|Mon, 19 Sep 2016||#301|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline||
Hello John, many dreams, actually turning into nightmares because we try to run away say such thing, such doing, so that even already in the nightmare itself something takes place..
Such nightmare like attempting to run away as fast as possible from something unknown , the runner is so slow that the unknown is always right behind and then the runner is just exhausted, usually one wakes up before the main event take place, which is when the runner stops running...because it can't run away any more..
same sort of advice brought by a nightmare where the sea level is rising up so quickly that one is submerged by it without having time to escape.....the one wakes up sweating, meaning I refuse the unknown...the jump !
same type when one falls from a high cliff, then one wakes up too before the message had been delivered...which is there when touching the ground where one should be smashed...
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 19 Sep 2016||#302|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline||
did you mean incidents instead of inidents?
if so yes...
this is a situation I do not know as such because when I wake up and whatever takes place did not reach its end, well there is nothing in it but fear and sweating..so I cannot say, because when I wake up there is no message delivered or vision or whatever..I just know the one when you stop running away, or allow yourself to drown without resistance or keep falling from the cliff without waking up etc
if and when it reaches its end, there is understanding ,or vision, or nothing major but a feeling of peace, relief, and that all this is really strange "good"...etc
This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Mon, 19 Sep 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 19 Sep 2016||#303|
|Tom Paine United States 48 posts in this forum Offline||
I searched Facebook for J Krishnamurti and came up with quite a few pages. Not sure which one David is referring to. Here's the search results:
Let it Be
This post was last updated by Tom Paine Mon, 19 Sep 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 19 Sep 2016||#304|
|david sharma Ireland 10 posts in this forum Offline||
The Pilgrim and his Holy Pilgrimage
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 19 Sep 2016||#305|
|natarajan shivan India 11 posts in this forum Offline||
Without drawing a very precise distinction between dream and a non-dream state, the lack of freedom is the delay (not as a measure of time interval, but possibly the start of it from where it was last left out before) in grounding into the sense reality not as a matter of choice of one over the other, but out of inevitability; failing in which he/she jeopardizes not only other's life but that of oneself. Freedom and responsibility has to go together. Talking about the dream analogy, the movie Life of Pi talks of such a dream where the boy moves to an island which looks all pleasant and comforting in broad day light but turns carnivorous in the night symbolizing death; and which the essential self (portrayed as a tiger) that ensures survival stays away from.
contraria sunt complementa
This post was last updated by natarajan shivan Mon, 19 Sep 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 23 Sep 2016||#306|
|david sharma Ireland 10 posts in this forum Offline||
john you might like to see this
Historical Film of Young Krishnamurti - 2.
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 23 Sep 2016||#307|
|natarajan shivan India 11 posts in this forum Offline||
An accurate observation imo, the risk (which runs even now) with the emotional overtone is that listeners could be carried away or get hooked by the emotions and miss discerning the element of force which moved him towards living the teachings.
contraria sunt complementa
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 23 Sep 2016||#308|
|david sharma Ireland 10 posts in this forum Offline||
john thanks for your input
This post was last updated by david sharma Fri, 23 Sep 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 23 Sep 2016||#309|
|david sharma Ireland 10 posts in this forum Offline||
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 23 Sep 2016||#310|
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 277 posts in this forum Offline||
hello John..my own experiments at this level and what is factually lived so seen from there says that this instrument(s) already is ...
what we call thought is just preventing it to function..it acts like a dictator on the brain so like it does with others too...
This was and is there when properly living the effects of the weight, whatever the causes are, of a life spent in thought only , life with thought only being repulsive, for me on purpose, if one has or has kept enough common sense and sensitivity to...one self...
thought is not in charge of those other functions is what I see...etc
This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Fri, 23 Sep 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 20 Nov 2016||#311|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
'So Spoke (the young) Krishnamurti'
Know Yourself by J. Krishnamurti ( printed in the May 1925 issue of The Herald of the Star magazine).
I think there is no more interesting or more promising subject, none more exciting, than the study of oneself. At the age 15 or 16, one is usually immersed in oneself. There is nothing else that interests a person so much. Later he falls in love with somebody; but still he is wrapt up in himself. There is, you find, much more intelligence shown in the study of himself, and very little thought given to somebody else. He quite willingly pays a palmist 15 Rupees to get him to tell us all about ourselves. And we feel quite comfortable in the thought that we are going to be great one day - without, apparently, having to struggle to achieve greatness. There is only one subject that really appeals to us and that is ourselves. We discuss ourselves, and in an approving sort of way consider how we behave, in what manner we evolve, and so on.
It seems to me that if we think entirely from that point of view, from the point which interests ourselves alone, we shall not understand why we exist, or why anything in the world, at all, exists. Of course it is true that one has to understand oneself first before one can find out anything about life in general. Philosophy, religion and other subjects have no real value, no real sway over an individual, or have only a modicum of influence, when they only point out how he can escape certain things, how he can avoid evil, and so on. But those of us who are Star members, or belong to such other organisations, should have some conception of a definite plan in evolution.
