pleasure and Pain of which pleasure and pain are sensory.

We have to understand the significance of pleasure and pain. We generally deny pain and pursue pleasure. Our daily life is one continual pursuing and denying. The 'I' is the result of this pursuing and denying, and it is therefore a (psychological entity thriving in ?) contradiction. That which is in contradiction, cannot understand Truth. You, therefore, realise that you who are in contradiction, cannot understand the truth of these three principles. When you realise this, you are against a blank wall. At this stage, what happens to your seeking pleasure in a memory of your object of love back to the past or forward to the future?

20th December

Today we should discuss together the practical steps to be taken by us in our daily life to give expression to the ideas we have hitherto considered, especially in relation to property.
Property implies ( self-) continuity, acquisitiveness, possessiveness, domination, suppression, economic relation between man and man, ill-will, nationalism, war and peace and all the rest of it.

Let us take, for instance, 'nationalism'. How can you be 'practical' about nationalism? If you understand it and its results in daily life, it drops away from you. You do not become international; you cease to be national and therefore you are an (integrated ) human being. How can you have a practical step to cease to be national?
Either we understand ( the truth about ?) nationalism and its implications immediately and it drops away; or we do not understand and we think that, by doing certain actions, we will understand later. We know that nationalism causes separatism, exclusiveness, friction, ill-will and enmity. It acts as a barrier between people and prevents sane living. It is the process of exclusiveness which ultimately leads to war.

How can you be more 'practical' if you do not see the significance of nationalism in all its different layers so that it may drop away of its own accord? If you have the intelligence to see that it is a cobra, you do not have to take practical steps to fight it. You just leave it alone. You can see that nationalism is a poison which has degenerating effects in human relationship. Therefore nationalism drops away. You may have a little (emotional) reaction when you hear that India beat Australia in cricket, but it does not become a (psychological' problem.

So, your difficulty lies in seeing the thing clearly ( non-personally & ) without any prejudice. The prejudice has been created by outside agencies as well as yourself. With regard to every subject, you are misinformed, you are badly educated and badly conditioned; and you try to interpret life through this misinformation. When you realize that your information is wrong you immediately put it aside.

Inwardly, you like to identify yourself with your country because it gives you a sense of warm feeling that you are achieving something. So there are more soldiers, more armies, more dreadfulness. That is what we are achieving and that is not progress. Progress does not obviously lie through bloodshed.
There are only six countries, I believe, that can feed themselves; every other country is dependent on somebody else. Therefore, why not destroy all the frontiers and come together as human beings to meet our necessities of food, clothing and shelter? You want to know who is to do this. You and I have to do this. Who else is going to do it? Certainly not the capitalists, certainly not the political party - either the Left or the right - because they are committed. So, who is to do it except those people who see the whole thing clearly?
( In a nutshell:) Nationalism is a modern invention, and it is really non-conducive to peace; it acts as a barrier between people. There is no practical step regarding it; either you see the (truth regarding it ?) or you do not. ( Unfortunately ?) your (cultural) prejudices stand in the way of your finding it out.

You must see the whole significance of the idea of ( personal or collective ?) acquisitiveness which is expressed through property, through relationship and through ideation. What are the effects of acquisitiveness? Outwardly it's the nationalism and (within the same nation ?) is the competition between you and me; while inwardly acquisition gives you a sense of life, a sense of struggle, a sense of (the $$$ value of your) existence. If you do not acquire what are you? You are a 'nobody' if you have no title, no property, or no name; and because inwardly you are nothing, you wish to acquire, which implies power, prestige, title and all the rest of it.

Then, mentally, you want to acquire knowledge. You are anchored to acquisition and you become a mental addict who always reads. A mind that is merely acquiring, ceases to function as an instrument of thought, it inevitably becomes dull without any pliability, it is slavish, it is uncreative, it is repetitive because it is merely acquiring what it calls 'knowledge'. So, acquisition is really a factor that dulls the mind and cripples (any independent) thinking. To think, you must be free and not be anchored to acquisition, to property or to belief.

When you understand the (inner) significance of acquisitiveness, it is very simple to deal with property. What is the 'practicability' wanted here? The world is confused; and the more it is confused, the more the individual wants security, i.e. you want to be secure. This leads to conflict in you as well as outside you. This conflict will cease only when you understand and are aware of the significance of acquiring property; then there will not arise the question of how you will escape from the conflict.

There are various forms of relationship - such as relationship with things and the relationship to other human beings. The relationship to human beings is more difficult and more subtle; and the difficulty arises when there is no love. Love cannot be learned through following some ( easy) steps. If there is love, you will understand relationship; love will then show the way out of this horrible mess of husband and wife and relationship between man and man. Why don't we (have) love? What is preventing us from loving (each other ?) ? If you can find out the cause, perhaps you may know how to love. Love is (the outward expression of ?) an extraordinary sense of Intelligence, a heightened form of intelligence. If you are intelligent then perhaps there will be love.

Why is it that the relationship between man and man has become so difficult? It may be because they are not dealing with it intelligently and they do not know what intelligence is. Perhaps you can find out what intelligence is 'negatively' (by rejecting what it is not)
When we examine the relationship between one another now, we find there is conflict. The average human existence is a conflict. To deal with this conflict intelligently, I must examine the relationship as it is and not as I would like it to be.
I notice ( a source of inner) conflict in my relationship with my wife. Am I related at all ? I may have taken it for granted that I am related to my wife; perhaps I am not. Can two self-isolated entities live harmoniously together? The problem is not that I do not love her or she does not love me, but that we are not related for the very simple reason that she is exclusive in herself and I am exclusive in myself. That is our daily activity - I with my interests and my purposes and she with hers. We say we are related, but we two are working exclusively in ourselves. Therefore the next question is: why am I doing it?

Why does each one of us, in our relationship with one another, try to isolate oneself? Is this process natural? If it is natural or inevitable, then there is nothing more to be said about it, and there will be constant conflict between you and me; there will be no peace between you and society, between you and myself. If it is inevitable, there can never be love, not a moment of complete quietness between us.

However, we know of moments when there is (a sense of unity with all ?) creation, though such moments are rare. Creation takes place not in conflict but only when the conflict ceases, when there is silence, when there is a sense of fullness. So, we find that the conflict is not inevitable. We have now to understand why we isolate ourselves in relationship. On examining further, we find that one of the reasons for our self-isolation is our "functional" (vision of ) existence. Functions have become very important in our life for the very simple reason that our life is based on sensate values. We have divided life into higher and lower (social postions and) functions , like the minister and scavenger, etc.

Why are we isolating psychologically? Because we have not understood ( the divisive nature of) self-protection. After all, any enclosure, psychological or physical, is self-protection, is isolation. I put a wall around myself, psychologically, for the obvious reason to protect myself. The more I try to protect myself, the greater the isolation, the greater is the conflict. Protecting myself by putting a wall psychologically around me creates an (invisible psychological ?) barrier. You have a (psychological fire-)wall around you and I have a similar wall around me and we keep working on the ( upgrading or ?) strengthening our respective ( psychological fire-) walls. And when you and I thus ( self-protected ) come in contact, what will be our relationship? The more I am enclosed in myself the more violent I become, the more aggressive I am; & similarly you.

( For homework:) To have a right (authentic) relationship, this barrier of psychological enclosure around each one of us has to be 'pulled down' (by deactivating the self-protective) firewall . And quite obviously, I must first start with myself and set about to 'pull down' (deactivate) this (subliminal self-) enclosure which I am putting up around me for ( my temporal) self-protection

7th K Public Talk Madras 1947

A holistically friendly approach to 'right thinking'

There are so many (life) problems, especially at this time when there is so much confusion, when each individual, each group of people or nation is seeking ( to optimise) its own security at the expense of others, and it seems to me very important to find out what is the right (approach to insightful?) thinking because the various problems which confront us constantly, demand right thinking.

So, what is ( our common way of ) thinking? As we know it, it is a response of memory, is it not? You have (accumulated) certain memories and from this residue you respond. So, this thinking, which is the response of our memory, is always ( personally or culturally?) conditioned - that is, you have an experience and you translate that experience according to the previous memories. Surely such thinking only strengthens ( the already existing ) conditioning, which only produces more conflict, more pain and more sorrow.
That is, our memory is constantly responding ( according to?) to the residue of (our past ) experience and this (mental process of ) responding to life's challenges ( according ) to ( the available knowledge stored in our ) memory we call 'thinking'.
But ( the real life ?) challenges are always new, never (a repetition of ) the old and our thinking is always old because it is the response of the past.
So, our (common sense ?) thinking, which is the ( cultivated?) response to a challenge which is ever new, is always conditioned and therefore produces further conflict, further suffering and further pain. This is an (ongoing) 'fact' in our daily existence. When we say we are 'thinking' (about something or other) , that is what we mean. You see a ( movie?) picture, you criticize it according to the cultual background you have. You listen to music and you interpret it according to the traditions and according to your (cultural) frame of reference .

Now, I ask myself and I hope you are doing it too, is that thinking? These (highly cultivated mechanical) responses ( according ) to ( whatever we've got stored in?) our memory, is that ( the real?) thinking? ( If not, then) What 'is' thinking?
Now, as it is a new ( little explored philosophical?) problem, when you are asked ( point blank this) question 'what is thinking' what do you do? It is a new ( mind challenging?) problem presented to you - how do you respond to it? You have never (really) thought about it. So, what happens? There is naturally a hesitancy, a sense of quietness and a stillness of (inward) observation. If the question is (perceived as vital & interesting) you are very alert and your mind is extremely 'concentrated' - very alert and yet passive. Now, that 'alert yet passive' state (of mind) is surely 'thinking (friendly') because in it there are no ( interferences of) the old conditioned thinking. Your mind is very quiet and because it is confronted with a new problem, it is not asleep, but very alert and aware, yet passive; it is not active ( intellectually) because it does not know the answer, it is not even seeking an answer because it does not know. So this inner state of passive awareness is the highest form of (insightful) thinking because there is no conditioned response, it is a state of 'negation'. Would it not be possible to meet every life problem in this way, anew, because then the problem gives (reveals?) its true significance and therefore the problem ceases.

You can experiment with this for (homework) very simply and you will see how remarkably it works. For instance, you are in front of a ( bizarre?) modern painting. Your instinctive response is that you don't understand it and you push it aside, or else you ask who painted it, and if it is some big name you say it is very good. You respond according to your cultural background or your conditioning. But suppose you put aside, if you can, the training, the classical training you have had and remain very quiet, very passive but alert in front of the picture. Does not the picture then tell you, give you its significance? So, this passive awareness is surely the highest form of (insightful?) thinking because you are so receptive, so alert that the picture conveys its meaning to you.
So, ( To recap:) when I ask you 'what is thinking', you arefirst puzzled, you are bewildered, but if (and when?) you can go beyond that bewilderment, that you (realise the simple truth that ) you do not know. That ( inner state of?) un-knowingness is a very alert passive state of the mind in which there is deep silence waiting for the (question to reveal its) right significance.
What we generally call 'thinking' is (verbal) a response of (our available?) memory, and when you meet a new problem with the old response of memory the problem is not understood (holistically?) and therefore there's still more confusion. But, if you are able to meet each problem, with this passive awareness, which is ( non-personal & ) 'choiceless', then the problem yields its significance and therefore the problem is ( experientially) transcended.

Question: I dream a great deal. Have my dreams any ( deeper ) significance?

Krishnamurti: This is really an extremely important and very difficult problem because many things are implied.

(a) First of all, are we (inwardly) awake or are we asleep most of the time? When are you fully awake? When there is a tremendous crisis, when when there is a ( real life) problem. And, when there is such a crisis what do you do? You try to solve the crisis according to your personal framework of references, or according to religious literature and that again puts you to sleep. So when there is a challenge of life, if it is pleasurable you pursue it, which is also a way of putting oneself to sleep, because the more (hedonistic?) pleasures you may have, the more ( inwardly insensitive or?) 'dull' you become. When the challenge of life is painful what happens? You avoid it, which again dulls the mind; you avoid it through various channels. So, ( as a rule of thumb?) when there is a challenge which demands earnest attention and/or a clear perception, either we refuse (to face?) it or we ( coyly?) identify ourselves with it, to the extent that we put ourselves to sleep (or in a 'stand-by' mode) . It is only at very, very rare moments that we are (inwardly fully) awake. In those moments that there is no (need for compensatory ) dreams . In those moments you are just (100%) 'awake' and therefore the 'dreamer' (or the 'thinker') is not dreaming.

( b) Now, what is the ( inner) significance of dreams? Surely, it is that our ( self-) conscious mind during the day, is actively (pretending to be?) busy with superficial things such as ( tweeting?) , reading, avoiding, enjoying; it is constantly active. When the mind goes to sleep, the superficial ( time-bound) mind is fairly quiet. But ( the human ) consciousness is not just ( limited to ) these superficial layers ; it has many, many layers of hidden motives, pursuits, anxieties, fears, frustrations and so on. And these deeper layers of ( our collective?) consciousness do project themselves (upwards) in ( the fringes of) the conscious mind and when it wakes up it says: 'I have had a ( strange?) dream.' In others words, the conscious mind is incapable of receiving intimations and hints (from the 'unconscious' layers ) during the day. Each of the many layers has its own consciousness and when the superficial mind becomes quiet the layers project themselves on the superficial mind and then you dream.

( c) There are of course dreams which have real significance and it (may?) happen that as you 'dream' an interpretation is taking place (in real time) . When the 'interpreter' (one's intimate desire to understand) is fully alert yet passive, then the dream reveals its significance. That is the only way of dealing ( holistically) with dreams - if the 'dreamer' is passively alert, quiet, then the dream begins to yield its significance. So, how the dreamer, the interpreter, regards the dream is of the highest importance.

(d) Then there is the problem of how to 'transcend', how to understand fully, deeply, all the intimations of the various layers of consciousness so that you don't have to wait to have a dream and then translate it and all the rest of it. Is it possible to understand the whole content of ( one's time-bound) consciousness, to free it (from the wheel of Time?) so that it need not project itself upon the superficial mind when asleep? Is it possible to empty the whole of consciousness so that the conscious mind understands fully? The superficial then is (integrated with) the profound layers of consciousness.

So,(e) my (homework meditation ?) question is: is it possible for the conscious mind to be so alert, so passively (non-personally?) aware during the day that all the (deeper layers' ) intimations are translated ( ASAP) as they arise? In other words, can one be so 'choicelessly & passively' aware that all the layers of consciousness are ( communicating) their intimations (in real) time, so that all of our consciousness is one ( integrated) whole, without layers? This is possible only when the conscious mind has stopped battling with (its personal) problems, that is, when the conscious mind is ( naturally) still. If you will experiment (it?) you will see how extraordinarily interesting this is. Then this (inner) quietness is not disturbed by the superficial activities and the more 'passively observant', 'negatively watchful', and 'choicelessly alert', one is, the (hidden) contents of the many layers of (the collective?) unconscious, comes to the surface.( Hint:) You don't even have to 'interpret' them because the moment they arise they are being (holistically) understood (& integrated) .

and (f) If you (further) experiment ( or meditate along this line?) you will feel an extraordinary freedom because your whole being, your consciousness, which now is (compartmentalised or ) broken up, becomes integrated. There is no longer any struggle in your consciousness, it is therefore ( all intelligence & ?) love, it is completely whole (& as good as new?) . Surely, that is ( the essence of inner) freedom as a total renewal has taken place - which is constantly going on because there is always an ending.

The ( wise?) farmer tills the field in the spring time. Then he sows, then he harvests and allows the field to 'lie fallow' during the winter months. That 'fallowness' of the soil is ( allowing a) regeneration because the fertile soil is exposed to the sun, the snow, the storm. It renews itself. So, similarly, after (one's wise?) conscious mind has tilled, sown & harvested, it must ( take a break & ?) lie fallow. Such (inner) 'fallowness' is (bringing) its own creativeness. It (the totality of consciousness?) renews itself and this can be done every day, not only at the end of the season. When you have a ( serious psychological ) problem, if you don't 'end' it (lay it down?) , you will (naturally) carry it over to the next day. But if you end it then, that is, if ( metaphorically speaking?) you 'live the four seasons' in one day, then when you wake up you find there has been an inner renewal, a freshness, a newness which you have never felt before. ( Hint:) It is not the renewal of desire, but ( a total inner) renewal to face things anew.

(In a nutshell :) dreams have an extraordinary significance. But their (holistic ?) significance is not understood if there is the ( all controlling attitude of the virtual ?) 'interpreter' who is always translating the dream according to his (self-centred) conditioning. So, is it possible to remove the 'interpreter' ( mentality ?) ? It is possible only when the conscious mind is ( remaining ) passively aware. Then, in that new awareness, in that passive, choiceless state, the whole content of the many layers of consciousness is understood (holistically) , because that consciousness is no longer broken up but is whole and integrated; it is (time-) free; and it can renew itself constantly and face anew everything that confronts it.

Question: We see the ( psychological) significance of what you say, but there are many ( more ?) important ( material) problems which demand our immediate attention & action .

