Krishnamurti: Why do we depend on another for our happiness? Is it because in ourselves we are empty and we look to another to fill that emptiness?  And, is that emptiness, that loneliness,that sense of extraordinary limitation, to be overcome by any capacity? If it is to be overcome — that emptiness — through any system or capacity or idea, then you will depend on that idea or on that system. Now, I depend perhaps on a person. I feel empty, lonely — a complete sense of isolation — and I depend on somebody. And if I develop or have a method which will help me to overcome that dependence, then I depend on that method. I have only substituted a method for a person.

So, what is important in this is to find out what it means to be empty. After all, we depend on someone for our happiness because in ourselves we are not happy. I do not know what it is to love; therefore, I depend on another to love me. Now, can I fathom this emptiness in myself, this sense of complete isolation, loneliness? Do we ever come face to face with it at all? Or, are we always frightened of it, always running away from it?The very process of running away from that loneliness is dependence. So can my mind realize the truth that any form of running away from what is creates dependence, from which arises misfortune and sorrow? Can I just understand that — that I depend on another for my happiness because in myself I am empty? That is the fact — I am empty, and therefore I depend. That dependence causes misery. Running away in any form from that emptiness is not a solution at all — whether we run away through a person, an idea, a belief, or God, or meditation, or what you will. To run away from the fact of "what is" is of no avail. In oneself there is insufficiency, poverty of being. Just to realize that fact and to remain with that fact — knowing that any movement of the mind to alter the fact is another form of dependence — in that, there is freedom.

After all,however much you may have of experience, knowledge, belief,and ideas, in itself, if you observe, the mind is empty. You may stuff it with ideas, with incessant activity,with distractions, with every form of addiction, but the moment one ceases any form of that activity, one is aware that the mind is totally empty. Now,can one remain with that emptiness? Can the mind face that emptiness, that fact, and remain with that fact? It is very difficult and arduous because the mind is so used to distraction, so trained to go away from what is, to turn on the radio, to pick up a book, to talk, to go to church, to go to a meeting — anything to enable it to wander away from the central fact that the mind in itself is empty. However much it may struggle to cover up that fact, it is empty in itself. When once it realizes that fact, can the mind remain in that state, without any movement whatsoever?

I think most of us are aware — perhaps only rarely since most of us are so terribly occupied and active — but I think we are aware sometimes that the mind is empty. And, being aware,we are afraid of that emptiness. We have never inquired into that state of emptiness, we have never gone into it deeply, profoundly; we are afraid, and so we wander away from it. We have given it a name — we say it is “empty ”, it is “terrible ”, it is “painful”; and that very giving it a name has already created a reaction in the mind, a fear, an avoidance, a running away. Now, can the mind stop running away, and not give it a name, not give it the significance of a word such as empty about which we have memories of pleasure and pain? Can we look at it, can the mind be aware of that emptiness without naming it, without running away from it, without judging it, but just be with it? Because, then that is the mind. Then there is not an observer looking at it; there is no censor who condemns it; there is only that state of emptiness — with which we are all really quite familiar, but which we are all avoiding, trying to fill it with activity, with worship, with prayer,with knowledge, with every form of illusion and excitement. But when all the excitement, illusion, fear, running away stops, and you are no longer giving it a name and thereby condemning it, is the observer different then from the thing which is observed? Surely by giving it a name, by condemning it, the mind has created a censor, an observer, outside of itself. But when the mind does not give it a term, a name, condemn it, judge it, then there is no observer, only a state of that thing we have called “emptiness.”

Perhaps this may sound abstract. But if you will kindly follow what has been said, I am sure you will find that there is a state which may be called emptiness but which does not evoke fear, escape, or the attempt to cover it up. All that stops when you really want to find out. Then,if the mind is no longer giving it a name, condemning it, is there emptiness? Are we then conscious of being poor and therefore dependent, of being unhappy and therefore demanding, attached? If you are no longer giving it a label, a name, and thereby condemning it — the state which is perceived, is it any longer emptiness, or is it something totally different? If you can go into this very earnestly, you will find that there is no dependence at all on anything — on any person, on any belief, on any experience, any tradition. Then, that which is beyond emptiness is creativeness — the creativity of reality, not the creativity of a talent or capacity, but the creativity of that which is beyond fear, beyond all demand, beyond all the tricks of the mind.

from The Collected Works,Vol.IX (1955 –56),pp.22–24
©1991 by Krishnamurti Foundation of America