We are in a position to examine things roost valuable to the self - things that produce in the self the desire to evolve. In all of us there is the desire to find out for ourselves how far we can understand ourselves and what affects us. The average person is far more interested in himself than in anybody else. Luxury, comfort, happiness, everything must subserve his ends. When everything has been done to satisfy himself, then only one thinks of others. When I have had enough food and sleep, I turn to think about others. That is the average view. If you have had a surfeit of love, or of happiness, you are led to think of another.
If I had a vision of something particular that the Teacher wanted done, I would go about with a different mind. And if I needed wealth, I would go and accumulate it, not for myself but for the Master, and in accumulating it, I should know that I have to sacrifice, and have to put up with a great deal of suffering and misunderstanding. But it is the attitude that matters. We are afraid that our capacities may not lead us along the path laid down for us. So we have to find out before we can truly serve, in what manner each one of us can serve Him, in what manner we can offer our sacrifice, and in discovering what our path is we shall find out to which type we belong, whether to the type which goes to the world and evolves in the world, so to speak or is kept in a hot-house and evolves, like a plant, equally strongly. There are people who work in the world for a number of years, who work and do everything without finding out what the real purpose of life is. They discover what their purpose is by chance, but they have accumulated all that the world has to give, and when they come into contact with the spiritual realities they give up their all that they have gained, whereas those who have grown in the hot house apart from the world reach the goal by another path.
As I know my own path, so we must each one of us discover our own path and until that discovery is made we shall not be able or fit to serve the Master. Those of us who have imagination, who have in any degree the capacity to take an impersonal view of life, can find this out. But most of us have neither the desire to serve, nor the desire to attain our path or goal.
We must find out in what way we can serve, and that means the complete upsetting of oneself, one's relations, &c. It is not that we have not the desire, not the same longing that great people have; but with us it is not constant. There is not the continuous pressure that keeps us going on and on and on. It means real sacrifice, means subjugating oneself in everything and not letting the self get on top. Then we shall not warp things to suit our prejudices, but we shall understand them in a complete way; in other words, become really simple.
Each one of us knows these things through and through, and yet if the Teacher came and asked what each one of us could do, in what way we had acted during His absence, in what way we had fulfilled our role, what would our answer be? It is astonishing how we cannot change, as we should, like a flower. Our belief though strong, is not the belief of a man who acts with a fixed determination. Those are the people, however, that the Master wants for His service, and not those who are merely devoted, without that devotion leading to action. If one can set aside one's own evolution, and work and forget oneself in the work, then one is a true server and gets nearer to the Master. It may be that I am young, that I have not suffered as the old have suffered, but if suffering can damp out enthusiasm, it is not worth having. But what has suffering taught us?
In the coming years, either one has to adapt oneself quickly to the changing current, or go right out of it all. When you have definitely caught a glimpse of the Plan, however passing that glimpse, and know that you have to go on, you just go on, because it is much more fun than just marking time. What matters is that one must do something to change. Old age does not mean that you cannot change. On the other hand, it ought to be easier for the old, because they have had experience, and they have had suffering; and yet one goes on in the same old way of perpetual neglect. If you want to earn money, go and earn millions and offer them to the Master, and you can do it if you have the right attitude. And it is the same with whatever else you want to do - type-writing, shorthand or anything else you wish to make your special work for the Master. The attitude is what matters and when once you have attained this all the rest will follow.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 20 Nov 2016||#312|
|steve schuler United States 2 posts in this forum Offline||
Very interesting to me, thanks for posting this, John. I have not previously read anything from this time period.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 22 Nov 2016||#313|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
Thanks, Steve, I'll try to continue this 'sampling' of the Teachings in small steps - of one or a few years- just to see how K himself 'matured' along with his teachings. Here's a 1926 excerpt:
SO SPOKE (the young) KRISHNAMURTI IN 1926
THE VOICE OF INTUITION
I want, if I can, to put before you certain ideas, which you should cultivate, and which would give you a definite and intelligent conception of true spiritual life. I think all of you realize that to create, as you must create if you would live, there must be struggle and discontent; and in guiding these to their fruition, you must cultivate your own point of view, your own tendencies, your own abilities; and for this I desire to arouse in each that ( special ?) voice, the only true guide that will help you to create. The noblest guide each of us has is this Voice ( of spiritual Intuition ?) and it is in cultivating, in ennobling, and in perfecting this, that we arrive at the goal. Now what is this goal? To me it is to attain the Ultimate Truth. I want to reach a state where I know for myself that I have conquered, that I have attained, that I am the embodiment of that Truth, so that all the little struggles, the little disturbances of life -though they have their (relative ?) value- do not upset me, do not cloud the vision of the Truth. And in attaining this Truth I attain at the same time what I desire -the peace, the perfect tranquillity of mind and of emotions. This is the "goal" for me, and in cultivating and in ennobling (our spiritual ?) Intuition we must learn to think and act for ourselves. The cultivation of this voice of intuition means a life according to its edicts.