Krishnamurti: We all know that there are immediate problems which need immediate solutions and answers. That is obvious, especially in a society which is chaotic & confused, as a result of modern industrialization and so on. Now what is it that we are saying here that is so impracticable, that cannot deal with the immediate problems? That is the implication in this question, that one does not know how to deal (or prioritise?) the problems which demand immediate attention.
Now, either we deal with these (ages old ?) human problems with the (activistic?) mentality of the reformer, or you are considering them (holistically ?) from the point of view of a man who is seeking the whole meaning of man's existence? These two points of view are diametrically opposed : the point of view of the reformer who is doing patchwork, or you try to understand the true meaning of ( the ongoing) conflict, pain and suffering in man? If your approach is comprehensive, integrated, whole, then you will have an answer which is real.

Our immediate (problems ) can only be understood (from the holistic point of view?) , if we understand the timeless. The man who is concerned with the immediate can never understand the profound, for man is not merely the immediate. If he is seeking an answer to his problems in terms of time - the the problem must be settled the day after tomorrow - then such a man is not concerned with the deeper psychological issues and problems of man; he will say: all we want is to feed the millions. But taking ( the consciousness of) man as a whole is what very few people want to do, because they are all concerned with the immediate: ( starting with their own?) immediate desires, immediate fulfillments, immediate passions. So, most of us are really concerned with the immediate, they want easy settlements. But those people are not going to be the Saviours of Mankind. The man who will save (the total consciousness of?) humanity is he who profoundly understands himself in relation to his society and who by transforming himself brings about a new understanding which helps to clarify the significance of society and its struggles.

Question: Are we not shaped by circumstances? Are we not really the creatures of our senses?

Krishnamurti: Again this is an enormous ( metaphysical ?) problem because the implications are enormous in a question of this kind.
(a) One implication is that matter is (all there is?) and therefore the control of our material circumstances is all important. The other conception is that idea ( the 'mind'?) can shape matter - that is God, or (a Higher Intelligence) controls and shapes matter and therefore there is absolute value, absolute virtue, and it is the ( Ultimate) Reality. The materialist, the socialist & the extreme leftist say that man is merely the product of his environment and therefore the ( social & economic ) environment controls and shapes him according to the system (in place). These ( materialistic) theories force him, put him into a 'straight jacket' of thought so that he would function effectively as a citizen in a mechanized ( 'brave new world'?) society and so the individual is not at all important because he is merely ( a living matter) to be shaped.
( On the right end of the ideological spectrum?) the individual is ( considered all) important (but...?) only so long as there is no crisis. When there is a war, the individual is no longer important. To the 'leftist', the individual (consciousness?) is not important therefore it must be controlled, shaped, while the 'rightist' believes that God has created him. So, both are approaching the problem with a conditioned mind, conditioned by Marx or by the Bible, Bhagavad Gita, or what you will.

Now, if I want to find out where the truth is, how do I start? It is a fact that I am partly, ( yet ?) not wholly, a result of my ( physical & cultural) environment; but in order to find out what is ( eternally?) 'true' you must find out how far your thinking & your feeling is merely sensory, and not just assume that God is (the) absolute (value of life?) , and then try to find the absolute. Then you will not find the ( Ultimate) Truth, because you have arbitrarily decided in advance that ( in you) there is God or... there is not.
Whereas if you want to find the Truth you must obviously begin with ( integrating the activity of?) the senses because that is all you know. You begin experimenting and then you will find for yourself whether you are merely the result of the environmental influences or if you are the 'Idea' moving upon matter. You will find that it is neither, because said if you approach a ( human) problem from the point of view of its 'opposite', then the opposite contains its own opposite.

So, in order to understand ( the whole truth regarding ) this ( 'mind over matter'?) problem, the mere acceptance of the ( ideologies of the ) 'left' or of the 'right' is a denial of ( the living essence of) Truth. (Experiential Hint:) Food, clothing and shelter are sensate values; and your thinking is obviously sensate and so are your feelings. But from there, if you can ( meditate and ?) go deeper into the 'psychological' process you will find there comes a Silence, an absolute (inner) Tranquillity which is not of a sensory nature & not self-induced. In that ( bottomless inward space of?) Silence you will (hopefully ?) find Truth when the ( totality of the?) mind is really still, when (your) whole consciousness is still and not urged by desires. Then in that Real ( Inner Peace &) Tranquillity you will find the ( Ultimate ?) Truth - but when you accept either the left or the right surely you cannot find the ( living) Truth of anything. Acceptance ( of other people's truths ?) is the very denial of Truth.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 30 Jul 2018.

Selected excerpts from K's small discussion group (experientially friendly edited )

21st December, 1947

[ A friend suggested that we should discuss the subject of fear. ]
K: Fear exists only in relationship to something either external or inside oneself. You are always afraid 'of something'. Most psychological fears are the result of (i) having done doing something which you would not like others to know or (ii) your being uncertain (about your present or future condition) .
(Ina nutshell:) these fears will cease only when you face ( the truth regarding ?) 'what is'. And why do you not like to face 'what is' (going on within yourself?) ? It is because you would like to become something else which is your ideal, which is naturally intensifying both the conflict (btw the 'observer' & the 'observed'?) and the fear. (Hint:) your (self-projected) 'ideal' does not (really) exist ; therefore when you understand this and when you don't pursue this 'becoming', then (the subliminal ?) fear ( or unwillingness?) to face 'what is' vanishes.
Throwing overboard your ideals and methods to achieve your ( psychological?) ideals gives you release from a really great burden.

23rd December, 1947

K Our (everyday) relationship, as it exists now, is one ( endless ) series of (personal) conflicts, a constant battle between yourself and society, a constant friction, struggle and contradiction between two people.
We are not discussing what should be the 'ideal' form of relationship, because ( following ) it really prevents you from understanding 'what is'.
Though you live together and have children, is there any ( authentic) "relationship" between you and your wife? If you examine yourself, you will see that your whole ( relational) pursuit is a (self-) isolating process. Each one is isolating himself or herself, in ( identifying with one's ) possessions, names, or money; each one builds a (self-protective 'fire-) wall' around oneself and we look over these ( invisible mental) walls only occasionally when it is suitable and convenient; but, most of the time, we 'lurk' from behind the walls. Moreover, in the everyday life, we are isolating ourselves by our activities; we are separating ourselves through ( following the duties of our social) function - the bank clerk and the manager, the labourer and the executive, the priest and the bishop, the man in the street and the rich man, the ignorant and the learned, and so on. We are (subliminally ???) erecting ( updating & upgrading our self-) enclosing (fire-) walls, and ( inner & outer) conflicts are inevitable. The more (efficiently) one is enclosing (oneself) , the more the inner struggle and the ( outward) violence. Is this ( instinctive tendency for self-) isolation a ( perfectly?) 'natural' process like the fall of an apple from the tree, or is it the (collateral) result of our ( competitive & materialistic ?) society?

You are now ( becoming responsibly?) aware that you are building this( self-protective fire-?) wall and (although it is ) being caught in the process of building the wall, your ( newly awakened?) Intelligence says that you should be ( ASAP?) rid of this wall. To get rid of this ( self-protective mental fire-) wall, you must first find out :
(a) Why you are building the wall ? If you understand the truth of ( why you are doing) this, you do not have to 'struggle not to build' and you will never build the wall again.
( b) Is this isolation a form of self-protection? Is self-protection natural? Obviously it is. If you do not protect yourself in regard to food, clothing and shelter, there may be no existence at all. Physically and biologically, there must be self-protection against rain, against sunshine, etc.
And (c) when this ( sublimated form of ? ) self-protection becomes a psychological necessity, then it becomes exploitation and all the rest of it.

( To recap:) First of all, you are ( becoming) aware that you are building walls, psychologically, around yourself. You do not protect yourself psychologically to be safe outwardly - name, property, bank account, etc.- but in order to be safe inwardly, in order to give you an assurance of self-protection inside. Some protection of you outwardly, in the form of 'food, clothing and shelter', is necessary; but because you are inwardly incapable of protecting yourself and therefore you feel inwardly uncertain, you ( begin to ) depend on outward things - ideas, objects & other values made by the hand or made by the mind. (Hint:) you can only protect yourself in relation to an outside object. You have no inward actions or perceptions which are apart from outward things and there is no inward protection by itself.

What is the nature of the 'enclosing' (fire- ?) 'wall' around you, which gives you psychological protection in relation to your neighbour, your wife and your society? The 'wall' you build around yourself psychologically consists of the values you give to things made either by the hand or by the mind, i.e. of your ideation. These values are merely the outcome of the pleasure or the pain felt by you through your senses, i.e. the outcome of sensory values. They have no ( real) substance behind them except the significance or value you give them. You can use 'property' as a means of psychological protection. Property in itself is just a piece of land which can give you food; you give that property a significance which it has not, and with that 'significance' you protect yourself.
So, you have discovered that, through sensory perceptions, you are protecting something which is not sensory, something which ( in fact) you do not know. What is that 'something' which you are trying to protect ? Is there anything behind the wall?
To enquire if there is anything ( Real) ? behind the wall, our ( 'Daily Double' Question is?) what is the instrument with which you are enquiring? The instrument is the outcome of the things made by the hand or by the mind, which is ( an active component of?) the wall.

Therefore, to find out what is behind the wall, you have to 'climb over the wall' or ( still more simply?) 'go through' the wall, or (in 'meditation friendly' terms?) the 'wall' must cease. You do not know what is (or what is not?) behind the wall, but the wall which you know, which is your ( mental) 'valuation'. So, perhaps you are protecting the 'wall' itself ; you are keeping this (psychological fire -) wall, as a means of protecting yourself, but on enquiring what you are protecting, you realise that you do not know. You see the 'wall' only and not the 'something' behind it. Perhaps if you would know what is inside the enclosure, it may not be necessary to protect at all; or perhaps there is nothing to protect.
Therefore, all that remains is the ( self-energised 'fire-) wall', not the idea to protect something, as you do not know ( what is) that 'something' you are trying to protect. All that you are now left with is the (very reactive fire-) wall and not 'protection'. ( Hint:) This (psychological) wall is made of the valuation (given) by the 'valuer'. As the (self-centred) mind is the creator of the values, the values 'are' (being impersonated by?) the mind.
What is ( creating the ?) 'me'? The ( self-consciousness of the ?) 'me' is the product of desire in relation to the object of desire (as in 'me-wants-food'  ?) . A challenge and the ( self-centred) response to that challenge constitute a (personal) experience. When the response is conditioned (by self-intrest?) , the experience leaves a ( subliminal ) residue which is ( stored in 'my' psychological) memory. ( The self-conscious?) 'me' is ( a dynamic bunch of active?) 'memories', the accumulated residue of ( one's personal & collective ) experiences, the sum total of the qualities. So, the 'me' which the ( fire-) wall is protecting, 'is' the wall ( i.e. the 'qualifier' who is evaluating the protective value of things 'is' the virtual projection of the wall ?) .

Therefore (in a nutshell ?) this (psychological 'fire-) wall' is the 'me', the 'thinker', the 'evaluator' . The ( self-consciousness of the?) 'me' - the (self-identified) accumulated residue of one's experience- is both pleasurable and painful. The 'thinker' ( the 'thought controlling' mental entity?) wants to avoid the painful part ; and hoping to be permanently (happy ?) and unchanged , he separates himself from the ( hectic flow of personal & collective ) thoughts, thus playing a ( self-identifying ?) trick on himself, because the separation is not real but only fictitious. When attacked (ideologically?) , the thinker tries to seek identification with "Higher Self", or he identifies himself with Atman (the individual Soul ) , with Paramatman (the ' Over Soul' ?) .

24th December, 1947

K : Whenever you meet with a challenge there is a response. The challenge and the response constitute a ( personal?) 'experience'. Generally such experience leaves a residue - which is what you have learned from that experience; this is (stored in your ?) memory. When there is a similar challenge again, the response is brought by the already existing residue. The residue itself is old and it translates the new challenge according to itself and the result is added to the residual (experience) . Thus, ( in time the psychological component of ?) this residue gets thicker and thicker.
This (experiential ) residue is ( becoming ) a problem only when it is pleasurable or painful. If pleasurable, you leave it as it is; if painful, you ( try to?) do something about it.
( For homework meditation:) Why do you ( have to) fight ( with this personal residue of ?) pain or suffering? Is not 'suffering' a symptom of your avoiding to face 'what is'?

  25th December, 1947

K: Are you aware that you are creating a wall of (psychological attachment) around yourself ? The man of possession, or the man of greed, creates a (impenetrable mental) barrier between himself and the man who has no (such) titles. The ( subliminal?) building of these 'psychological walls' is one of the fundamental disintegrating factors in society. You have the desire to be separate, to be superior to others, to be ( 'someone' or?) 'something' ; that is why you are ( getting) attached to your titles, your property, your name, etc. If all these are taken away from you, you are ( left with?) absolutely nothing. Similarly, your nationalistic prejudice is another such ( self-protective) wall. As you ( may feel?) inwardly poor (or just insufficient ?) , shallow and empty, you seek gratification through things by giving them (a larger than life?) value and you then cling to them with great tenacity; you therefore build the (psychological 'fire-) wall' around yourself.

( The thought sustained?) 'desire' is the builder of the wall. And how does this (self-identified activity of ?) desire come into being? Perception, sensory contact, ( the resulting ) sensation and then comes the ( thought process projecting the ?) desire - "How lovely it is! I would like to have it". Desire or craving is the outcome of sensate values ( creating an) identification with the object of the senses. Desire with regard to ideas also follows the same process. The acceptance of an idea or the rejection of an idea is based merely on ( mental) gratification which is (also) sensate. So, the sensory values dominate and the ( highest ) sensory value is the (sense of the ) 'me' (who is) dominating the whole .
So, (in a nutshell:) desire is the outcome of the sensate values; 'me' ( or my self-consciousness?) is the result of desire; (and subsequently this ) 'me' creates, formulates, and fabricates (new) values, therefore whatever the 'thinker', the 'actor' does, is always sensory and, therefore, transitory.

You can now understand how, because your ( subliminal assigning a 'psychological') values to property, to relationship and to ideation – which are all sensory - there is ( a brewing ) conflict within yourself and chaos in the society around you which is an expression of your ( and everybody's ?) inner conflict. You see that your neighbour is like you in many ways and both of you have only sensate values. So, there is no ( authentic) relationship between you and your neighbour; and therefore there is no relationship between you and society.
So, now you know (exactly?) how ( your deep existential?) conflict arises by your building your wall of ( identification with?) sensate values. You also know that the builder of the wall is the 'I' which is itself the outcome of ( a more intimate) desire. As long as the 'I' is ( globally) satisfied with this (self-protective fire-) wall, there is nothing (more to be said) as the ( temporal) 'I' feels absolutely safe inside the wall. Most of you are in this state and you crave to remain undisturbed. However ( the collateral frustrations to ) our cravings, your desires, inevitably cause you ( an accumulation of personal) suffering. When you suffer there is a breach in the wall, there is an enquiry, there is a storm. When you suffer, you try to forget and to avoid that very suffering by building another wall, but what happens when the 'thinker' is avoiding ( facing its existential) pain? The 'thinker' does not want to feel pain or to be disturbed, so he then attempts to change ( the direction of ) his desires and his thoughts; he desires a new house, he desires a certain 'quality' ( of life) , and ultimately he desires God. ( Hint : the outer objects of desire can be changed and the thinker is behind the wall feeling he is always permanent).

The 'thinker' and the ( process of its outward ) 'thinking' are now two different things because the 'me', (i.e. the thinker) , is ( assuming to be ) the permanent entity, (while its ) thoughts are impermanent. If the 'thinker' would ( foolishly try to?) identify with his thoughts , he would ( ASAP?) becomes impermanent - (an idea) which he does not like. Therefore, the ( process of) 'thought' is considered ( by the material brain) as separate from the 'I'; and there is always in the 'thinker' a sense of (temporal) continuity. And because you ( implicitly) think that you are separate from your thoughts and desires, you are all the time seeking ( to upgrade your) permanency by changing your thoughts and your desires through (self-) discipline, through systems (of meditation) and so on. But as has been stated already, whatever you the 'thinker' may do, it is always sensory and therefore impermanent. Thus, unless the 'me' who is the 'mischief-maker' is ( holistically?) tackled and transformed, the (temporal) 'me' will always create havoc in relationship with property, with family, and with ideas. (Hint:) The transformation of the 'thinker' will be 'radical' only when the separation of the 'thinker' from the ( vagrant streaming of its ?) 'thought' ceases.

To sum up, the 'I' is made up of many ( psychological & objective ?) memories. The ('psychological') memories are the result of desire; the desire is the result of perception, contact, sensation, identification, which is ( creating the temporal continuity of?) the 'me'. So, ( subsequently) this ( temporal) 'I' which is the product of desire, cleverly separates himself from the (hectic movement of thought &) desire and ( operates on it in order for himself to?) remain permanent. That is a 'clever trick' (a master trick?) it is playing upon himself with a view to entrenching himself in continuity. This is the (hidden ) cause of the inner conflict in each individual and of the chaos which exists in the world at present; this state of affairs will continue till the trick is gone.
Most of you may agree ( intellectually) with regard to the falseness of this (master?) trick played by the mind on itself; yet since you have not 'seen' ( insightfully?) the real depth of this problem, it has not brought about clarification and transformation in you. You may accept this in your superficial consciousness but the deeper layers of consciousness are putting up a tremendous ( hidden?) inward resistance to your intellectual acceptance. Is this because you are (very safely self-) isolated and/or 'sleepy' (or day dreaming?) ? You are getting very awake with regard to things that matter (for preserving your temporal continuity) - money, passion, enjoyment and so on. You have ( subliminally but?) 'deliberately' become sleepy to things which are disturbing to you, or which you do not want. This means that you are awake in one part ( of your total being?) to the things you 'like' , but asleep to the things you 'dislike'. All our present ( inner) conflict is the result of this partial awakening. Because one part of you is isolated and the other part is active, there is (an existential disbalance ?) in yourself and your (inner) 'chaos' is ( subliminally) projected outside.
Nothing distracts you from the pursuit of ($$$, fame & ) pleasure; but whenever you apprehend any suffering you try your best to shut it off from you and/or avoid it. That is ( the hidden reason?) why you do not look at this problem seriously, though you verbally (& intellectually) agree.

So, who (or what?) is going to make you 'look' ( inwardly ) ? Can any 'outside agency' make you look? Therefore, suffering comes to you as a (fair existential ?) warning. But every time you have suffering and sorrow, you look on it as a 'disturbance' and try to avoid it so as to continue in the same old state; this sort of action on the part of the mind has made your life one ( highly sophisticated?) series of ( diversions & fake ? ) conflicts in order to avoid "what is".
( In a nutshell) To become aware of how the mind is playing this (master?) trick upon itself, is the beginning of ( the authentic self-) understanding.
( Hint:) The moment you are becoming aware of it, you invite trouble – but there is ( a deeper sense creative ?) joy.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 01 Aug 2018.

K Public Talk in Madras 28th December, 1947 (reader friendly edited)

K: This will be the last Sunday talk and I think it may be just as well if I made, a general survey of what we have been discussing during the last ten weeks.
 
We must have realized through our everyday contact with life, with our neighbours, our friends, our families, the increasing (psychological) confusion and misery ( which is going on) all around us, politically, socially, religiously; and also in our relationship with each other, that is, with society. And I think that every thoughtful man is ( or... shuld be?) concerned with how to bring about order & happiness in this mad chaotic world.
To go (so) far you must begin with what is very close, which is...with yourself -if we (as free thinking individuals, understand that ?) are the important keystone in the whole ( psychologial?) structure of society.
What you are within has been projected without, into the ( outer) world; what you think, what you feel, what you do in your everyday existence, is ( automatically?) projected outwardly and that constitutes the ( psychological infrastructure of the?) world. If we are( self-centred?) confused & chaotic within, by projection that becomes the world, that becomes society, because the 'society' is the product of our (interactive ?) relationships - and if our relationships are egocentric, narrow, limited, we project (outwardly) that ( condition) and bring ( a personal contribution to the ongoing ?) chaos of the world. So, what you are (inwardly) , the world is (outwardly) ; your problem is the world's problem – a very basic fact that we seem somehow to overlook all the time.

So, we must begin near, that is, with our daily thoughts and feelings and actions which are (ASAP) revealed in the manner of earning our livelihood and in our relationship with (a) people, (b) ideas or beliefs.
(a) What is our human relationship based on? Surely not on ( intelligence, compassion & ?) love, as in the relationship between you and me there is a great deal of (subliminal) 'ill will' - ( expressed in the devious?) desire to ( control & ) dominate others - which in its turn creates a constant ( stress & ) conflict. And regarding (b) the 'ideas' which are part of our daily existence - most of them spring from the self-protective instinct, do they not? We believe in ( the viability of ) ideologies which separates man from man, in nationalism and so on, and therefore we are giving a wrong significance to 'belief', which indicates ( intellectual ?) stupidity, for such beliefs divide people, don't unite people.

Now, to bring order out of this confusion (is necessary some inner?) virtue. You can only bring order and peace and happiness through ( a 'virtuous' ?) self-knowledge. But... to know oneself is most difficult (as it requires) to be aware of the activities of your daily existence, ( not to mention?) thoughtfulness, intelligence, ( and a quality of integrated?) awareness which very few people are willing to practice.

(a) This ( 'live' form of) self-knowledge implies knowing ( in real time) your 'daily action' - what you do, feel & think at every moment. This requires an extraordinary (amount of intelligent energy & ) alertness in order to pursue every thought, every feeling and to know (ASAP ?) all their ( open & hidden) content.
( b) From self-knowledge comes the 'right thinking', therefore, right action which is really extremely simple when you are ( inwardly awake & ) aware, but extremely difficult when you ( are not, and ?) talk theoretically about it. No ( social) philosophy, either of the left or of the right, can bring order, peace and happiness to man because it is you and I ( along with a very long list of forefathers ???) who have created this ( psychological chaos & ) misery, through our everyday ( inner blindness or?) 'stupidity', ill will and envy. These things cannot be eradicated until we understand them as they function within us, in you and in me, and (hopefully?) through understanding them we will bring ( some inner) virtue into ( our ) being - a virtue which gives freedom and that freedom is Truth.

I have received many written questions, and I have chosen seven as representing the many and I am going to try to answer these seven questions as quickly and as concisely as possible.

Question: Can an (uneducated?) man with many ( family) responsibilities understand and so carry out your Teachings without the aid of another, or without resorting to books and to teachers?

Krishnamurti: Now, can ( self-) understanding be given to another? Can you be taught how to Love?
Surely (the authentic inner ) creativeness comes only when there is inward freedom (from the known?) , when there is no fear, no imitation, no submission to the authority of a 'sacred' book or of a teacher. Now (inwardly speaking?) who is the 'ignorant' man? Surely the ignorant man is the man who does not know himself, and not the man who is 'learned'. The study of yourself, which is ( based on ) knowing oneself (in real time?) , is extraordinarily 'arduous' (dictionary : hard to accomplish & achieve?) as it demands constant awareness which is not ( synonimous with self-) introspection because introspection is merely ( motivated by ) the improvement of the self . ( Self-) Improvement implies ( a subliminal) condemnation and repression; that is introspection, but awareness is totally different. Awareness can only come into being when you are not condemning (the 'what is') when you are alertly passive. So, self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom.

Now, surely in order to know yourself( in real time) - what you think & feel, you don't have to go to a (trained psy or to a ?) guru. Though it is 'arduous' no one can help you to follow out every thought & every feeling and to realize their full significance. ( On the other hand?) you and I can 'discuss' it and 'go into it' with complete concentration and (earnest?) interest. The moment you recognize your ( personal?) responsibility in your everyday relationships then that very process begins to 'unwrap' (unfold & expose ?) the ways of your own thought and action. So, very simply, you are aware of what you are doing, of what you are thinking, when you put on your 'sacred' threads, your 'namams', aware of the way you treat your wives, your children and your neighbours. Be aware every ( spare) moment (that you can afford?) and see what happens. You will see that when you are ( becoming) aware (of 'what is') , there will be a greater (inner) conflict than before; because you then begin to see the ( existential in-?) significance of your actions, of your thoughts and feelings, and this will bring you further misery. But, if what is (primarily) important is to be ( inwardly awake & ) creative , this 'creativeness' comes into being only when there is freedom (from the inner limitations of the 'known'?) . Only in a state of (inner) freedom from your (outer?) daily worries, is there ( an opportunity for ) creativeness, and this creativeness comes into (your) being when your daily problems are ( transcended & ) understood.
This is a very arduous (task) , it requires ( a meditation friendly ?) swiftness of thought. To ( effortlessly & happily ?) 'break away' from those ( false values & ) 'things' which make us ( inwardly) dull requires a direct ( holistically integrated?) action.

Question: What is the ( choiceless?) 'awareness' that you speak of? Is it the awareness of the supreme Universal Consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Surely, Sirs, as you must begin very near to go very far - being (choicelessly?) aware means (for starters ?) being aware of yourself in relation to your neighbour, to the flower, to the bird, to the tree; to be aware of your own thoughts, feelings and actions. It (may seem) much easier to be aware of 'God', for you can lose yourself in imagination. But to be ( responsibly?) aware of your own daily acts, feelings & thoughts is much more 'painful' (or uncomfortable inwardly?).
So, the awareness I am speaking of, is the awareness of 'what is' actually, directly ( going on) in front of ( and within?) you, because in understanding 'what is' in the very nearest (inward immediacy ?) , you can ( further down the line?) reach great depths, or great heights; then there is no deception, then there is no self-( created ) illusions, because in the ( non-dualistic?) understanding of 'what is' there is transformation. So, if you have a ( depressing ?) feeling, which is 'what is', don't condemn it, but be (non-personally?) aware of it; and you will find that you can go (or 'meditate'?) deeper and deeper into it and therefore discover the whole content of 'what is'. (Hint:) Awareness of 'what is' must be choiceless ( or non-personal?) - because it must ( unfold & ) tell you its story. If you observe a child in order to understand his ways, his mannerisms, his idiosyncrasies, his moods, you can only do that if you don't 'condemn' him or 'identify' yourself with him, saying: this is my child.

You do this (naturally) when you are really interested in (finding out the truth about?) something  - you give all your mind and heart to it. But to become aware and to pursue all the implications requires a great deal of (contemplative?) patience, a capacity to penetrate and to be still. You understand only when there is ( a timeless inner) stillness, when there is silent observation, passive awareness. Then the problem ( unfolds & ) yields its significance.

So, ( in a nutshell:) the 'choiceless awareness' of which I am speaking of is awareness of 'what is', of the mind's ( routinely) activities in which are included ideas, beliefs but also of the ( subliminal) 'tricks' which the mind plays upon itself ( and/or upon others?) . So, by being aware of what is (going on within oneself?) , without ( any personal) condemnation, justification or identification, then you will see that there is a deeper understanding which ( eventually?) resolves our ( psychological?) problems.

Question: I am very interested in your Teachings; I would like to spread them. What is the best way to do it?

Krishnamurti: What you can repeat ( from memory) is (truth-wise ?) a lie. Truth can only be experienced directly; mere repetition is a lie because repetition implies ( a subliminal form of mental) imitation. It may be ( a 'live' experiencing of) Truth to someone, but when you repeat (or parrot ?) it, it ceases to be Truth. ( Spiritual) propaganda is one of the terribly (wrong) things in which we are caught. You know something or you don't know. Say, for instance, you believe in 'reincarnation'; you don't really know why you believe it but you want to spread that belief. What are you spreading in fact? Your belief, terms, words, your convictions which are still within the field, within the layer of verbal expression.
We think in words, in terms, we seek explanations which are still only words and we are caught in this monstrous lie, believing that the word is the thing. Surely, the word God is not God, but you believe that the word is God and that therefore you can spread it. Please see this. To you the word has become important, and not Reality. So you are caught in the verbal level and what you want to spread is the word. That means you will catch what I am saying in the net of words and so cause a new division between man and man. Then you will create a new system based on Krishnamurti's words which you the propagandist will spread among other propagandists who are also caught in words and thereby what have you done? Whom have you helped? No, Sirs, that is not the way to spread. So don't try what is stupid, what is the height of folly - to spread someone else's experience.
If you experience something directly, it would be experience not based on belief; because what you believe you experience and therefore it is not real experience but only conditioned experience; there can be experience, the right kind of experience only when thinking ceases, but that experience cannot be spread as information to clear the mess. But, if you begin to understand simple things like nationalism, surely you can discuss it with others, in order to make it known as a poison which is destroying man. Sirs, you are not aware of the enormous calamity that lies in wait for you and for the whole world because this poison is spreading. You are nationalists, you are Hindus against pakistan, against England, against Germany, against Russia, and so on. So, nationalism is a poison, is it not? You can understand that very easily, because it divides men. You cannot be a nationalist and talk of brotherhood; these terms are contradictory. That also you can understand, that you can talk about. But you don't want to talk about that because that would mean a change of heart within yourself, which means that you must cease to be a Hindu with your beliefs, ceremonies and all the rubbish that is around you. We don't talk about nationalism because we might be asked if we are free of it ourselves. Not being free, we evade it and try to discuss something else. Surely you can talk about something which you live and which you are doing every day, and that is what I have been talking about - your daily actions, your daily thoughts and feelings. My words you cannot repeat; for, if you do, they will have no meaning; but you can talk about the way you live, the way you act, the way you think, from which alone there can be understanding; all that, you can discuss; but there is no use of groups with presidents and Secretaries and organizations which are terrible things in which you are often caught. Sirs, though you all smile, yet surely you are all caught in these.

I don't think you know how catastrophic the whole situation is in the world now (at the end of 1947) . I don't have to frighten you. You have merely to pick up a newspaper and read about it. You are on the edge of a precipice and you just carry on, blind to what is happening (out there ?) . You can only alter it by a (holistic) transformation of yourself, but ( it cannot happen) if you are caught in the net of 'organizations'.
As it has always been in the past, so also at the present time the salvation of man is in his ( awakening to ) being (inwardly) creative. We need communion between you and me, and that means we must really know how to love one another, our hearts must be opened to one another.

So, you can spread even a tiny part of what I have been talking about, only as you live it. It is by ( the holistic quality of ) your life that you communicate anything profoundly, not through words. Words and terms are of very little significance when you are really seeking Truth in (our everyday) relationship and not an abstract Truth of valuations, of things, or of ideas. But ( spreading the ?) words become very important when you are not ( sincerely ?) seeking Truth; then the word is (confused with the 'real') thing and then the ( verbal) thing catches you. So, if you want to spread these Teachings, live them, and by your life you will be spreading them (anonymously ?) which is much more significant.
(In a nutshell ?) you as an individual must awake to your own conditioning and thereby free yourself and hence give love to another.

Question: I have listened to what you have been saying and I feel that to carry out your teachings I must renounce the (restrictions of the ) world I live in.

Krishnamurti: Sir, if you must renounce something, renounce the wrong (ego-centric) valuations which you have given to everything. Wrong valuations create havoc and it is from( consequences of ) these wrong valuations which cause the misery (of the world?) that you want to escape. You cannot (completely) withdraw from the world, to withdraw means isolation and you cannot live in (total) isolation. But you can live truly happily with the world when you are not of the world, which means you don't give wrong values to the things in the world. It is not by renouncing that you can find Reality. By renouncing you may escape into (a very cozy existence built on ?) illusion, but you do not discover that which is true. So, what I have been saying is that one must give right values to things, to relationship, to ideas and not try to escape from the world. It is comparatively easy to go away into isolation, but it is extremely arduous to be aware (of the false values and) and to give true values. Sirs, ( the material ) things have no ( spiritual) value in themselves. If psychologically (inwardly) you are feeling insufficient , your house becomes very important because you may identify yourself with the house, but if you understood ( the truth regarding?) your inward hollowness, then the problem would have very little meaning. Everything becomes extraordinarily significant when you are trying to use it to cover up your own ( inner sense of insufficiency & ?) loneliness. Similarly with relationship, with ideas, with belief.
So (to be figured out for extra homework?) there is ( an 'inner?) richness' only in understanding the (true?) significance of 'what is' , and not in running away into isolation.

Question: Moden life hurls at us one problem after another. Will the state of (choiceless?) awareness of which you (so often) speak, enable us to understand and solve, once and for all, all our ( psychological) problems or have they to be solved one after the other (as they come up ) ?

Krishnamurti: There are several things involved in this question. You will be pursued by ( inner) problems, ( only) if you don't understand who is the 'creator' of problems. And if you understand 'who' is the creator of problems, then naturally you will not deal with the problems one by one; if you understand the ( root cause) cause and not merely the symptoms, then the symptoms cease to be. The other point in this question is whether ( our psychological ?) problems can be solved all at once, in one stroke to cut off at the root.

But first we must discover who is the 'creator' of problems. If the creator is understood the problems will cease. The creator of the problem is the ( survival oriented ?) 'thinker', is he not? Now, is the thinker really separate from his (other) thoughts? If not, then being the creator, he can begin to 'solve (or...to dis-solve ?) himself' . And, why has the thinker separated himself from his (other ) thoughts? To give ( the personal brain a sense of temporal ?) permanency - the ( casual) thoughts being transient, mutable, can be altered, but the 'thinker' can ( continue for ever & ever as ?) the permanent entity, whereas his thoughts can be ( conveniently ?) changed according to the environmental influences .

Now, how does the 'thinker' (mental entity) come into being? Obviously through ( a subliminal self- identification of ?) desire. Desire is the outcome of ( the sensory) perception, contact, sensation, identification and 'me'. (EG:) Perception of a car, contact, sensation, desire, identification, and... 'I' like it , 'I' want it . So, the (self-identified ) 'thinker' ( entity ) is the product of (will &) desire, and having produced the (vitual 'image' of the?) 'I', the 'I' ( goes on & ) separates itself from the thought because it can then transform the thought and yet remain permanent.

So, as long as the 'thinker' is ( considering itself as being ) separate from his (ordinary) thoughts, there will be innumerable ( collateral) problems ; but if there is no such separation, if the thinker 'is' the thought, then what happens? Then the ( life-energy encapsulated within the ) 'thinker' undergoes a ( major qualitative) transformation, as I have said, that is ( the essential function of ?) Meditation. It is ( encompassing the inner journey of ) self-knowledge plus all that I have said about how the 'thinker' has come into being.

You can test it out for yourself - starting with ( the non-dualistic approach of ) 'self-knowledge' and from that comes ( the Noble Art of?) Meditation. Meditation is the (happy?) ending of ( the illusory division between ? ) 'thought' & 'thinker', by not giving 'continuity' to the thinker. And when the 'thinker' ceases thinking, that Meditation begins. Meditation 'is' ( beginning with a non-dualistic approach to?) self-knowledge and without ( such ) self-knowledge there is no ( authentic?) Meditation.