I want, if I can, to rouse in each one of you this (Inner) Voice, that shall guide you along the line you want to follow, that is your own life, the path of your own making. And as long as you obey that Voice, that Intuition, you cannot err. I can lay down the ( basic ?) principles of Truth, but through your own Voice, through the obeying of that Voice, you must develop your own intuition, your own ideas, and so you will come to the 'goal' where we shall all meet (eventually ?)
This is for me the 'big thing' in life: Instead of being the ordinary and the mediocre, (if ?) you will listen to this Voice and cultivate this Intuition, to discover new avenues of life instead of being swept aimlessly along the path of another.
In realizing this ideal, as I said, you must develop your (own ) Intuition. A perfect harmony of emotions and of mind is essential, so that intuition, the voice of your true self, can express itself. Intuition is the whisper of the soul; Intuition is the guiding word in our life. The more we harmonize (integrate ?) our strong feelings and keen mind by perfecting and purifying them, the more likely are we to hear that Voice, the Intuition which is common to all, the Intuition which is of humanity and not of one particular individual. You must have strong feelings, whether of love, of intense happiness, of real kindness. A person who has no feelings at all is useless; a great lover (of Life ?) is never mediocre or small. The more feelings you have, the better; but at the same time you must learn control, because emotions are like weeds, and unless you restrain them, they will spoil the garden. If you have weak emotions, but give them nourishment day by day, they will strengthen and grow. The idea that we should have no feelings and emotions is absurd and unspiritual. The more you are bubbling over with feelings, the better; but you will find you have to control them, and if you do not, you suffer. If you do not control them you are going farther away from your Intuition, you are wandering away on the bypaths instead of walking on the main road towards your goal. Have tremendous feelings. Sport yourselves with them.
Do not be negative, but go out and be 'adventurous'. I feel this so strongly, because we all tend to become of one type (inwardly standardised ?) ; we all want to think along the same lines, we all want to flock around the same person, we all fear that if we do not belong to this or that movement we shall not advance. What is advancement? It is your own happiness -advancement is only a word. I would rather be happy than gain all the petty satisfaction that the world can give. What does it matter to which religion you belong, what glories you bear, so long as you 'feel really happy' and can keep your goal absolutely clear and undimmed? Imagine for the moment the Lord Buddha and His disciples. They were the great exceptions of their Age. They all had one Master, one goal, one ideal, and that was He. And yet they ( were supposed to have ?) had, every one of them, the spark of genius; they were not mediocre, because they followed Him who was the exception, the flower of humanity, and such examples must we all become.
This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 22 Nov 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 22 Nov 2016||#314|
|steve schuler United States 2 posts in this forum Offline||
Again, very interesting! And thanks again, John!
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 22 Nov 2016||#315|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
SO SPOKE (THE YOUNG) KRISHNAMURTI IN 1927
Imagine that you are on one side of a river and that on the other side are blue fields. The whole of humanity stands on this side looking at the beauty of the other side; very few have the desire to jump into the river. Of the few who jump, there will be some strong ones who can swim directly to their goal. Others will be carried down by the stream; they will be landed lower down and will have to walk up. It does not matter so long as one gets there. The desire to plunge into the river is the main thing. The time taken to cross may be a quarter of an hour, a life, or two ( or more ?) lives.
QUESTION: Will one who attains Liberation leap over the various evolutionary stages of growth into some formless Nirvana of bliss, to come forth no more?
KRISHNAJI: If I am a spark, as a separate individual I enter into that flame and become part of that flame; whether I return and bring others to the flame depends upon the personal desire. If I desire to come back and conquer the world of Maya again, I can do so. Once I have the centre well established in me, I can do anything from that centre; from that I can go forth, having established it as my home, as the bee which knows its hive can go miles away, certain that there is a home, that there is a flame.
QUESTION: To attain Liberation is it not essential to form a link with a Teacher who is himself liberated ?
KRISHNAJI: Liberation may be personified, as Theosophists would say, in the World-Teacher; but if you have that desire to attain Him who is the embodiment of Liberation and have an intense and tremendous desire, tremendous longing to become part of Him, then it certainly is easier to have such a Teacher to guide you and to help. There is a question as to whether Krishnamurti is the World-Teacher or not. There will be people who will say that Krishnamurti is the vehicle; others will say he is one in whom the World-Teacher will from time to time visit and through him give forth His message; some will maintain that Krishnamurti will grow into His consciousness and so become one with Him, and hence that there will be no separation between the two. Someone asked me: "Do tell me if it is you speaking or someone else". I said: " I really do not know and it does not matter". What matters is that you should understand, and not wonder what the phenomenon happening is. The desire for Liberation is all that matters. Leave all else for the complicated minds, for the philosophising mind is to wrangle over. That will come eventually. In two thousand years there will probably be another society to discover whether it was this or that.
QUESTION: Does that imply that a person without a Teacher could not attain Liberation?
KRISHNAJI: He may perhaps take longer. Suppose a man has traveled all over the world, and knows the way of the world, and comes back to tell an intending traveler where to stay and what to take with him, it makes it much easier, more comfortable. Hence a Teacher is necessary for those people who are uncertain of the goal, who are not sure, who are doubting, who have no strength, who need their purposes, their determinations, awakened and made strong. But for those people who have already seen the goal, who have already perceived, and have experienced that flame which is Liberation, to them he will act as an encouragement, he will be the embodiment -but they will get there without him.
QUESTION: For a 'practical mystic' what would be the most effective way of helping others to reach Liberation? By becoming a fit channel for love and peace?
KRISHNAJI: I think the best way of helping others to reach Liberation is by reaching it yourself. If you had not reached it, and talked vaguely about it, you would soon be found out. The moment you are liberated you do become a channel; but I dislike the word 'channel' because it implies that you are acting for somebody else, and that somebody else is master over you, which personally I do not like.
QUESTION: Do you look on the work of the World-Teacher as that of teaching individual men the way to liberation, only, or also as inspiring civilisation with new ideals in all departments -in art and religion, as well as in political and social life?
KRISHNAJI: I will explain my answer with a simile. We go into a garden and see a rose in magnificent bloom. One person who is an artist merely thinks of that rose in terms of painting; another who looks at that rose will go away and meditate; a third will translate that delight into some social activity. People approach religion in the same way as they approach that rose; it depends on the individual, on his temperament, his point of view, his idea of how best he can translate it to the outer world. For instance, say I am interested in education. I want to translate that Liberation in terms of educational ideals and to put it before young people, and children, so as to make them grow according to those ideals. Another person, seeing that Liberation, might be a keen social worker and might translate it in social terms and so help people to attain it.
QUESTION: How should suppression be used in control of the self?
KRISHNAJI: There should be no suppression. You know what happens when you kill some poison on the surface -that same poison will break out again somewhere else. If you try to cure a sore on the body without curing its real cause, it will come out somewhere else. I should never personally suppress anything, for the moment you do so it comes out in another form; but you should learn to control it and to transmute it -and translate it into activity.
QUESTION: Some of those who in life are acquiring Liberation may have made certain ties which must be fulfilled, but for the younger people who have not formed such ties, would you say it meant not incurring them or incurring them in a new way?
KRISHNAJI: I have always wanted to attain Liberation; I have always wanted to come near the Buddha so that there should be no barrier between Him and myself. I let nothing interfere with that desire: I put aside all other desires; I said, I want to arrive at a certain stage as soon as I can, and anything which interferes must be set aside, must be conquered. I incurred no responsibility, which would come in the way of my desire, and I have attained it. But do not think I mean that if you are longing to marry, longing to paint, that you should stop yourselves.
QUESTION: Is it not true that action done as duty and with detachment does not make karma?
KRISHNAJI: Yes, I think so.
QUESTION: In The Kingdom of Happiness you said it does not matter what is the degree of evolution of the individual; does that mean that at every degree of evolution one can attain Liberation?
KRISHNAJI: I am sure of it. Take a Sudra (of the lowest caste): if his desire to attain is so burning, so intense, that he throws aside everything, he will attain.
QUESTION: Do you mean by Liberation only a degree or stage of Liberation? Is it union with the Manifested Deity or with the Absolute?
KRISHNAJI: To me Liberation means the destruction of the separate 'self', the self that is so dominant in each one that creates karma, that binds. Once you have destroyed that 'self' you are liberated and it does not matter whether you belong to the Manifested or to the Unmanifested, whether you belong to this stage or that stage, for these are only technical terms.
|Back to Top|
|Tue, 22 Nov 2016||#316|
|Richard Lewis Bulgaria 12 posts in this forum Offline||
with best wishes from Bulgaria;-)
"Is your realization of truth permanent and present all the time, or are there dark times when you again face the bondage of fear and desire?
Krishnamurti Quote of the Day | Nov 22, 2016
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 24 Nov 2016||#317|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
SO SPOKE (the young) KRISHNAMURTI IN (London, UK) 1928
Everyone in the world ( who is ) seeking Truth, imagines that Truth is away from the ordinary current of life, whereas Truth IS ( to be found in the actuality of ?) life. I want to show this evening that the moment you understand life as it is taking place around each one of you, then you understand Truth and by understanding Truth you will solve the problems of your own lives. Now, truth never comes through a form, or through any definite mould which has been created by the ( mind or ?) hand of man, and in order to understand Truth, which is life, you must come prepared with an unbiased and unprejudiced heart and mind - that is the first requirement.
Secondly, in order to understand life, and hence Truth, you should be ( intelligently ?) discontented. Now, it is very easy to get (mentally settled ?) into a state of so-called 'discontentment', as it is equally easy to get into a state which you call 'contentment'. The discontentment I want is intelligent discontentment, and when you are discontented intelligently you are beginning to create, and in this creation lies the solution of life.
The third (qualification) is that you should have a mind and a heart that are simple. Take a leaf and watch it. How simple it is. But behind it there lie (the steady work of ?) many winters, many springs, many summers, and many autumns. It is the production of great experience, great sorrow, great struggle, out of which simplicity is born. That is what is required for the understanding of Truth. A mind and a heart that are not prejudiced, a mind and a heart that are in intelligent revolt, and a mind and a heart that are made simple through great experience.
Now with that as our canvas let us "paint a picture". What is it that every ( serious ?) human being in the world craves for?