( For optional homework?) you can go deeper and deeper starting with the centre which is the ( self-identified activity of) desire creating the ( temporal continuity of the ) 'I'. When you become aware of this whole process you will find that ( the process of thought -) time has ceased - 'time' as ( recycling the psychological ) memories of the past and ( projecting them into) the future - and that there is an Immediate ( Open Door to the?) Eternal Present and in this alone is Reality.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 02 Aug 2018.

Selected excerpts from K's Group Discussions in Madras 1947 ( 'experientially frendly' edited)

29th December, 1947

On the practical advantages of dealing (in real time) with one's 'psychological' Karma

K: You now want to know what 'Karma' means (in terms of inner experience) . Karma comprises (i) the (inherited) instinctive responses of the physical organism and (ii) the cultural responses of our 'psychological' being.

Society impinges on the (consciousness of the) individual and changes his impulses. The 'individual' has also inherited impulses from his personal past. The ( karmically active memory of the?) past is (expressing itself as ) the 'me' and in conjunction with the ( ongoing challenges of the) present, the 'me', produces action. Thus, the 'actor' is the creator of ( its own continuity in?) time - the time of memory not chronological time. In this time-interval, cause and effect form a dynamic process . That which was the effect yesterday is now found to be the cause of your action today; this effect in turn will be the cause of something which will be noticed as effect tomorrow.
Is ( what I am inwardly?) today (which is cause) different from ( what I will be?) tomorrow (which is effect)? ( Consciousness-wise?) is cause different from the effect? You may have also realised that the 'actor' who is the modifier, is both the cause and its effect, and that there is no time-interval when the cause is apart from the effect; thus (inwardly the ) cause and effect are the same.
As has already been stated, the conditioned experience of yesterday meets the present which is always new, and modifies the present according to yesterday's conditioning. This modification is taking place continuously with no time-interval and therefore there is no moment in time when the cause and the effect are two distinct things separate and distant from each other.

The whole (thing) is one continuous process and our thought's action is a continuous stream where the cause, the effect and the (controller or) 'modifier' are all part of the same (process) .
Why is it that the 'actor' (or the 'thinker'?) does not realise that he is at the same time the cause, the effect and the modifier? You are inwardly in sorrow ( today); you are the cause of the sorrow ( of tomorrow); ang yet you want to avoid (dealing with your existential) sorrow. Therefore, your 'psychological' (continuity in) time is created by ( your past) memory and it does not exist except as ( a constant projection of?) memory ever undergoing modification.
( To recap:) Cause and effect and their modification are all in a state of flux, they are never static. 'You' are the cause & the effect and also the modifier always living and moving, always going on as one continuous process. If you realise this (subtle point?) , then to you, time as a process of understanding ceases.

If you consider that the cause is different from the effect, that means you can modify the effect during this time-interval; this implies growth or progress in time towards a (glorious inner?) state already projected by you. ( Psychologically-wise?) this (mentality of becoming better in time ) is really false ; but when you realise that cause and effect are the same, you will cease to think in terms of time.
Therefore the (wise ?) 'actor' cannot do anything but remain still and silent in a state of alertness. Any 'discipline' that the actor chooses to impose upon himself (in order to become inwardly silent?) is really a process of self isolation. ( Self-imposed ) discipline, being then a process of conditioning in time, causes sorrow. When you realise this and when you understand the whole meaning of discipline, the ( self-) discipline ( used as an instrument of psychological becoming) drops away. You will never act contrary to what is orderly if you live without discipline but with understanding.
Therefore, if your inward intention is to be 'free' (of your past karma?) so that you may meet a new challenge without any conditioning; you would freely allow all the responses that are already in your (psyche) to come out; you do not impede them in any manner. You go on like this (allowing your past karma to express itsel freely?) , till you have worked out all your old responses. This ( holistic approach to the ) understanding of ( your karmic) responses really ( eventually?) leads to the dropping away of your ( mechanical) responses and you will be neither 'excited' nor 'not excited', because being aware of every response brings its own intense watchfulness. Therefore, when Love will come into (your) being, you will then be in a state of extraordinary pliability. Then, the ( karmically free?) 'actor' who has realised himself to be the cause, the effect and the modifier, faces everything that comes to him irrespective of whether it is pleasurable or painful without any (psychological conflict or?) resistance whatsoever.

30th December, 1947

K: To love one another is one of the most difficult things, because there is in it always the shadow of pleasure and pain. Surely, there can be (selfless?) love when there is this sense of complete communion with another.
The idea of 'loving everybody' has very little meaning if you don't know how to love (selflessly?) your child, your husband, your wife, or your ( next door?) neighbour. The ideal of 'loving all mankind' is really a rationalisation of the lack of love in one's heart for another. It is an easy escape of the (social) reformer, of the humanist, and of the righteous.
It is therefore worthwhile discussing the problem of duality, in which is implied ( the open or subliminal pursuit of ) pleasure and ( avoidance of) pain, the desire for (self-) fulfilment, the desire to follow an example or an ideal, the desire to imitate, etc. Is there the opposite (of 'what is') ? Every craving for something creates its own opposite.
Let us take 'attachment' and its (opposite virtue called?) detachment. Being attached, you find (a certain amount of ) pain and strife in your ( particular) attachment; and in order to overcome that pain and strife, you say 'I must be detached.' ( Hint:) It is really the (sense of frustration & ) pain that comes out of your particular attachment that you want to get rid of; but you never endeavour to question why you (got) attached (in the first place) .
If you understood what ( the psychological mechanism of ? ) attachment is, then you would not (need to achieve the opposite ) 'detachment'. Attachment may be the outcome of (an existential?) frustration. Inwardly, you are feeling frustrated, you are not fulfilling, you are not ( feeling wholesome & ) complete. Therefore, you become ( psychologically?) 'attached' to the ( cozy comfort of your ?) house, and the family (life) becomes all important; but when they ( begin to) cause you ( boredom or?) pain, you wish to develop (the noble virtue of) 'detachment'. But still, the inward frustration, emptiness, poverty, continues.

( Therefore) you have to understand (a) what is implied in 'being held' (psychologically attached ) to something and (b) that in the very desire to achieve anything (better?) , there is the seed of its (dualistic) opposite. In the process of 'becoming', achieving, gaining, there is always the 'conflict of the opposites', because the very desire to 'become something' creates its own opposite.
( Hint:) In 'becoming' there is always (involved a process of) duality ; in 'being' there is no duality. (Eg:) When you are ( getting really?) angry, there is no ( mental ) duality (split ) at the moment of anger, i.e. you are ( fully immersed in) in the state of 'being angry'. But a few instants later that 'being 100% angry' creates a (collateral sense of inner? ) disturbance and so you want to 'become 100% peaceful'; this 'becoming' implies the duality ( a subliminal consciousness split ?) . This duality (split?) is only accurring after that ( disturbing) feeling has been termed; and there is a (psychological) 'time-factor' involved in it. ( On the other hand?) if there is no ( psychological) 'becoming' there is no (consciousness split of ) 'duality' with all its ( tail of inner) conflicts, the time-factor, the whole sense of frustration and all the rest of it.
( In a nutshell) The psychological 'becoming' implies a refusal to acknowledge 'what is' and a ( superposed) desire to transform 'what is' into other than 'what is'.

Supposing you realise that you are arrogant, and your (next spiritual) ideal is to achieve (the noble virtue of ) humility. This ideal is created by your not understanding ( the psychological mechanism of ) 'arrogance' which is the 'what is'. So, in ( trying to) become humble , in trying to achieve this ideal, there cannot be ( any place for critical ) thinking; since the (mind is following its ( desire for self-) achievement by 'becoming that ideal'. The ideal is (becoming ) the (ultimate) authority, whether it is imposed by others or by yourself , therefore, there is a cessation of (any critical) thinking and there is also the (lurking) fear (of not being able to achieve it?) .

The man who is learning, watching and feeling (the true value of) things, does not require an ideal; he is active where he is. So, in 'becoming' there is the denial of 'what is', the denial of ( dealing with?) what you are. A man who is 'becoming' can never find Reality because he is not (holistically?) understanding 'what is', but wants to transform (or upgrade?) 'what is' (into its opposite?) . ( Hint:) By ( lovingly & intelligently?) understanding 'what is', perhaps a new thing will come into being.
When you are aware of the ( hidden) implications of ( the psychological mechanism of 'self-) becoming' which creates the ideal and which creates the example, it drops away. This means facing 'what is' and being very alert and awake all the time.

There is, at present, ( a cultural) chaos in most of the countries and at least those ( few?) people who are ( at all ?) intelligent can really think it all out and lay the foundations for a new culture. An old house that is crumbling must be pulled down before you build a new one ; and in the process of pulling it down, those (clueless people) who look at it from outside may say that it is chaotic; but, the man who is 'pulling it down' is not affected by it, because he 'knows' what he is going to build.

( Back to dealing holistically with 'what is':)
When you are intellectually arrogant, this 'arrogance' is the effect, and not the cause; it may be the cause a little later. You may now feel 'superior' because you ( previously) felt a sense of inferiority, because the whole society in which you live is based on 'becoming' something. And as long as you are 'becoming' there is always the same ( self-centred) 'you', perhaps a little bigger than 'what is'.
On the other hand, if you stop struggling to "become (a better person inwardly)"; you ( may come to the critical point of seeing that inwardly?) you are nothing. Do you know what it means? When you accept that you are (inwardly) nothing (as in 'not-a-thing' ?) , it is really wonderful. Then, you know what it means to (have selfless) love; then, you are willing to cry with somebody. The ( true inner ?) facstrong textt is that you are 'nobody' (a non-particularised consciousness?) . Why not start from there and face this ( inward?) 'no-thingness' which means to be humble and to love; to have no ( psychological) barrier between you and any other person.
A person who does not recognise ( the truth of his inner) 'no-thingness' but pursues ( spiritual) 'ideals' is like a man who ploughs and ploughs and never sows. Behind all your knowledge, all your degrees, titles and possessions, there is nothing. When you really acknowledge that ( inwardly) you are ( as?) nothing, you are also everything because you know what love is.

( Bonus question # 1:) You want to know, 'how to love' ?

"How to love ? " implies duality (a dualistic mentality?) , and in the very 'becoming' (more 'loving') there is a ( hidden) conflict of the opposites. If one understands the whole significance of the ( psychological desire of) 'becoming' it drops away, and one is faced with 'what is'. When he faces 'what is' - i.e. he is lacking in love - and goes deeper and deeper into it, he finds that he is (inwardly) nothing though he ( is wearing a very sticky & hypocritical ?) 'mask', behind all verbal (nice sounding ?) things intellectually produced there is absolutely nothing.
( Clue:) This inner feeling of no-thingness is not the end; it is only the beginning of ( a spiritual) liberation; your ( mind & heart) activity will be immediate and very clarifying.

( Bonus question #2 : ) You ask me how you can feel as 'nothing' when you are constantly reminded by others that you are something ?

You, by yourself, may feel and acknowledge ( the profound inner truth ) that you are nothing (no-a-thing) ; but, society and your friends say that you are something. If you acknowledge ( the inner truth ) that inwardly you are nothing , no amount of your ( opportunistic ?) friends telling you that you are a 'great man' is going to make you believe you are a great man. But if you ( may surreptitiously ?) think that you ( already have some inner ) greatness, then their telling you that you are a great man means a lot to you.

( Bonus question # 3) You want to know what will happen if you feel you are 'nothing' but you are married and have relationships ?

There is your responsibility to the family; it means immediate communion because you are nothing and she want to be something. Because you are open completely and your wife is not, there is a ( subliminal) friction on her part, because she ( assumes to be) something and you are not. You love and you don't ask anything. You really love your wife or your neighbour, or your husband, because you are open. They may be closed and they may create (a collateral) trouble. You become more and more silent, and more and more loving. They may get more and more irritated (or aggravating?) .
(Hint:) The moment you are very earnest in acknowledging your (inward) no-thingness, you are going to have ( cultural?) difficulties between you and society.
( But even before getting there?) to acknowledge and to live with 'what is' is the most difficult thing. Out of that, comes real Love, because this (major inner revelation) sweeps away all 'hypocrisy' (the 'mask-wearing' habit?) . Try it ( as homework?) in your daily life; be what you are and be (responsibly?) aware of that. You will see an extraordinary transformation taking place immediately (or...ASAP?) . And from that, there is freedom because, when you are nothing, you do not have to demand anything (from anybody) . That is 'Liberation'. Because you are nothing and you are free, there is real opening and no barrier between you and another. Though you are married and though you love one, there is no enclosure. If you love one completely, you love the whole world because one 'is' the whole.

(Bonus question # 4) You want to know what will happen when you feel that you are 'the whole' ?

Feeling as 'the whole' (as 'You are the World' ?) comes perhaps later. But first, you are ( inwardly as?) nothing and you are not concerned with ( the spiritual benefits of?) what comes after. If you are concerned with what is beyond the nothingness, it means you are frightened of ( the 'psychological ending' involved in?) being nothing.
'Being (as) nothing', your life then becomes extraordinarily simple and beautiful. Being nothing, i.e. acknowledging 'what is', is one of the most difficult tasks because the ( self-conscious?) mind does not like it, because it is afraid of being nothing, i.e. of having no ( psychological) security. But the moment you 'are nothing', you ( have?) love; till then, you do not know what it means to love; till then, you have the ( 'fake love'?) of responsibility, of duty and marrying off. If you love you wife really, you will love your children. Then you would see how they are to be taught and by whom they are to be taught. Because you love them, you want to see that they are the best human beings, not that you would compel them to any ideal. You do not realise what an ( inner ?) revolution this will produce.

(Bonus question #5)
You want to know if this ( inner) revolution would be reciprocated ?

( For starters?) you are not concerned with will the 'others' ( think or do?) at all. ( But ) if you recognise ( the inward truth of?) 'what is' and live with it, you will see an (inner ?) revolution produced in you and therefore in the ( total Consciousness of ) the world. Surely (holistically-wise?) that is the most practical way of living. Out of that comes Creativeness, because when you accept 'what is' - i.e. in accepting what you are - you are free. Then you begin to Create. Then there is ( an inner Presence of?) Reality, God (or what you like to call it) and you will find a beautiful and really indescribable (sense of) Love - something that is self-created and which is its own eternity.

31st December, 1947

( Bonus question# 6)

Q: Isn't there some basic knowledge of psychology necessary to understand what we are discussing ?

K: There is no ( real?) need to learn any 'psychological' terminology to understand what we have been discussing, especially as we have been using only ordinary ( but experientially friendly?) words .

Self-knowledge is quite different from technical knowledge (especially in the?) case ( of the non-dualistic approach of ) self-knowledge which cannot be ( properly) communicated to another. For instance, to find a solution for ( a your 'existential'?) suffering you ( will ?) have to start with yourself , to enquire (earnestly ) and to find out the ( experiential) solution. Any amount of reading what other (philosophers ?) have said about suffering will not be of the same (quality ) as your own understanding of your ( personal) suffering or sorrow. Nowadays, more & more people go to psy's & (other) psychanalysts in order to dissolve their sorrow. ( Unfortunately?) when you gather ( lots of academic ?) knowledge in regard to 'psychology' (the study of the human psyche) , the gathering of knowledge from books further conditions your mind if you don't relate what you read to your action in daily life. If you care to analyse the question seriously, you will find that you can understand and face 'what is' without reading even a single ( specialised ) book. You have got your own ( ' firewall' of professional ) prejudice which translates the knowledge that you gather from books; and no book can point out to you that you are prejudiced nor can it teach you how to love. You can only discover ( the truth of this matter?) when the mind is fresh without any burden of book knowledge.
Using ( standardised psy ) knowledge to ( upgrade your?) further thinking, can ( an insightful?) understanding which is new be the outcome of book-knowledge, which is ( born?) old? The new cannot be the outcome of the old.
To understand (what's going on) 'today', your attachment to ( what you knew?) 'yesterday' must cease, as ( the residual memory of) yesterday prevents you from experiencing anew.

( Hint) An incomplete experience leaves a scar or a residue whereas a completed experience does not leave any residue. The problem then is how to 'act' without leaving a residue. Psychologically, you have to give an end to every one of your feelings. Otherwise, you carry it over and it becomes a burden. When you see the ( experiential) implications of 'continuing' the feeling and the truth of 'ending' the feeling so as to leave no residue, there is an immediate ending. Then there will be a (real opportunity for an) inner renewal. ( The thinking process based on accumulted ) memory continuing on and on is incapable of understanding. Therefore a mind seeking (openly or subliminally its own temporal) continuity can never meet the New.
( In a nutshell, the inwardly insightful?) mind should not be interested in accumulating (dead knowledge) ; it can meet the New only when it is not 'burdened' (clouded ) with ( its past) memory. Similar is the case with your thought and with your feeling.