Now as I said,(the creative ?) happiness which is not negative but positive, happiness which is the culmination of all experience and yet is beyond all experience, happiness which gives liberation to the mind and to the heart which is bound to a limited form of thought and feeling, such happiness is the only requirement that each one of you wants, that each one of you longs for, and the moment you have that as your goal, you need no interpreters. That is the Absolute, the final goal for humanity. Hence, because you want to be happy and because you want to be free and liberated from all ( attachments to ?) desires? Then, when you have established your (spiritual ?) goal.
Take a ship on the open waters of the sea. Imagine that there was no compass on that ship, it would be lost, it would not know which way to go or where lay its port. So, because individuals in the world have no ( spiritual ?) goal, they are lost in the confusion of thought and in order to determine their course they must establish a goal, and that goal must be of their own creation and not that of another. As I said, every human being in the word wants to be happy; it is the only delight, the only Truth, and when you have established that goal for yourself then you have the rudder which will guide your ship. Let us imagine for a moment that each one of you has fixed that goal of happiness for himself. Then, you say, what is the manner by which I can establish that happiness within myself eternally?
Within each individual there are three separate beings; there is the mind, there are the emotions, there is the body. It is like this: if you were in carriage and had three horses to draw you but had no control over them, you would not get to your destination because the horses would each be pulling in a different direction. But if you had control over them and a fixed purpose, then you would get to your destination with understanding and with harmony. There are in each one of you three separate beings, if I may so call them, the mind, the emotions and the body and each one must be made perfect in order to have perfect harmony.(a) What is the ultimate goal for the mind? That goal is the purification of the self. This does not mean the destruction, the annihilation of the 'self', but on the contrary, the development of individual uniqueness. You can never destroy the self -you can purify it, ennoble it, and hence bring it nearer to its desired end. Take a mosaic: in that there are innumerable colours which go to make up the particular form which the painter desires to produce, but if the colours in it are not each perfect, it will not be harmonious. Likewise each one has to develop his own particular individual uniqueness and when he develops his own individual uniqueness to perfection, then there is unity with everyone. Suppose for a moment that your colour is green and mine is red, and so on: if you develop your colour to perfection and I develop mine to perfection, when we meet there is no colour, for as we know, all colours eventually melt into the one white light. When they meet there is absolute unity, no division, no feeling of the separate self. That is the highest goal for the mind.
So (b) you must also establish a 'goal for the emotions'. What is it? It is to have immense affection, and yet to be detached. Watch how your affection develops. At first it is envious, narrow, limited, jealous of everything, but little by little, through sorrow, through pain, it develops, and little by little it extends and includes more and more people. So when you watch and follow affection to its ultimate goal, you will find that it has become an affection with detachment.
And for the body, what is it that is essential to bring about perfect harmony? First, beauty. Then restraint, which does not mean suppression, but understanding. And then, great simplicity.
So ( in a nutshell:) For the mind the Absolute (goal) is to purify the 'self' -which does not mean destruction of the self, but on the contrary to develop its individual uniqueness. For the emotions, for the heart, the goal is to be detached and yet at the same time to be greatly affectionate. For the ( psycho-somatic ?) body it is (outer and/or inner ?) beauty, refinement, culture and behaviour -for with behaviour dwells righteousness. When you have these three practically carried out, then there is harmony, and when there is harmony then there is ( the creative) happiness.
So when once you have established the "goal" for yourself which is happiness from which comes liberation -that ( spiritual ?) detachment from all things which is the outcome of all experience -then, as I have said, you will know the way because you have harmony within yourself.
As I have found that harmony, and have established within myself that happiness which is the outcome of liberation, so I would be as a signpost for those who desire to walk the path of happiness, for those who desire to understand ( the living essence of ?) life which is Truth. Perfection lies within the individual grasp of each one.
|Back to Top|
|Sat, 26 Nov 2016||#318|
|pavani rao India 3 posts in this forum Offline||
Wonder from which source you have gathered such marvelous talks ( speeches ) of K of his younger years, John! They are so extraordinary in their simple yet sounding very very far away messages and if one can put it in simple words ... all the above texts are treat to ones soul and reading of written words of ones life time, or may be many life times perhaps.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 27 Nov 2016||#319|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
SO SPOKE (the young) KRISHNAMURTI IN 1929
QUESTION: Could you kindly describe for us the feelings or reactions regarding the state of consciousness experienced in the physical body by one having attained Liberation?
KRISHNAJI: When you attain liberation, that 'perfection', you 'are', and in you all things cease and have their being. It is not a sentimental thing nor an emotional thing nor an intellectual thing, but it is as the wind, swift as the violent waters -it 'is' everything. In you there is the whole process from the very beginning until the end, and yet in you there is no beginning and no end -you 'are' (That ?) . Truth is not relative, it is absolute; and to a person that is caught in the relative, the absolute is ever escaping, so it is very difficult to understand unless you yourself are made incorruptible; and I am interested in that, not in describing to you what it is, what it feels like. ( All the details ?) of that you will know when you have attained.
The root of ( spiritual ?) immortality is understanding and the very beginning of understanding is the true discipline gathered from the final fulfilment of all life.
QUESTION: In regard to those who do not fully understand your "mission" or Teachings, can any harm result from the effort to understand?
KRISHNAJI: Sir, why do you make it my mission and teaching? Isn't it what all (subliminally ?) people want? Don't you want to be free and happy? It isn't my 'mission'. It is your mission. Bu because you are not aware of your suffering, of your narrowness, of your limitations, of your corruption of life, you give to another the authority to lead you. And as I am not accepting that authority, it is useless to say it is my teaching or my message. It is the message and teaching of life, which is in everything and in everyone; and the moment you understand that, it is yours and not mine. So, as it is yours, my purpose is only to awaken that knowledge, that desire to discover for yourself. And as it is yours, ( for your own homework ?) you must struggle to understand.
QUESTION: How can one stimulate a desire for freedom?
KRISHNAJI: What a question to ask! Is not the suffering of another, are not the tears of another, the laughter, the rejoicing, the corruption, sufficient to give you that burning desire to free others and yourself? But you want an artificial stimulation, an enticement, a reward for your good actions, and you want me to tell you of a new God, to whom you can offer for your stimulation, to build a new altar. I hope you are thinking; not accepting what I am saying, nor rejecting. The dancing shadows, the clear sunshine, the bird on the wing, the light on the waters, the suffering of a man, or a woman, the delight, the rejoicings of your neighbours -if that does not give you sufficient desire- woe to you!
As life is one, the forms of that life are many. The moment you understand that the forms have little value, then they have their place. But to come to that perfect life, you must make your own form as perfect as possible.
QUESTION: Would working for one society only tend to narrow one's view and effectiveness?
KRISHNAJI: Again, it depends on you, for if your mind is narrow, whatever you do will be narrow.
QUESTION: What is it in our nature that makes us do things contrary to our better judgment, and how may we overcome this difficulty?
KRISHNAJI: By not doing wrong. By struggling. If I have not the strength to walk up to the mountaintop, I make the effort, fall down, and make another (try). It does not mean that I am failing.
You will spoil everything if you base your understanding on individuals, even on Krishnamurti. There is a much greater thing than this form, which you call Krishnamurti, which is Life; and of that Life I speak, and of that Life I would urge you to become disciples, and with that Life I would urge you to be in love.
Ignorance is that ( inner condition ?) which is created by the individual within himself by the intermingling that which is fleeting and lasting. Therefore ignorance has no beginning, but it has an end.
You cannot 'kill the self', but you can make the 'Self' grow so enormous, so vast, that it includes all life. Then you do not rely on anything but the Truth; then you do not want comfort from anything or anyone. But from the understanding of Truth there is born strength in yourselves.
If you did not say, 'Krishnamurti says so and so', but if you realised that what I have said is the truth for its intrinsic value, it is yours and you can repeat with certainty -that certainty which cannot be shaken by any doubt or by any person. That is what I want to create in your minds and in your hearts; not the desire to follow Krishnamurti, because Krishnamurti will die. All (physical) forms are transient things; they hold within themselves their ultimate decay, but that of which I am speaking knows of no ( subject to ?) decay. The moment you adhere to that which does not die, then your integrity, your purpose, your ecstasy is lasting, fundamental, has its foundation in that which is everlasting.
QUESTION: What then is the true function of the mind?
KRISHNAJI: A sane balanced judgement is the function of the mind, but to arrive at that ( wise ?) judgement, mind must have its counterpart equally balanced, and that is affection. As I said yesterday, you cannot divide mind and heart. It is the same substance. Please realise that you ( eventually will ?) have to attain this ocean, this sea of life, without limitation, without corruption, which is free and eternally active. And you should rejoice at one who has attained and find out from him the glad news; and by discovery and by understanding, alter the very condition of your thoughts, the state of your hearts, so that you yourselves shall come in that shadow of perfection.
It is (really) a question whether you want it, whether you want to be happy, whether you want to be free and establish yourself in perfection. And the majority of you do not want it, and hence all these innumerable vain useless questions. You do not want it as a hungry man wants food. You do not want it as a thirsty man wants water. You do not want it as a drowning man wants air, or as a man that is covered with wounds wants a healing balm that shall cure all sorrow, all suffering, is to be found in that which is lasting and that which is life, and of that I speak.
QUESTION: Isn't the theory of individual freedom really ( leading to ?) anarchy and a dangerous menace to social life ?
KRISHNAJI: Sir, you call individual freedom 'anarchy'. If the individual is not happy, as he is not at the present time, he is creating chaos and anarchy around him, by his selfishness, by his cruelty. You want everyone to be ( inwardly standardised ?) of a particular kind and that is why you have all these religions, these acts of morality. But there is the other influence which, when truly understood, gives nourishment, encouragement, because each individual must find by himself and through himself that which is lasting.