( For homework:) It is necessary to experiment with this in your daily life, so that every thought and feeling comes to an end. This means you should be extremely careful as to what you say consciously or unconsciously, what you feel and what you do. Every word has a verbal and a nervous reaction which sets a wave going. Do not allow other's words to react upon you. Be careful not to use words which produce ( 'hard feelings' ) in others. Be careful about what books and newspapers you read. Similarly, since what you feel affects you nervously, you will find what tremendous effect (watching TV &) cinema-going has upon you. Cinema shows awaken ( hidden psychological) responses which will continue ( to influence us ) if they are not ended. Therefore, you are inclined to go again and again to movies. You have to understand ( what is wrong with) this and be free from all these (fake?) excitements. The 'ending' of a feeling is not the result of an inner battle to overcome it, but it is really seeing directly the truth of ending the feeling.

( Experiential Clue:) A feeling is ( automatically dragged into the field of?) thought when it is 'named'. When words have (produced emotionally loaded ) nervous responses both on yourself and on the individual in relationship with you, you'd better keep silent. Similarly, when you end a feeling, there is an immediate (sient) communion and there is complete understanding.

( Parting words ?) You should, all of you ( endeavour to?) live an (inner) life of (choiceless) awareness which is made possible only through Love and ( Holistic) Understanding. You will find Truth only through the ( non-personal ) awareness of your own thoughts, feelings and actions. Such awareness will free you ( ...ASAP ?) from your personal shortcomings and will enable you to solve your ( life-) problems without your striving to force any solution. Your daily life will then become (inwardly) rich and you will find joy in each & every one of life's ( passing) moments, and you will not be interested in ( artificial stimulations and/ or?) mechanical pursuits. Then, Reality will come into ( your own ) being.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 04 Aug 2018.

Still More K Group Discussions in Madras, April, 1948 (reader friendly edited)

K: As these ('spring break' ?) discussions will be for about three weeks, I would like to go directly to the root of the problem and not 'beat about the bush' : as long as we are looking for a change in the outward structure of society, such a change is only a modified continuity of 'what is' since it implies a change towards (within in the field of?) the known - intellectual, factual or utopian.

Question: Is not the ( inner revolution your are suggesting?) another 'hop' within the same framework?

Krishnamurti: Surely not. ( This inner) transformation is not a modified continuity but quite a different process. (However, in order to?) understand what a 'complete' ( inner) transformation means, we must ( take a brief philosophical detour and ?) understand what 'change' means. Any change which ( involves time?) is a modified continuity of the same thing as now exists. For instance, when we deliberately set about to change the present social system in regard to the outer conditions, is not all such change the same thing continued in a different form? We want a continuity of what we like and a discontinuity of what we do not like.

Question: Isn't any biological growth also involving a ( constant) change?

Krishnamurti: The growth of a tree is not a ( radically qualitative?) change but a ( steady) growth of the same tree. But we are referring here only to changes due to human action and not to ( the changes ) that occurs in nature.
( The standardised mentality of any ? ) society is static ( in a a 'steady state'?) . If the relationship between two ( or more) individuals is a mere static adjustment, it produces a society which is static. If their ( interacting) relationship is 'revolutionary' and based on a different sense of (what are the prioritary?) values, then the 'individual' ( consciousness ) will be ( more?) creative. Therefore one has to start with oneself, the individual, and not with the society. The 'individual' (consciousness?) alone can be in a continuous state of revolution, but not society. Any change in ( the collective mentality of ) society is only a modified continuity.
(An authentic qualitative ) transformation ( in human consciousness?) must be always immediate and not left to time, i.e., to tomorrow. Time cannot produce ( an authentic) regeneration.
So, what prevents us from immediately transforming ourselves? ( Any insightful self-) understanding is always in the Now and not 'tomorrow'. Why is that you and I are incapable of (or unwilling for an) immediate transformation? What prevents us? Why do we not see this clearly?

Question: Is there ( an immediate?) transformation if we see things clearly?

Krishnamurti: If I see ( the immediate danger of ) a cobra clearly & without any equivocation, do I touch it? I touch it only when I am doubtful about it being a ( living?) cobra. Why is it that we do not see problems that (inwardly) are vital as clearly as we see a poisonous snake? If we see a problem vitally and recognise its (true) significance, then, we shall act properly in relation to war, nationalism, in our relationship to nature, other individuals, ideas and problems of our daily existence. Therefore, either we got immune to poison (of psychological nature ?) by constant habit, (and/) or because we do not want to see (the false cultural values as being really false?) .
The real ( experiential) problem is why do we not transform 'now'? Let us understand this ( time free dimension of the ?) 'Now'.

Question: How can we find the true cause of there being no ( vital interest for ) immediate ( inner) transformation?

Krishnamurti: One reason is that ( by functioning in the 'self'-protected mode?) you got immune to the poison. ( But supposing that?) we realise that an immediate ( qualitative inner ) transformation is the only ( comprehensive ) solution of all our problems - what is it that prevents that marvellous thing happening to me, from my seeing the immense significance of transforming immediately?
I know instances of ( trivial examples of ) immediate transformation. There was a person who made an enormous amount of money by playing cards. After hearing my talks recently, that person gave up cards-playing immediately and without any struggle.

Question: Why did not that person see this earlier?

Krishnamurti: What are the causes that prevent your seeing the ( psychological poison of such ) things, so that they drop away? What is the element that is required to say I ''see it'' and it is gone .
One of the ( blindfold  ?) factors is that one is not ( responsibly) aware of being (inwardly ) suffering, in confusion, anxiety and fear.
Another (factor necessary in order to) realise that (a radical) transformation is essential, is that one must not be self- contented. There must be real discontent. If you see a ( real) cobra and know it to be a cobra, you have an instantaneously (intelligent) response. There is the bodily response to the ( danger of its ?) poison and you jump. The very understanding of the ( deadly) nature of the poison keeps you away from the poison. (Another factor is that) most of us are ( subliminally) afraid (of the consequences of a radical inner change) . Is not (our ages old fear of the unknown?) one of the principal causes that prevent ( an inner) transformation?

Question: Well, everyone coming here wants ( a radical inner) transformation. I, for one, have no fear. Yet, there is no transformation. Why is this?

Krishnamurti: ( The intelligence of?) Love is the only thing that transforms. You can have actual experience of this. Have you not fallen in love with some one? Have you not been spontaneously affectionate with another?

Question: We have been affectionate to others in our own house; yet, there has been no transformation...

Krishnamurti: You do not see the 'cobra', you do not see that (consciousness -wise ) you are on the edge of an (existential?) precipice. Is that the trouble? Why do you not see it?

Question: We see all the ongoing chaos but we feel helpless.

Krishnamurti: The ( global cloud of ) confusion is so colossal that our individual acts can obviously do nothing - for instance, against the use of the atomic bomb. But as a (free) individual, I can create a ( new social) structure away from all this confusion. We cannot persuade the big politicians to do what we think is correct; but we, though we are small people, we can start somewhere else, i. e., with ourselves.
The simple way is for me to go my own way; I will transform myself. So far, I have also been contributing to the confusion and to the chaos in the world; now, I will withdraw (and start creating a new culture) .

Question: Doesn't this imply isolating ourselves from the world?

Krishnamurti: No. Are you not ( psychologically) isolated right now in your relationship with your wife, etc.? Is this not creating the mess in the world?

Question: How can all this inner condition be changed?

Krishnamurti : I cannot ( properly?) understand ( & transcend?) myself if I am ( consciously or not?) tethered to anything - property, ideas or things. If I want to explore the South Seas, I must leave Madras. I am tethered ( to my own self-interest?) when I say "what does it matter so long as I get what I want." (In a nutshell:) A mind that says "I want to understand Reality and I am seeking Truth" and yet is tethered (to its open or hidden self-interest?) , is a dishonest ( a conveniently 'hypocritical'?) mind.
Thus, we came to discover that there cannot be ( an authentic inner) transformation if there is no honest ( self-interest free?) thinking. Why is my mind dishonest?

Question: Why is not the mind honest at least with itself, though not in regard to others?

Krishnamurti: I am not (coming) 'face to face' with myself because I do not know what the (end-) result of this could be. There are so many different ( self-protecting psychological?) masks. One day I am ( simply selfish & ) greedy, another day I am ( thinking of myself as?) 'generous' and 'charitable', etc. So, which is the 'me' to which I have to be ( consistent with & ) honest when ( consciousness-wise ) am broken up into different parts. Unless I am (totally stuck or ) neurotic, I cannot say definitely "I am this". There are many contradictory (trends?) in me. In this state of ( inner fragmentation & ) contradiction, I cannot be honest. I can be honest only when the contradiction in my thinking ceases. To think truly, I must get rid of ( the root cause of this inner?) contradiction. Do you know that you are (inwardly ) in contradiction?

Question: At any one instant, there is no visible contradiction. Contradiction arises only when I analyse the past and the present.

Krishnamurti: There is a ( existential ?) contradiction always going on in us. Only honest direct understanding will lead to the ceasing of contradiction. To understand something, I must give my full attention to it, which is possible when there is no contradiction in me.

Question: What do you mean by 'contradiction'?

Krishnamurti: We are (inwardly) in contradiction, for instance, when we want to go somewhere else and yet we want to stay here. In that state ( of split desire?), ( the 'thinker's) choice exists; and so, as long as choice exists, there must be conflict. ( The thinker's?) 'choice' exists because you are confused . There is no choice when you see a thing clearly. Contradiction is when I do not see clearly, when ( my rational) choice comes into action. When I see clearly what I want to do, there is no choice and no contradiction.
So, as long as 'I' am choosing, there is ( an ongoing inner) contradiction and (as a result) there is ( a collateral) dishonesty in my thinking.

Question: Are we not always in daily life, if we are intelligent, making a choice?

Krishnamurti: For factual ( objective) things, you must choose. But psychological 'choice' is when you are ( inwardly blind or?) confused. ( As a result?) a mind which is ( inwardly blind or?) confused and is choosing does not know what it is doing.
( As a simple rule of thumb:) Clear perception is (resulting in) honest thinking, but I do not see clearly because I am (inwardly indulging in?) choosing. Psychologically, I pursue pleasure (at many levels & in many different ways?) . As long as I am pursuing pleasure and using the 'wrong' words "I serve the world," "I serve the poor", ( the karmic result is that?) I am deceiving myself. We have now come to this ( essential experiential ) point: Transformation comes instantaneously when we see everything clearly.
Have you given up anything instantaneously?

Questioner: I dropped 'belief' and 'authority' after I heard your talk on 'fear', at No. 14, Sterling Road.

Krishnamurti: You dropped them because you were ( brought) face to face with the problem and there was no ( possibilty of a strategic ) retreat. You got rid of authority when you faced its ( psychological fallacy ) directly.
But why is it that you do not drop the ( very mentality that) divides - the (self-interest) conditioned thinking ? Because you do not see (or...have not yet seen ?) that it is 'poisonous' (psychologically toxic) and therefore you did not give your full attention to it, you tend to slur over it. Take war, for instance. If you give your complete attention to ( the tragic causes & effects of?) war, you will not play with ( an ideology leading to?) war.
( To recap:) There is no inner transformation 'now' because your (total) attention is not given (to the necessity of it, now) ; you think you have too may commitments ( to fulfil) and by such ( postponing) thinking you deceive yourselves (in a very respectable way ?) .
( Suggested for homework : ) If we focused our attention on one single ( psychological) thing and completely understood (how our subliminal drive for self-interest created?) it, our mind is ( ASAP?) unburdened and is capable of looking at things directly; we would then understand anything of a psychological ( 'psyche' -related nature) , and there would be instantaneous transformation Now.
One of our difficulties is we like to be ( inwardly) lazy and we are inattentive in regard to things that do matter.

**Question: Can we help it?

Krishnamurti: If I offer you something, will you take it? Take, for instance, a ( Good) doctor. If I would be the patient, I will not leave the (visits to the good?) ) doctor till I am well. Is not this relationship essential? Between the doctor and the patient, there must be mutual affection - so is the case between you and me. When you ( intelligently ?) love somebody, then there is open receptivity, communion between both; there is ( a sharing of) understanding. Because there is no ( an intelligent sharing based on?) affection - which means 'love' - there is no immediate transformation. Is that the element which is missing in all of us  ? Therefore, there is no real communication between us, but only on the (intellectual level) . We are (remaining) on the edge of things and not in the centre. When there is (the Intelligence of) Love, there are no ( personal) sentiments and no emotions.**

Question: Apparently, we do not know what this (Intelligent ) Love is...

Krishnamurti: You are going to know it. There is no flame without smoke.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 05 Aug 2018.

K Group Discussion Madras, 1948 ('reader friendly' edited)

K Last time we were talking about the importance of immediate transformation and about the things that prevent us from a radical (inner) regeneration. We were discussing the importance of the individual and his relationship with the world; how when there is a contradiction, there cannot be honest thinking; and how real understanding brings about transformation; and also, that love is not sentiment or emotion.
(Today) we must find out for ourselves how the transformation of an individual (consciousness?) immediately affects the ( consciousness of the ) world in which it lives. Is that not a ( holistically?) practical way of affecting the world you live in? Individual transformation alone will lead to other individuals transforming themselves and (hopefully?) this will bring about an ( authentic cultural?) revolution in our thinking and therefore in our actions. This means you will be free of ( relying on) all ( spiritual?) organizations, systems, beliefs.
( But for starters?) do you see the 'truth' that there can be transformation in the world only when there is regeneration of the individual ?

Question: Well, the generally accepted idea that unless the mass ( consciousness ) changes, there is no use of any individual working.

Krishnamurti: Is mass action the only action? Groups can be influenced, persuaded, (or just...) regimented to accept ( glorious ? ) nationalistic ideas, but if you begin to think, to be aware, to question, you cease to be ( part of) the mass (consciousness) . When you do not accept authority, tradition, belief, then you become a (free thinking?) individual; otherwise, you are one of a conglomeration of people driven. If it is so, you are an individual seeking the truth for itself and therefore you are inviting ( for yourself?) an infinite lot of trouble. (But?) if you really have undergone such an inward revolution, your ( ego-centric & mechanistic ?) behaviour to your family and to others will be transformed.

We also discussed that there can be 'immediate' (inner) transformation only when there is a clear, honest (& global) perception of the problems. Is (not our indulging in ) living in ( a state of psychological) contradiction one of our difficulties - ( torn between?) opposing desires & opposing demands? Therefore, we never ( have a conflict-free inner space to) see the problem 'as it is' and we (indulge in) giving it a different interpretation from what it is.

Why do we ( accept to) live (inwardly) in contradiction? Are we aware we live in contradiction? We talk about peace and anything we do is towards war. We talk about brotherhood and we have castes, classes and titles. We want physical security and we do everything to destroy the global security.

Question: What is it that destroys security?

Krishnamurti: Nationalism destroys physical security. It brings about war. Everything we do psychologically is against peace.

Question: When we 'jump out' of this inner state of contradiction, will there be (ASAP?) a honest thinking? Or, must we first i( take some quality time to meditate seriously on this subject ?) ?

Krishnamurti: ( For starters?) are you aware that you are ( living inwardly ) in contradiction? I need a little ( personal) property, but the ( subliminal desire for) 'psychological' expansion through that property leads to ( envy & ) hatred.

Question: I may not, but another may seek self-expansion. What to do then?

Krishnamurti: Then you will not cause hatred. You will start a new ( holistically friendly?) culture.

Question: Where is the 'contradiction' in seeking self-expansion through property?

Krishnamurti: As I said, seeking ( to optimise one's inner) security through ( gathering material) properties ( does ultimately ) leads to ( envy & ) hatred and therefore there will be no peace. ( Not to mention that) as we live ( entangled ) in such 'contradictions' in different ways we do everything to destroy affection. If that is seen as true , we must first become fully aware of them and put an end to them. We cannot 'jump out' of it, it is not a ( tramplin?) net. We must become conscious of our thoughts and actions and become intelligent about every one of our activities.
( Indulging in a life of inner) contradiction has a great deal to do with (the lack of an) immediate transformation. See what happens when we are spontaneously giving our attention to anything we ( think, feel &) do without seeking an (immediate) result in examining a human problem. The mind is then in an extraordinary state, passive, pliable and capable of seeing clearly. Such a state is not possible when there is ( any ongoing inner) contradiction. (You know for yourself inwardly when you are not living in a state of contradiction, when you are in a state of integration) .
Why is there this contradiction? Is it not because you have never thought about any human problem completely to the end? If you have really 'thought out' ( questioned your particular) belief, then there will be no contradiction about your analysis of the problem. You will then be so swift in perception that you will see clearly.

Question: Has this not something to do with capacity?

Krishnamurti: No. (Not really?) Only a few have capacity; capacity is a gift. But if you see (the inner truth?) that a mind in ( living in internal ) contradictions cannot see honestly, then you pursue every talk alertly and see where the contradiction lies and so on, till there is no contradiction (left) . You can either shut your eyes to your ( indulging in a ) state of inner contradiction or you can become aware of the (ongoing) contradictions that exist ( in your psyche?) . If you are ( becoming responsibly?) aware, you go after every contradiction. ( Experiential hint:) You cannot 'do away' with contradiction unless you are healthy physically, and you must also become (observant & ) intelligent about everything you do. This has nothing ( much?) to do with 'capacity'.

Question: But still, some people are more aware than others...

Krishnamurti: Why ( indulge in ) comparing yourself with others? To watch from moment to moment your thoughts and your feelings, does it mean 'capacity'? Please try for yourself and experiment (for homework ?)