What is it then that you want in life -love, possessions, or that feeling of (deep inner ?) comfort which men call 'happines's? If that is the jewel hidden in the secret sanctuary of your heart, then you will pursue it and acquire that which you desire; but if, on the other hand, you desire that happiness which is eternal, that life which is absolute, unconditioned -if that is your desire, if that is what is hidden in the sanctuary of your heart, then you will pursue that. As the lotus utilizes the mire to produce its lovely blossoms, so you will utilize the transient life to produce the perfect flower of your understanding.
Life has no technical process of fulfilment; life has no special way by which it must tread toward its glory; life has no special meditation, yoga. It is by constant assimilation and by rejection, by examining, by analysis, by careful consideration of every little event of the day that you grow to perfection. True affection is the right standard and that love is like the flower that gives perfume to every passer-by and does not care to whom it gives its delicious fragrance; so should true love be. And towards that all affection must struggle, must evolve, must progress -towards that perfect love. Now you will ask me: "How shall we do it? How shall we arrive at that perfect love?" By liking someone, in however small a way, from corruptibility to corruptibility, till you arrive at that incorruptibility of love. There is no other way than by constant struggle, by strife, by gathering great storms of love and rejecting them. Realising this great truth, it were better that you should fall from a great height than from the pavement. The mediocrity of life, the smallness of life, consists not in falling, but in falling off a small place. Were you to fall from a great height, from the house-tops, from the great mountains, then the world would rejoice and know that there is a great man, for his fall was great. For mediocrity, the smallness of mind and the smallness of emotion stifle Truth and it cannot abide with those that are fearful of their fall.
For, having a full understanding of that eternal Truth, or partial at least it may be, your love should from now on withstand that wave of corruptibility. Because if there were ten -if there were one who really was capable of pure, detached affection, that affection which gives encouragement, that points ever with clarity towards the perfection of all love, then that one individual would awaken within the hearts of many that love which cannot be tinged by corruption.
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 28 Nov 2016||#320|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
SO SPOKE (THE YOUNG) KRISHNAMURTI IN (THE ITALY OF) 1933
Question: Meditation and the discipline of mind have greatly helped me in life. Now by listening to your teaching I am greatly confused, because it discards all self-discipline. Has meditation likewise no meaning to you? Or have you a new way of meditation to offer us?
Krishnamurti: Meditation, for most people, is based on the idea of choice. In India, the idea is carried to its extreme. There the man who can sit still for a long period of time, dwelling continuously on one idea, is considered spiritual. I say that there is a joy, a peace, in meditation without effort, but that can come only when your mind is freed from all choice, when your mind is no longer creating a division in action.
You ask me: "Have you a new way of meditation to offer us?" Now your meditation has no value in itself, as your action has no value in itself, because you are constantly looking for a culmination, a reward. Only when mind and heart are free of this idea of achievement, this idea born of effort, choice, and gain is there an eternal life which is not a finality, but an ever-becoming, an ever-renewing.
Question: This is what I have gathered from listening to you: One becomes aware only in a crisis; a crisis involves suffering. So if one is to be aware all the time, one must live continually in a state of crisis, that is, a state of mental suffering and agony. This is a doctrine of pessimism, not of the happiness and ecstasy of which you speak.
Krishnamurti: I am afraid you haven't listened to what I have been saying. You know, there are two ways of listening: there is the mere listening to words - when you are not trying to fathom the depths of a problem; and there is the listening which catches the real significance of what is being said, the listening that requires a keen, alert mind. I think that you have not really listened to what I have been saying.
First of all, if there is no (open or hidden ?) conflict, if your life has in it no crises and you are perfectly happy, then why bother about conflicts and crises? If you are not suffering, then I am very glad! Our whole system of life is arranged so that you may escape from suffering. But the man who faces the cause of suffering, and is thereby freed from that suffering, you call a pessimist.
I shall again explain briefly what I have been saying, so that you will understand. Each one of you is conscious of a great void, an emptiness within you, and being conscious of that emptiness, you either try to fill it or to run away from it; and both acts amount to the same thing. You choose what will fill that emptiness, and this choosing you call experience. But this choice is based on sensation, on craving, and hence involves neither discernment, nor intelligence, nor wisdom. You choose today that which gives you a greater satisfaction, a greater sensation than you received from yesterday's choice. So what you call ( freedom of ?) choice is merely your way of running away from the emptiness within you, and hence you are merely postponing the understanding of the cause of suffering.
Thus, the movement from sorrow to sorrow, from sensation to sensation, you call evolution, growth. One day you choose a hat that gives you satisfaction; the next day you tire of that satisfaction, and want another - a car, a house, or you want what you call love. Later on, as you become tired of these, you want to reach God. So you progress from the wanting of a hat to the wanting of a God, and therein you think you have made admirable spiritual advancement. Yet all these choices are based merely on sensation, and all that you have done is to change your objects of choice. Instead of trying to understand the cause of suffering, you are constantly trying to conquer that suffering or to escape from it, which is the same thing. But I say, find out the cause of your suffering. That cause, you will discover, is continual want, continual craving that blinds discernment. If you understand that ( truth ?) with your whole being - then your action will be free from the (time-binding ?) limitations of ( craving and ?) choice; then you are really living, living naturally, harmoniously, not 'individualistically', in utter chaos, as now. If you live fully, your life does not result in discord, because your action is born of inner richness and not of poverty.