Question: I would really want to try it (your way ?) , and therefore I want to get that capacity (of doing it naturally & effortlessly?) .

Krishnamurti: Your ( greedy ?) desire for ( achieving a top-of-the-line ) capacity (of awareness) is preventing the experimentation itself . I am not interested in ( upgrading the 'capacity' of self-awareness) .

Questioner : Then, how can you 'try to be aware' from moment to moment?

Krishnamurti: Try to become conscious of (and understand in real time ?) what you are doing . You want to know what to do 'to try' ?

Questioner : I feel that I am aware of what I am doing.

Krishnamurti: Are you? Are you aware of the ( deeply hidden ?) contradictions? When you are doing pooja, do you ( also try to?) find the whole meaning of it, i.e., whether you do it because your family likes it or because it gives you an emotional kick? This finding of the whole meaning of what you do, is what is meant by being ( choicelessly & non-personally?) 'aware'.

Question: The fundamental urge is to seek ( a long lasting sense of ) happiness. As long as it gives me satisfaction, is it not happiness?

Krishnamurti: Then, what is your problem? Is it for satisfaction to continue (forever ) ? You can take a drink and be blind to the ( sad state of the ) world, and you can (momentarily ) think that you are happy. But, the morning after the drink, you 'pay for it' (in psychological Bitcoins ?) . You cannot maintain the immediate pleasure always.

( Choiceless awareness?) is not a question of capacity or personal gift. On the contrary, we can all do this (providing that we ) take ( an earnest) interest in it, experiment with it ( in our daily meditations?) and go at it seriously.
An (inwardly) 'simple' man does not live in a state of ( metal) contradiction. Simplicity of heart and mind is the (key) thing to transform you from moment to moment. We are all ( trying to be) simple outwardly but ( remaining) complicated inwardly. Simplicity must begin at the 'psychological' ( inner end) and not at the outward end.

Question: Even when we see the (our own state of inner) contradiction, we are ( deviously?) getting lost in positive or negative thinking.

Krishnamurti: When you (really) see (your state of inner ) contradiction you will not be lost. You go into the problem, look at it and then see what is.

Question: Then...I am not aware of any ( inner state of) contradiction.

Krishnamurti: That is it. You can be aware of ( your inner) contradictions only when you are inwardly alert (of their danger?) ; then only you can go into ( examining ) the contradictions.

Question: I don't see any contradiction if I pursue what I like.

Krishnamurti: If you do not see any contradiction, it does not mean that there is no ( hidden) contradiction. ( Here's a simple test?) to know for yourself whether you are in a state of contradiction or not. If there is no contradiction, your mind will be ( naturally) still, quiet. But apparently your mind is not quiet (inwardly) , but restless. To know ( the whole truth about it?) I must look at it and focus my attention on it without being distracted. There is no 'exclusiveness' in ( that holistic quality of inner ?) awareness.

Question: I don't understand you.

Krishnamurti: ( The holistic ) attention is not 'exclusive'. When you go out for a walk what happens? You are receiving all the impressions, about birds, people, cars, etc., if you are alert and if you are not (fully) immersed in a (personal) problem. You can give your (free) attention to any one of these things and yet be receptive to the other (inner) impressions also. The mind, if not drugged by an (obsessive personal ?) problem, is openly receiving impressions; in that state of ( inner) receptivity, one object, out of all the many, can be looked at more closely (without excluding the presence of the others) If I have a ( personal) problem and concentrate on it through effort (in order to solve it ASAP?) , this is an exclusive (attitude) . Through exclusion, I cannot understand it (holistically) , I may miss something which may help me to understand it.
Therefore I must come to the problem without a sense of ( personal priorities of ) exclusion; which means, I must be open all round to any impression with regard to that problem, to every movement of thought. When I examine ( holistically) any one part, I am not excluding anything else but I am sensitive to everything that may arise. For instance, I must listen to you and at the same time be alert to listen to what anyone else says and then find out the truth in everything that is said.

Question: If all of us would talk simultaneously can you still listen?

Krishnamurti: It is no possible even to hear clearly and listen to anyone if several of you talk at the same time. To be aware is to be open. Therefore, awareness is not ( the result of a long) practice, it is not a 'habit'. The moment I create a habit (of neing aware) , it is ( a mechanical) exclusion.
To be aware of my ( inner state of) contradiction is ( requiring) not to have a screen between 'me' and ' my contradiction', the screen of ( previously known?) conclusions or answers. If I want to understand you, I must have no ( self-protective) 'screen of prejudice' between you and me. When I am becoming aware of the ( subliminal interference of that?) screen, the screen is removed (ASAP?) . I am now (inwardly) open to find out in what ways I am living in ( a self-conflicted inner state of) contradiction, which means that (experientially?) I am then inviting all the contradictions, including all those ( lurking?) in the hidden layers of consciousness.

Question: This also means we must not approach a problem with ( personal) 'preconception' ?

Krishnamurti: Yes. It is difficult. You must free the mind from all conclusions. For this, we must be aware of the existence of those 'conclusions'. If I understand the prejudice and let it go away, then I am open. The ( self-sustained continuity of the?) problem will cease when the prejudices ( that created it?) are removed.
I have now discovered that a contradictory mind has no capacity to look directly, and it is ( essentially) a (psychologically-) dishonest mind.
( To recap:) To understand ( my inner state of) contradiction, I must become aware of the ( existing) contradictions without any ( personal choice or) exclusion. ( Hint : the common mental concentration which is ( based on the ) exclusion (of the unsignificant thoughts?) prevents (a holistic) understanding.

Question: When you approach a problem without a ( self-protective mental) 'screen', you say 'there is no problem'. What does this mean?

Krishnamurti: Take any ( everyday) 'psychological' problem. You always quote (the thoughts of other Masters of Wisdom) and ( ASAP) get the ( interpreting grid or ?) 'screen' between you and the actual problem. If this ( problem recognition ) screen is removed, you can see the problem clearly.
( To re-recap:) ( An authentic inner) transformation of the individual (consciousness) brings about an 'immediate revolution' in the ( consciousness of the?) world in which we live. Individual revolution is of the highest importance and not the 'mass' ( or elitistic ?) revolution.

Question: If I am ( feeling creatively ) happy, can the people who are present here share it (in real time?) ?

Krishnamurti: If there is an (authentic) smile, even an ( uncultured or ) 'ignorant' man responds. (Which reminds us that:) the primary factor that brings about ( a holistic inner) revolution is Love. ( Hint : this?) Love is not sentiment, not emotion.
( For homework:) It is sufficient if you are ( becoming inwardly ) aware even momentarily ; then there is a ( timeless ?) interval and in that ( silent ) interval there is relaxation (& inner regeneration?) and it will be revealing.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 06 Aug 2018.

From 'honest thinking' to the activation of a new 'inwardly perceptive' instrument

K Group Discussion in Madras, April, 1948 ('read-ex' - reader & experientially - friendly edited)

K: We were discussing last time why it ( does not seem) possible to bring about an immediate (inner) transformation. ( One reason could be that ? ) there is no authentic honesty of thinking where there is an (ongoing inner) contradiction. When a man is ( inwardly caught in an inner ?) contradiction, though he may think in a series of positive actions, his action is merely a negation (of the action in the living present?) .

What is it that brings about a fundamental transformation?
( Here are just a few clues :)
( A holistic) transformation ( of the human psyche) is not ( occurring) in the net of ( thought & ) time. It is ( happening) in the 'immediate' and not in postponement. If our minds are not clear with regard to the instruments of transformation, we cannot come to those things which really bring about transformation.
Can the process of ( self-centred) thought bring about transformation? To know directly ( in real time?) for oneself what one is thinking, (some basic integrity & ) honesty is necessary.

Question: Is there any moment when a self-centred mind can be said to be thinking ( honestly)?

Krishnamurti: Where there is ( an open or hidden inner) contradiction, there is no ( 'straight' ) thinking. What is the process of thinking?

Audience: Thinking implies setting in motion the contents of the mind, preconceived notions etc.

Krishnamurti: You say that thinking is a movement of various conclusions and memories, this putting in motion being due to a new challenge. Thinking is the movement of the ( 'known'-based?) mind in response to a challenge.

Question: 'Thinking is response to challenge'.... This is a rather vague
statement. If somebody misbehaves towards me, I slap him (ASAP?) . This is my response; but this is not 'thinking'.

Krishnamurti: The process of 'discovering and experiencing' as (currently exersed) in science experiments, is it ( the result of) thinking (within the 'known') ?

Question: In experiencing, this kind of ( knowledge) correlated 'thinking' seems to stop.

Krishnamurti: The common process of 'thinking out' ( a problem) is always directed towards finding an answer. In that process of thinking I rely on my ( available 'bank of) memory', factual (objective) as well as 'psychological' (subjective) . The ( educated?) response of memory in the process of enquiry, I call 'thinking'. ( In a nutshell : ) Thinking starts with a ( call & ) response of memory towards an answer, searching out an issue.
Factual memory is the memory of technique, of facts. Psychological memory is the memory of one's ' self-expansive continuity'  of 'I-me-mine', my house, my family - the accumulating ( personal) factor, gathering, sustaining itself. Our whole inward existence is (taking place in the field of our 'known') memory. Without ( the back-up of our previously known?) memory there would be no ( self-conscious?) continuity of the 'me' from day to day.
( To recap:) ( Our everyday) 'thinking' is the outcome of a series of conclusions, memories which have been ( consciously or sub-consciously?) stored up. When I think about a person, the thought is a conclusion or an (emotionally charged?) 'image' of that person. Therefore, ( the process of our everyday?) thinking is an (unbroken) series of responses of memory; it is always going on in the field of our (self-centred) conditioning.
Thus, we have these three things: thinking, experiencing and discovery. 'Thinking' we know now.

Question: Cannot a conclusion be new?

Krishnamurti: I am not sure it is. Thought is the product of conclusions, memories.

Question: Darwin's ( fact-based) thinking led to the discovery of the 'theory of evolution'.

Krishnamurti: How does a 'new theory' come into being? Is it the result of previous thoughts?

Question: In Science, you can only arrive at the 'truth of things' by ( using your objective & rational ) thinking.

Krishnamurti: Do you not 'think' (or...'think -think-think'?) up to a certain point and then (the insightful mind) suddenly 'jumps'? Does that 'jumping' state come because of your (dilligent) thinking (within the field of the known?) ? Is thought essential to that ( insight-friendly) state, when the 'new' (truth) is perceived? Is the ( memory of the?) 'old' the spring-board to the New?

Question: ( Inwardly speaking?) unless the mind has moved through the labyrinth of the old, we cannot see (and/or appreciate the redeeming value of?) the New.

Krishnamurti: When do you see a new ( inner) clarity, a new 'meaning'? Is it as a result of serious thinking? When does the 'new' take place (comes into one's being?) ? I have thought about a problem within the field of the previously known ( ideas & ) conclusions, and I cannot solve it. Suddenly the flash (of Insight) comes when the mind ceases to worry. Would it not come if I had not worried?

Question: Is it ever possible to leave alone thought, until we are sure that there is nothing to be found?

Krishnamurti: I have a (real life) problem and I search for the solution in the field of the known. I investigate into the field of the known and then when my minds is exhausted, I drop it. Are you saying that it is necessary to exhaust (all the avenues of?) the known before the 'new' is perceived ?

Question: There can be application only of known facts in Science.

Krishnamurti: The 'scientist' is dealing with the known ( with the 'knowable'?) and not with the Unknown. If there is a (deeper human) problem which cannot be dealt with in the field of ( educated guesses &) conclusions, what do you do? When the ( conscious) mind has dropped ( all hopes to solve a psychological ) problem; and then, the 'new' comes in suddenly. Actually, you worry, worry & worry; and suddenly you may get the new solution (or not?) . You say that there must be a previous examination of all the relevant facts before the new comes in ?

Question: Well, yes, because a 'haphazard' mind can never get anything new.

Krishnamurti: Do you not suddenly see ( the inner truth of?) something which is not a new view of the old, but something entirely new?
The mind is ( contemplatively ) still when it does not want a ( reassuring) conclusion, when it is not ( obsessed by ) seeking an answer. Does that stillness ( of the mind & heart) come into being through cultivation?
Can the (self-centred) thought-process give place to stillness? Stillness comes only when the thought-process comes to an end. The new (light of truth?) is seen only when the mind is still.

Question: Absence of thought-process is not necessary for stillness.

Krishnamurti: ( The thought-free ?) stillness is not the ( rigid?) stillness of death. It is ( a living state of?) passive alertness.

Question: When we are discussing here , are we not thinking?

Krishnamurti: In our discussing, we (insightfully) went through removing the old misconceptions. The process of thinking comes in only in the stage of verbalization.

Question: The process of enquiry, discarding of ideas, is not this a hindrance to stillness?

Krishnamurti: The ( inner) stillness gives a new answer. Actually, once we see the necessity of ( a total inner) stillness, we need not go through the thought-process.

Question: Is 'not having a problem' a process of thinking?

Krishnamurti: Silence is when the 'thinker' ( the creator of the problem !) ceases to 'think'. We do not see things as they ( really) are if we 'think' within the field of the known. ( The authentic inner) Discovery takes place only when the thought-process ( the 'thinker-thinking' process?) ceases. When I see the (absolute ) necessity of (inner) silence, I do not need to cultivate silence. The moment we see that silence is essential, we are (ASAP naturally?) silent.

Question: The intention to find the truth and the discovery of the truth can come only when there is silence. Do these not form a ('vertical' ?) 'process'?

Krishnamurti: When I 'see' the importance of silence, is it a verbal process or an inward ( 'vertical' or timeless?) process? Please investigate your own minds. I put an (experientially challenging?) question to you. Are you 'thinking it out'? Isn't 'seeing things directly' different from ( using the ?) thought-process ? You ( first ) saw the importance of silence and then you talk or verbalize about it. Through verbalizing (& processing it intellectually) you do not see. Thought- process begins only in ( the outward) communications with another, or in recording, or in experiencing ( 'outward' stuff?) . Thought-process is not necessary for ( the inner) experiencing.

Question: You tell us something (of a revolutionary nature?) We are experiencing it in the light of our memories and then we accept it. Is it not thinking?

Krishnamurti: The 'creative' state of being does not come through ( a creative ?) technique. Thought-process does not produce transformation. You can 'jump' (by-pass the linear thought process?) right into discovery.

Question: Is not thought-process a hindrance to ( a holistic inner?) transformation?

Krishnamurti: Certainly. Therefore, if the thought-process is not the right instrument, what is ( the new perceptive instrument?) ?

Question: Learning and studying, is it the same thinking process or something different?

Krishnamurti: Is there any 'thinking process' involved in directly looking at facts? Is (the homework study & ) learning necessary for ( seeing the vital necessity of ) this silence? Obviously not.
( In a nutshell:) When one is really seeking (the inner truth of things?) , there is no thought-process. For instance, here we have not 'thought' , but our thinking (within the field of the known?) ceased and we discovered. The ( silent?) mind is the most extraordinary instrument we have ( readily available ?) but we do not know ( yet ?) how to use (properly?) this wonderful instrument. If you look (with a totally 'silent mind'?) at a problem properly, you can discover the 'new' always. And to discover the 'new', ( the 'known' based?) thought-process is not necessary at all; the thought-process is actually a 'positive hindrance' to (self-) discovery.

From 'honest thinking' to the activation of a new 'inwardly perceptive' instrument

K Group Discussion in Madras, April, 1948 ('read-ex' - reader & experientially - friendly edited)

K: We were discussing last time why it ( does not seem) possible to bring about an immediate (inner) transformation. ( One reason could be that ? ) there is no authentic honesty of thinking where there is an (ongoing inner) contradiction. When a man is ( inwardly caught in an inner ?) contradiction, though he may think in a series of positive actions, his action is merely a negation (of the action in the living present?) .

What is it that brings about a fundamental transformation?
( Here are just a few clues :)
( A holistic) transformation ( of the human psyche) is not ( occurring) in the net of ( thought & ) time. It is ( happening) in the 'immediate' and not in postponement. If our minds are not clear with regard to the instruments of transformation, we cannot come to those things which really bring about transformation.
Can the process of ( self-centred) thought bring about transformation? To know directly ( in real time?) for oneself what one is thinking, (some basic integrity & ) honesty is necessary.

Question: Is there any moment when a self-centred mind can be said to be thinking ( honestly)?

Krishnamurti: Where there is ( an open or hidden inner) contradiction, there is no ( 'straight' ) thinking. What is the process of thinking?

Audience: Thinking implies setting in motion the contents of the mind, preconceived notions etc.

Krishnamurti: You say that thinking is a movement of various conclusions and memories, this putting in motion being due to a new challenge. Thinking is the movement of the ( 'known'-based?) mind in response to a challenge.

Question: 'Thinking is response to challenge'.... This is a rather vague
statement. If somebody misbehaves towards me, I slap him (ASAP?) . This is my response; but this is not 'thinking'.

Krishnamurti: The process of 'discovering and experiencing' as (currently exersed) in science experiments, is it ( the result of) thinking (within the 'known') ?

Question: In experiencing, this kind of ( knowledge) correlated 'thinking' seems to stop.

Krishnamurti: The common process of 'thinking out' ( a problem) is always directed towards finding an answer. In that process of thinking I rely on my ( available 'bank of) memory', factual (objective) as well as 'psychological' (subjective) . The ( educated?) response of memory in the process of enquiry, I call 'thinking'. ( In a nutshell : ) Thinking starts with a ( call & ) response of memory towards an answer, searching out an issue.
Factual memory is the memory of technique, of facts. Psychological memory is the memory of one's ' self-expansive continuity'  of 'I-me-mine', my house, my family - the accumulating ( personal) factor, gathering, sustaining itself. Our whole inward existence is (taking place in the field of our 'known') memory. Without ( the back-up of our previously known?) memory there would be no ( self-conscious?) continuity of the 'me' from day to day.
( To recap:) ( Our everyday) 'thinking' is the outcome of a series of conclusions, memories which have been ( consciously or sub-consciously?) stored up. When I think about a person, the thought is a conclusion or an (emotionally charged?) 'image' of that person. Therefore, ( the process of our everyday?) thinking is an (unbroken) series of responses of memory; it is always going on in the field of our (self-centred) conditioning.
Thus, we have these three things: thinking, experiencing and discovery. 'Thinking' we know now.

Question: Cannot a conclusion be new?

Krishnamurti: I am not sure it is. Thought is the product of conclusions, memories.

Question: Darwin's ( fact-based) thinking led to the discovery of the 'theory of evolution'.

Krishnamurti: How does a 'new theory' come into being? Is it the result of previous thoughts?

Question: In Science, you can only arrive at the 'truth of things' by ( using your objective & rational ) thinking.

Krishnamurti: Do you not 'think' (or...'think -think-think'?) up to a certain point and then (the insightful mind) suddenly 'jumps'? Does that 'jumping' state come because of your (dilligent) thinking (within the field of the known?) ? Is thought essential to that ( insight-friendly) state, when the 'new' (truth) is perceived? Is the ( memory of the?) 'old' the spring-board to the New?

Question: ( Inwardly speaking?) unless the mind has moved through the labyrinth of the old, we cannot see (and/or appreciate the redeeming value of?) the New.

Krishnamurti: When do you see a new ( inner) clarity, a new 'meaning'? Is it as a result of serious thinking? When does the 'new' take place (comes into one's being?) ? I have thought about a problem within the field of the previously known ( ideas & ) conclusions, and I cannot solve it. Suddenly the flash (of Insight) comes when the mind ceases to worry. Would it not come if I had not worried?

Question: Is it ever possible to leave alone thought, until we are sure that there is nothing to be found?

Krishnamurti: I have a (real life) problem and I search for the solution in the field of the known. I investigate into the field of the known and then when my minds is exhausted, I drop it. Are you saying that it is necessary to exhaust (all the avenues of?) the known before the 'new' is perceived ?

Question: There can be application only of known facts in Science.

Krishnamurti: The 'scientist' is dealing with the known ( with the 'knowable'?) and not with the Unknown. If there is a (deeper human) problem which cannot be dealt with in the field of ( educated guesses &) conclusions, what do you do? When the ( conscious) mind has dropped ( all hopes to solve a psychological ) problem; and then, the 'new' comes in suddenly. Actually, you worry, worry & worry; and suddenly you may get the new solution (or not?) . You say that there must be a previous examination of all the relevant facts before the new comes in ?

Question: Well, yes, because a 'haphazard' mind can never get anything new.

Krishnamurti: Do you not suddenly see ( the inner truth of?) something which is not a new view of the old, but something entirely new?
The mind is ( contemplatively ) still when it does not want a ( reassuring) conclusion, when it is not ( obsessed by ) seeking an answer. Does that stillness ( of the mind & heart) come into being through cultivation?
Can the (self-centred) thought-process give place to stillness? Stillness comes only when the thought-process comes to an end. The new (light of truth?) is seen only when the mind is still.

Question: Absence of thought-process is not necessary for stillness.

Krishnamurti: ( The thought-free ?) stillness is not the ( rigid?) stillness of death. It is ( a living state of?) passive alertness.

Question: When we are discussing here , are we not thinking?

Krishnamurti: In our discussing, we (insightfully) went through removing the old misconceptions. The process of thinking comes in only in the stage of verbalization.

Question: The process of enquiry, discarding of ideas, is not this a hindrance to stillness?

Krishnamurti: The ( inner) stillness gives a new answer. Actually, once we see the necessity of ( a total inner) stillness, we need not go through the thought-process.

Question: Is 'not having a problem' a process of thinking?

Krishnamurti: Silence is when the 'thinker' ( the creator of the problem !) ceases to 'think'. We do not see things as they ( really) are if we 'think' within the field of the known. ( The authentic inner) Discovery takes place only when the thought-process ( the 'thinker-thinking' process?) ceases. When I see the (absolute ) necessity of (inner) silence, I do not need to cultivate silence. The moment we see that silence is essential, we are (ASAP naturally?) silent.

Question: The intention to find the truth and the discovery of the truth can come only when there is silence. Do these not form a ('vertical' ?) 'process'?

Krishnamurti: When I 'see' the importance of silence, is it a verbal process or an inward ( 'vertical' or timeless?) process? Please investigate your own minds. I put an (experientially challenging?) question to you. Are you 'thinking it out'? Isn't 'seeing things directly' different from ( using the ?) thought-process ? You ( first ) saw the importance of silence and then you talk or verbalize about it. Through verbalizing (& processing it intellectually) you do not see. Thought- process begins only in ( the outward) communications with another, or in recording, or in experiencing ( 'outward' stuff?) . Thought-process is not necessary for ( the inner) experiencing.

Question: You tell us something (of a revolutionary nature?) We are experiencing it in the light of our memories and then we accept it. Is it not thinking?

Krishnamurti: The 'creative' state of being does not come through ( a creative ?) technique. Thought-process does not produce transformation. You can 'jump' (by-pass the linear thought process?) right into discovery.

Question: Is not thought-process a hindrance to ( a holistic inner?) transformation?

Krishnamurti: Certainly. Therefore, if the thought-process is not the right instrument, what is ( the new perceptive instrument?) ?

Question: Learning and studying, is it the same thinking process or something different?

Krishnamurti: Is there any 'thinking process' involved in directly looking at facts? Is (the homework study & ) learning necessary for ( seeing the vital necessity of ) this silence? Obviously not.
( In a nutshell:) When one is really seeking (the inner truth of things?) , there is no thought-process. For instance, here we have not 'thought' , but our thinking (within the field of the known?) ceased and we discovered. The ( silent?) mind is the most extraordinary instrument we have ( readily available ?) but we do not know ( yet ?) how to use (properly?) this wonderful instrument. If you look (with a totally 'silent mind'?) at a problem properly, you can discover the 'new' always. And to discover the 'new', ( the 'known' based?) thought-process is not necessary at all; the thought-process is actually a 'positive hindrance' to (self-) discovery.

K Group Discussion 18th April, 1948 ('reader friendly' edited )

K: We have been discussing that ( when and if?) the 'individual' transforms himself, there is a possibility of a revolution in the ( surrounding) world to which (s)he is in immediate relationship. ( However the psychological ?) contradictions impede the ( clarity of?) individual thinking ( since) they are not only the superficial contradiction in every-day-existence but also there are ( hidden ) contradictions of the deeper layers of (human) consciousness.
( As a simple 'rule of thumb' :) Unless the individual unearths all these contradictions and eradicates them through awareness, there is no possibility of ( any authentic inner ) transformation. We also saw that (the self-centred) process of thought cannot solve the problem.
What is it that is going to bring about an inner revolution, an immediate change in values and directions? Will our 'emotions' & 'feelings', however vital, bring about this revolution?

Question: If there is no emotional fervour, there is no possibility of any inner alteration.

Krishnamurti: Have you ever had any emotions?

Question: Yes, when I have disturbance of some sort or other...

Krishnamurti: Are emotions the instruments of transformation? Will the intensity of our emotions transform (the human psyche?) ? You say that great grief can transform an individual, or an ecstasy can. But...can they bring about a sustained revolution of values? Can sorrow be the instrument of (our inner) transformation? Can sorrow beget ( loving & compassionate?) intelligence? ( Suppose that) my son dies. Will the ( resulting) sorrow of (my deep existential ) loneliness bring about a revolution of values? Will the shock of my son's death change my character?

Question: Has not grief a chastening effect on the soul?

Krishnamurti: Is grief a means of betterment of character, of the soul, of your being?

Question: Why not ?

Krishnamurti: Grief has no ( long term ) effect on character; it is my attitude towards that grief that makes a change in me : facing the actual state (of existential sorrow?) without seeking any 'escape' from it, leads to inner revolution. Devotion, various forms of sentimentality may modify the superficial structure of one's being but they cannot bring about a ( holistic) transformation which is a complete alteration in direction. Why is it then that there is no transformation?

Question: The ( subliminal?) desire to 'escape' is an impediment.

Krishnamurti: Yes, it is one factor. Dishonesty is another factor. Thought as a means to transformation is another. The idea of 'becoming', evolution, the giving of the time-interval is another. The (inner) transformation (we are talking about?) is a complete rebirth. Have you not felt it when you have given up ( the psychological attachment to) something? Why are we not (inwardly) creative? You have to discover for yourself what stands in the way of transformation. ( Hint:) Is love ( the missing factor?) ? I can think about the objects of my love but I cannot think about the ( holistic inner) state which I call Love. I can think about the emotions. We may call these (gratifying ?) emotions 'love', though incorrectly. Emotions may be good or evil but they are only a different aspect of ( our self-centred ) thinking.

Question: Love is obviously not born of the thought-process.

Krishnamurti: You are right. When there is a ( loving?) feeling, the naming of that feeling is ( part of the ) the thought-process. Thought arises also from stimuli. Thought is a response of memory and memory is a record in which the names, terms, incomplete experiences, the result of stimuli, exist. Feeling is also the result of stimuli. So, what is the difference between thought and feeling?

Question: Verbalised response of memory is thinking and feeling is the state before verbalising, before giving it a name; it is also a ( sensate) response.

Krishnamurti: What is the difference between 'feeling' and 'thinking'? Is it not a ( clever trick?) of the (conscious) mind to separate these two so that it may deal with them (in an ordely way?) ? The 'thinking-feeling' process is perception, contact, sensation, desire and naming. When you think about a person, you have an (an associated 'psychological') sensation which is another form of feeling. You have ( a very sincere ) devotion for your guru, for your ( spiritual) ideal. Has it transformed you?

Question: Such a devotion is obviously an impediment.

Krishnamurti: It is still within the field of memory. So, if the thought- process is an impediment, then 'sentimentality' ( to have a sense of human warmth) - called noble devotion, etc., - is also an impediment because it is all in the ( previously known?) field of thought. If you see the truth of this, there is freedom from (both) ; and that freedom itself is enough. You will not use emotions, devotion, as a means of inner transformation.

Question: We would all like to be (inwardly?) transformed (ASAP?) but nothing that we know, leads to this ( holistic) transformation.

Krishnamurti: The main point is whether there is is a transforming factor, not eventually, but 'now'. You say you are incapable. Why incapable? You do give yourself over to something if you are vitally interested in it.

Question: Is it because we are not ( inwardly really ?) honest ?

Krishnamurti: Why are you not honest? You must find out the whole substance of this. If you realize that it is only now there can be transformation and that transformation is essential for happiness and for a new structure in society, you have to find out what the impediments are. If thought prevents understanding, then emotion will also prevent it, as does ( any self-interest tainted feeling of ?) devotion, ecstasy, joy. We must go outside the field of all this.
( For starters?) an emotion which is 'untermed' is not the same as when it is termed & brought into the field of thought and used as a means for one's continuing or for something else. So long as you think about a feeling, it is (ASAP converted into a self-centred) thought.
Isn't there a state of (innocent?) being which is not within the field of thought-process? Anything within the field of thought is the 'known'. To (directly experience?) the 'unknown' I must completely abandon the known.
( Hint:) At the moment of ( direct inward) experiencing there is neither the 'experiencer' nor the 'experience', and therefore there is no ( personal) recording.

Is there a state (a dimension of our inner being?) which is not in the field of thought, something beyond the thought-process? I can only find this out when the 'thought- process' ceases. We see now the importance of the ceasing of the thought-process, of feeling. You (must) have experienced (in your meditation homework?) that it is possible to have a complete cessation of (the continuance of?) thought, no matter even if it was for a split second, when your mind is alert (fully awake?) and passive; when your ( self-conscious) mind is not active because it has understood that ( indulging in) thought is an impediment. When the thought-process is not functioning, you and I are completely open to each other and there is no barrier. It is only when we love each other that there can be complete openness between us. Why is this not ( applicable to?) your experience? We see the possibility of being completely open and this state of openness is only when there is Love. Therefore, this 'love' is a ( natural?) state ( of one's inner being?) when the mind is extraordinarily alert, except that 'you' ( the knowledgeable 'thinker' ?) cannot think about it.

( For some additional meditation homework ?) You should ( try to) perceive ( non-personally?) the (various self-centred ) activities of thought. When you are ( becoming non-dualistically?) aware of your thought-process, it will cease to function ( towards building its self-continuance) and the ( totality of the ) mind will be completely ( silent?) quiet and open and then it will able to discover ( by direct experience?) what is beyond the thought-process.

K Group Discussion April, 1948 ('read-ex' friendly edited)

The inwardly regenerative virtues of 'Not-knowing'

K: We have discussed the importance of immediate transformation (in the human consciousness ? ) and how it can be brought about; also how this individual regeneration is a time-free process. The 'time' element is introduced whenever we allow the thought-process to take place. Realizing that no ( inner) regeneration can take place within ( the continuity of though-) time, how are we to set about to have transformation?

Question: Can we do anything about it? The moment we try to do something, we seem to imitate some pattern of conduct or another.

Krishnamurti: It is an important question. Can anything be done to bring about this inward transformation? Any ( known) action on my part is within the field of thought as it necessitates a choice. How is choice made? With memory. What is memory? Incomplete experience. If you understand or experience something completely, the 'psychological' memory of it is absent; you may remember the incident but there is no emotional content.

Question: Psychological memory may act 'subconsciously' whereas factual memory is within the superficial layers of consciousness.

Krishnamurti: We are discussing whether ( a regenerative inner) transformation can be effected by any action on my part ( within the field of the known ?) . Obviously, such an act will not lead to such transformation.
Look at this question practically. Do you remember anything which you have completely finished with , an incident or an experience? When you face, understand and complete a 'fact' of life, you do not have ( to carry over) the psychological memory of it.
Why does an experience leave a psychological mark? A mind which is (psychologically) 'marked' cannot experience a new thing - like a (pre-) exposed negative film which cannot take a clear impression of a new picture. Such a mind is incapable of ( a truly spontaneous) action apart from a pattern of action already known. Until that mark is completely understood, the memory will go on repeating itself.
My mind is the repository of all the experiences of all humanity. How can such a mind, so completely filled, have anything new? I am the result of incomplete experiences because the ( memories of my ) past experiences are all incomplete. Experiences are remembered because they are incomplete, because we have not thought about them completely to their end. We use them as a means of ( gaining a persona ) profit or avoidance ( of personal losses?) and therefore we 'remember' them.

Question: If I cannot have a new way of thinking or new ( time-free?) perception as long as my mind is clouded with old ( residual) thoughts, (the 1000 $ experiential question is :) What am I to do?

Krishnamurti: (For starters?) you realize that 'you' cannot do anything with regard to immediate inward transformation.

Question: Then I feel helpless...

Krishnamurti: Have you realized that as long as your action is within the field of the known, you cannot transform yourself by doing anything? If you have realized it, then the activities of your mind which wants to do something or other, are all cut one after another and finally you realize deeply that you cannot do anything about it.
The main difficulty now is that your mind thinks it can do something or other with this problem and that, if it does not act, it feels uneasy. The mind is therefore restless. ( The knowledgeable ) mind kicks against "not acting" ( non-action?) . Therefore you have to reconsider ( the inner validity of memory ) in relation to transformation.

Question: Transformation is not in the plane of ( temporal ) action.

Krishnamurti: Do I see the importance of a complete regeneration, a clarity, a creativeness ? If I find this transformation, then my life will have a meaning.
This ( 'non-action' meditation related issue?) can be made clear by a (simple metaphorical ) example. Supposing I live in a well- enclosed fortress (of my self-centred thinking?) and somebody ( of a Higher authority?) says that there is something marvellous beyond the walls of the fortress. If I want to see that which is beyond the walls, any action within the limits of the fortress only is futile. It is only when I 'break the walls', that I can have a glimpse of what is outside.
( In the meanwhile?) if you want to understand (the ultimate truth of) something you have to be silent, to study, and to watch. Your ( experiential) attitude should be one of watching silently, observing and studying all the time. Can you really listen to music with ( an intellectual?) effort? Have you not got to sit absolutely quiet to enjoy music? Similarly, when you have the feeling that you must do something, it is an indiction that you have not yet realized the fact that whatever you do (inwardly in terms of time?) cannot lead you to transformation of any kind.

Question: Is ( our self-centred) desire in the way of ( a holistic inner ) transformation?

Krishnamurti: Is it not? (But you'll have to) find this out for yourself.

Question: Even if I (just sit back & ) do nothing, there will be no transformation either .

Krishnamurti: How do you know? Can you examine all the contents of your consciousness, investigate into the (psychological residues of the?) past and finish them one by one? It will take time; the instrument of your investigation is incomplete. You might miss some. Therefore in this ( linear) examination of your past experiences, you are sure to be caught again (in the corridors of self-centred thinking ?) . Therefore, what are you to do?

Question: When you can't do it, what can you do? You have to 'step out' or to accept it.

Krishnamurti: When I really say "I do not know" my mind is very alert, very quiet and in a new state.

Question: It is a state of expectancy ?

Krishnamurti: When you expect anything, it is still based upon the known, but if you have realized (the inner truth?) that you do not know, your mind is extraordinarily alert ; this means 'negative thinking' (non-thinking?) is the highest form of Meditation; it is complete cessation of ( the psychological continuance of ) thought. Therefore, ( the innocence of?) "not- knowingness" is the new state of the mind in which the ( interference of the ) past has disappeared. ( If one can allow the meditating mind to come to this point?) there is a way by which the mind can be 'immediately' cleansed of all its past, cleansed of the whole ( residual) content of consciousness. When the mind is thus cleansed of all its past, there is directly (perceptive?) action.

Question: Until I say "I do not know", I am not free of the past. Is this correct?

Krishnamurti: Why don't you say now "I don't know"? Please experiment with it. When you have a ( serious personal ) problem and when you have realized that you do not know anything about it, then that problem is not 'yours'.
Why do you find it so difficult to say "I do not know"? What do you know except doing some work as a technician or earning money as a lawyer? Technique, gathering of other people's information etc., what else do you know? Your (self-consciousness?) is a bundle of ( active personal & collective ?) memories. Beyond that what 'are' you (inwardly) ?

Question: I don't know...

Krishnamurti: ( For optional 'meditative homework') Remove the ( psychological identification with your name & physical form and ...) titles, house & money ; what are you?
We never say "I don't know, I am nothing". Why not acknowledge ( the inward truth of) this ? Why not face this 'no-thingness' and in facing it be completely stripped and say, "I am nobody, I am nothing". It is the recognition of a ( true inner) fact. What is your difficulty ? Because you have never ( tried to?) look at it, you are never facing it.

What happens when you actually come to the state of facing and recognizing yourself 'as you are', and you can ( honestly) say "I don't know, I am nothing"?
This is the ( time-free) way of completely cleansing the mind of the past immediately, and therefore bringing about an instantaneous ( inner) regeneration. The mind is then unburdened and swift, butalso quiet, passive and extraordinarily alert. Then only there can be a full and direct (insightful ) action.

K Group Discussion 22nd April, 1948 (read-ex friendly edited )

Re-focussing the inwardly perceptive instrument

K: As long as we try to look at every (inner) problem in the light of our own opinions and conclusions, it is not possible to arrive at the state where there is both the ( silent ) interval and also the sense of 'not knowing', when alone the 'real' comprehension comes into being.

Questioner (1) : If I understand correctly, you said that we have to feel "I am nothing". How am I to get this feeling?

Questioner (2) : When I say 'I cannot do anything' to bring about transformation, is it the same as 'I am nothing' ? Or preceding the 'I don't know', is when I feel that 'I am nothing' ? This point requires some clarification.

Krishnamurti: As of now, aren't we (psychologically identified with ?) 'something' ? Before you can say ( honestly that) 'you are (as) nothing', shouldn't you see what you (really think you) are ?

Question: ( The subliminal identification with?) our beliefs, our cultural biases, our prejudices, our commitments, can (eventually ) be experienced but to say 'I am nothing' appears to be something very different.

Krishnamurti: Are you aware that you are something?

Question: In any thought-process, I feel I that am (the 'thinker' in charge ?) .

Krishnamurti: So, we think we are something whenever the thought- process is functioning (in the dual mode) . Is that it? When there is the continuance of the 'I', I feel that I am something. ( Now, the 1000 $ question is : ) can we go beyond that or not? Can we go beyond the 'screen' ( mental interface of ) of 'I am'?

Questioner (1) : Basically, whenever I think, the 'I' comes in. Therefore, I don't know anything beyond that.

Krishnamurti: When you have a really ( tough?) human problem, and you cannot solve it, what do you do?

Question: You do nothing.

Krishnamurti: Have you ever been against such a problem?

Question: Yes. Then (realising that I cannot do anything to solve it?) I pushed off the problem and got on with something else.

Krishnamurti: What is the state of the mind when the problem demands an urgent ( experiential) solution? Here is ( such ) a problem : an immediate ( inner) transformation is necessary and you feel that the thought-process cannot lead you to solving it, but you feel that it is imperative to find out the solution and you are quite willing to find it out. Then you find that you are unable to do anything about it. When you come to this point, what is the state of your mind?

Questioner: My mind has become still, alert and watchful.

Krishnamurti: What happens now to it? You realize the deep significance of saying "there must be immediate transformation", but thought cannot do this. No ( already known) action is possible and you cannot do anything about this to bring about transformation.

Question: My mind is absolutely quiet, standing still.

Krishnamurti: Go into it please. What does this 'absolute stillness' mean?
There is a (silent) interval between two thoughts, between the ending of one (train of?) thought and the arising of another. Without that interval ( the streaming of) thought would be continuous. What is happening in that interval? Have you ( meditatively?) watched your own process of mind?

Question: I feel 'as nothing', but the consciousness is not extinct. The sense of the 'I' is not there.

Krishnamurti: Let us view it differently. I have a new ( experiential) problem and I have no previous ready-made answer. It is an entirely new problem. How will I tackle it? Regeneration can take place only immediately and I cannot do anything about it. To understand it completely, I must come with a fresh mind, a mind free from the residues left by my previous experiences. What is the state of your mind now when you similarly face this problem?

Question: A state of ( silent) expectancy ?

Krishnamurti: One (major experiential) difficulty is to recognize the problem as 'new'. If you see an entirely new ( semi-transparent?) insect, you will find it very difficult to focus on it; the whole thing appears to be blurred to you so far as that 'insect' is concerned. ( Hint :) your mind is 'out of focus', so you have observe the thing much more closely till the mind builds up sufficient ( intelligent mind energy?) through which it can recognize it; the (mind's ?) eye has therefore to make a much greater effort to observe.
If you see that all this attempt to get an answer to the new problem by a reference to your past memories, and you do not expect (anything of a miraculous nature?) , what is your mind doing then?

Question: It is expecting to hear what you are going to say next.

Krishnamurti: I am only unfolding my own mind. I am now focusing my attention on the problem itself and my eyes are focused on the 'new insect' without translating the insect in terms of what I have seen in the past.
Are there other 'screens' ( perceptive blocks?) intervening between me and the problem (of inner renewal) ? There is indeed the desire to be ( inwardly ) transformed (ASAP?) which means : I want a result ( for my meditative endeavour?) . (This vital desire is ) creating the 'actor' who wants to do something. ( In a nutshell:) The very desire for ( a holistic inner) transformation is a very difficult 'screen' ( block?) to get rid of.

Question: This is part of the problem itself.

Krishnamurti: That is so. But the ( metaphorical?) 'new insect' says "I am entirely new and you cannot understand me if you bring in any of your old (mind tricks ) ". Desire for a (rewarding ) end creates the action and the action creates the 'actor' who says "I will get it (some day?) ."
But if there is no necessity for ( achieving a rewarding ) result, there is no necessity for the 'actor'. ( In a nutshell:) Any expectation from the past as an answer to the new, any interpretation based on that past, or any desire for an end or to seek a result - all these must go, as these are barriers to my direct understanding of the problem.

When one has ( wisely?) wiped away the three 'screens' ( three 'subliminal blocks'?) referred to above as irrelevant, then what is the state of my mind? The mind is now ( qualitatively?) transformed, because it is no longer ( identifying itself with ) the old – and as it has been cleansed of the past and has become the new.
The ( experiential) importance is to see that this cleansing of the mind can be done and done immediately. When I see the futility of all that I have done and all that I can do ( in the field of the known?) . This ( meditative) 'thinking out', after full examination of ( all the issues implied in ) this problem, implies intelligence. So, (as my subliminal ) expectations go (bust?) the mind has now become sharper in itself and there is more and more ( non-dualistic) observation and intelligence.

When all these three ( mental ) 'screens' go, the mind is now all attention. It has examined all the things that are not worthwhile, and discarded them. Then only it has become new.
( Unfortunately?) because you have not discarded these (truth blocking?) screens but are ( indulging in ) playing (various mind games?) with them, you do not ( even) see the need for ( a holistic inner) transformation. This ( major existential ?) problem exists only as long as the screens exist (as the mind is functioning in the 'self-protected' mode ?) . The ( intelligent?) 'removal of the screens' is ( an act of inner) freedom. ( Hint:) If this 'removal of the screens' can be done immediately, now; then there will be ( an instant inner) regeneration.
There is no "how to be transformed". If you 'go after it' now, it is done (ASAP?) . That is the beauty of it.

That state when the mind is 'cleansed of the past' is the state of "not knowing". This ( most excellent inner ?) state is a state of highly ( creative?) activity. When the cup is empty, something new can be put into it - therefore, the mind has to be cleansed of ( its imponderable 'weight of the?) past' in order to view a new ( yet ages old ?) problem anew

K Group Discussion Madras, 25th April, 1948 ('reader friendly' edited )

A 'fast track' Course in Miracles

K: We have been discussing about the (vital) importance of an individual (regenerative?) transformation; about the importance of not thinking in terms of the 'mass' (multitudes?) and that such inner transformation cannot take place through the ( self-centred?) thought-process as any thinking & feeling is (validly operating only) in the field of sensation and will not lead to fundamental transformation.
We also enquired what were the three barriers ( or three 'blocks'?) to the (direct realisation ?) of the problem. We said that they might be: -(1) ( Indulging in the cozy comfort of the self-centred mentality ?) which prevents a direct ( non-verbal) relationship with the problem. To deal with a human problem we look to ( our past) memory for help and this cannot lead to a (holistic) solution of a problem. (2) The 'interpreter' (controlling interference?) which is the memory acting on a problem. So long as there is the 'interpreter', the problem cannot be seen simply. (3) Looking for a ( gratifying ?) result , which prevents a direct communion with the problem. When you look at a problem as a means of getting a result or leading to a result, you cannot ( objectively ?) understand the problem.

When these three 'screens' ( three perceptive blocks?) are removed, the mind is cleansed and is ( open to the ) 'new'. When the mind is thus transformed, the problem is directly seen and it is then no longer a problem at all. This transformation cannot be brought about through time, through growth, through evolution, or ( even) through a series of ( virtuous?) lives. There can be no inward revolution through a process of time. An immediate inward revolution is possible only through ( insightful self-) understanding. Therefore, the removal of the screens must come as a ( necessary ?) experience and not because others have said, etc. We can keep our mind fresh and new only by our own constant experiencing.

Question: How comes that the process of the mind seems so clear when you talk about it but, when I go home, my mind goes back into the old groove ? I do not recognize for myself the existence of any ill- will or evil which recreates itself in the minds of others or causes chaos in society.

Krishnamurti: Surely, there is a 'repetitive evil' ( a self-divisive process?) which arises inside you, which projects itself into society as anti-social actions, etc.

Question: (The Bhagavad ) Gita says "How does it happen that human mind turns to evil rather than good".

Krishnamurti: Why is it ( so much?) easier to bring about ( a lucrative?) co-operation between people through greed and/or hatred ? Why is it ( so much ) easier to injure another, to be inconsiderate, rather than to be kind and generous? Supposing we (try to ?) join together and produce something which will be for the good of all of us. Will they (the masses?) join? Why do people more easily choose evil action than good action?

Question: Because there is some expectation of getting something in the immediate future ?

Krishnamurti: You are saying is that our immediate (needs ) are dictating and not the ultimate result. But the ultimate (end-result) is really ( contained in ) the immediate. If your relationship with society is based on some ( bad ?) qualities, those qualities are bound to be impressed on the society with which you are in immediate relationship. Generally speaking , your whole existence is based on the attempt either to gain or to avoid. Why do I pursue (this collective momentum?) Is it because I am sensitive, or am lacking in clarity?

Question: To answer this correctly, you will have to study the whole history of mankind.

Krishnamurti: It is not very practical to say that "I shall answer when I know the whole of my past". There must be another method.

Question: Am I different from my qualities?

Krishnamurti: True. Then, why does the self follow one quality in preference to another?

Question: When you follow anger, does anger give you pleasure?

Krishnamurti: Certainly, Sir, ( you do feel better?) when you let off steam. But when you (realise ) that ( the blind pursuit for?) pleasure is going to bring ultimate destruction, why do you pursue it? Why do you not see that in your pursuit of pleasure ( a wide spectrum of psychosomatic?) diseases and pains are involved and why do you not therefore immediately drop the pleasure?
When you (realise that) a certain thing is poisonous , you do not play around with it and taste it.

Question: Everyone of us has an (open or hidden) tendency to manufacture some unnamed proclivity to evil. Why is it?

Krishnamurti: If you know the ( social ) bad effects of anger and yet why do you pursue anger?

Question: Because I don't know it is a poison ?

Krishnamurti: ( Supposing that) I am getting really angry (for whatever reason?) and I want to stop it immediately (or ASAP?) . How do I do it? Only when I can read the ( ages old ) 'content' of anger with full (undivided?) attention, give it my whole being and understanding. A ( 'natural'?) quality like anger is not recognized as ( a psychological) poison till you give your whole undivided attention to it.

Question: I understand anger only after I got angry - not while I am angry.

Krishnamurti: Anger is an (inherited violent ?) response to a challenge. You pursue such ( inherited) 'qualities' because you are not (vitally) interested in being aware of them. If you would understand anger (in real time?) , you are transformed immediately. For instance, smoking is first a nausea to you. Then it becomes a habit and then a source of pleasure. When you understand this process and when you understand the nature of smoking, then (the bad habit of) smoking falls away. If you relate the habit of smoking to other habits also, then, in understanding the habit of smoking fully, you understand also the nature of all habits and you will be transformed.
( Hint:) Mere liberation from the smoking habit does not (necessarily?) lead to a chain of liberations from other habits unless you fully understand ( upwards?) all the implications of 'habit' as such.

( In a nutshell:) There is ( an inner) regeneration, if there is constant watchfulness. Regeneration is not ( to be looked at as?) an 'end-result' (once & for all?) but ( as something taking place?) from moment to moment.

Why is it not possible to ( experientially ) understand something which we call 'evil', completely so that it drops away? Obviously because we do not ( really?) want to study the ( personal implications of the?) problem ( especially since it may require some ?) actions in your way of living, which could lead to more and more trouble. As you do not want to get involved in any more trouble, you are not ( inwardly) earnest, about any of these things. You like to lead a ( cozy way of ?) life, ( cleverly?) avoiding pain and ( earnestly optimising) the pleasure seeking. You (have therefore become?) inwardly dull, insensitive to our ( major existential) problems. Sensitivity means constant ache and therefore you are insensitive.
As war is ( an obvious) evil, and I ( really) want to avoid war, I have to find out if, in me, there is violence and conflict - between you and me, or even within myself. Therefore, I must study the problem completely first in myself.
I am always seeking a ( personally gratifying?) result and this leads to conflict. I can also see that this contradiction (of choosing between various desires or ideas?) in myself really means lack of clarity of thought. Then, when I do not seek anything but am merely observing closely in order to understand contradiction, contradiction ceases.

How do you understand sorrow? Not by seeking a ( quick) remedy. If your intention is to understand sorrow, then you must watch, study every ( activity or?) movement of ( your self-centred ?) thought, study every escape. Then, when you understand all this, your mind does not run away from sorrow. When I completely understand all the escapes which are created by me in order to avoid (facing this) sorrow, the 'escapes' drop away. When escapes have been cleansed from my mind, then only, my mind is face to face with ( your own) sorrow. I may find (for instance) that when I grieve over the death of my son, I have really used my son as an 'escape' (psychological diversion ?) from (facing) myself. Being ( subliminally ?) afraid to discover what I am, I have been seeking fulfilment in my son. I escape from something which is myself and which is not known to me, from my inner poverty. Because my son is not there, I am confronted with ( the ache of my inner) poverty which causes me sorrow. Thus, I am face to face with my loneliness, my emptiness.

As long as you escape from ( facing) 'what is', you will have sorrow, but when you understand ( the whole issue and?) you are not escaping, then you are experiencing your own 'true state' of inner emptiness. In this state of (live?) experiencing, there is no ( psychological split as ) 'experiencer' or 'experience'. As long as you are escaping from (facing the inner) 'what is', there is always the experiencer frightened with what he is going to experience. Truth only can free you from escapes. When you realize that you 'are' that which you actually are, and experience ( this existential) loneliness, in the very experiencing, 'loneliness' drops away and it is no more a (personal?) problem. Therefore, sorrow disappears when there is the ( direct ) experiencing of that emptiness. Any other form of resolving sorrow is an escape. Here is the key to the problem of sorrow. It is only in the state of experiencing when there is neither the experiencer nor the experience, that there is an instantaneous (inner) transformation.

Question: Does not one get out of this (blissful ?) state when he has once had it?

Krishnamurti: Why are you anxious about this? The (direct) experiencing is from moment to moment, but there is also the prolonging of the interval. It is sufficient even if you have that state even for a split second. Wanting to be other than 'what is', is really an escape. If you understand 'what is' completely, then a miracle happens.