Question: How can I know action and the illusion from which it springs if I do not probe action and examine it? How can we hope to know and recognize our barriers if we do not examine them? Then why not analyze action?
Krishnamurti: When you begin to analyze (the hidden aspects of yourself ?) , you put an end to movement; when you try to dissect an intense feeling, that feeling dies. But if you are aware with your heart and mind, if you are ( becoming ?) fully conscious of your action, then you will know the source from which action springs. When we act, we are acting partially, we are not acting with our whole being. Hence, in our attempt to balance the mind against the heart, in our attempt to dominate the one by the other, we think that we must analyze our action.
Now what I am trying to explain requires an ( integrated inner ?) understanding that cannot be given to you through words. Only in the moment of true awareness can you become conscious of this struggle for (thought ?) domination; then, if you are interested in acting harmoniously, completely, you become aware that your action has been influenced by your fear of public opinion, by the standards of a social system, by the concepts of civilization. Then you become aware of your fears and prejudices without analyzing them; and the moment you become aware in action, these fears and prejudices disappear.
When you are ( non-dualistically ?) aware with your mind and heart of the necessity for a complete action, you ( will ?) act harmoniously. Then all your fears, your barriers, your desire for power, for attainment - all these reveal themselves, and ( hopefully ?) the shadows of disharmony fade away.
|Back to Top|
|Sun, 04 Dec 2016||#321|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
Here are a few 'lost & found' pages ( a full chapter) from the book 'God is my adventure' published by Rom Landau in 1936. They contain the author's first encounters with the young Krishnamurti in 1927-1928
THE THRONE THAT WAS CHRIST'S
One Sunday morning I sat in a small panelled room in one of those fine Queen Anne houses that are still to be found in certain parts of Westminster. The house belonged to Lady De La Warr, and I was waiting to meet Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, who was staying there on a short visit.This was to be my first meeting with Krishnamurti. The young Indian was supposed to be rather shy, and, in view of all the sensational reports about him in the newspapers, I did not find this in the least surprising. I had determined to come to this meeting with an open mind, but I must confess I found it hard to feel anything but the profoundest scepticism. I recalled several of the strange tales that I had read in the course of the last few days. One of them remained in my memory with particular vividness, though it described an event that had taken place almost twenty years earlier. It was an account of a convention at Benares, and its author was at the time private secretary to Krishnamurti, then aged fifteen. He had written: 'The line of members began to pass up the central passage . . . with a bow The whole atmosphere . . . was thrown into powerful vibration. ... All saw the young figure draw itself up and take on an air of dignified majesty The approaching member involuntarily dropped on his knees, bowing his head to the ground. ... A great coronet of brilliant shimmering blue appeared a foot or two above the young head and from this descended funnelwise bright streams of blue light. . . . The Lord Maitreya was there embodying Himself in His Chosen. Within the coronet blazed the crimson of the symbol of the Master Jesus, the rosy cross . . .'
I am afraid I did not read on much farther after the 'rosy cross'; but I was told that the writer of these impressive lines was not the only one who claimed to have seen this colourful performance. There seemed some justification for an attitude of scepticism, and as I sat waiting I experienced a feeling of superciliousness which we are all occasionally apt to indulge in when we know a particularly weak spot in the life of the person we are going to meet. In me this feeling had been strengthened by the fact that I had read in a newspaper only the night before that Krishnamurti's followers in Holland had finally proclaimed him the 'World Teacher'. He himself had uttered these words: ' Krishnamurti has entered into that life, which is represented by some as the Christ, by others as Buddha, by others still as the Lord Maitreya. . . .' These words had put the conscience of Krishnamurti's followers at ease and had induced them to proclaim him once and for all 'The Vehicle of the Lord'. For ordinary people this was, to say the least, alarming news. I was thinking of all these strange things while I was looking on the empty street half hidden by the heavy drizzle. I had plenty of information about Krishnamurti's life to counterbalance my scepticism. I knew that some of the people who stood behind him were serious minded and intelligent. I had come across the name Krishnamurti directly only a few weeks previously at the house of Lady De La Warr at Wimbledon, where I had met some of his most intimate friends experienced elderly men and women who were not at all the sort of people to be bluffed. The centre of the group was Mrs. Annie Besant, then almost eighty years old and a most attractive person, very bright and untheosophical, full of political and intellectual interests, which she expressed in a most lively and amusing manner. Next to her was Mr. George Lansbury, the veteran labour leader. He too was preoccupied with Indian and other political problems. There was very little to suggest a religious fanaticism in his slow, deep-voiced pronouncements. Anything more solid, more natural, could hardly be imagined. Even our hostess mentioned the subject of theosophy only casually. Then there was a member of Parliament who, I believe, was an Under Secretary of State; he was evidently a great authority on India. There was nothing exalted or mystical about the other people in the room. These were Krishnamurti's closest friends in England. It was difficult to imagine these people talking of the 'great coronet of brilliant blue' and 'the rosy cross of the Lord Jesus'. Annie Besant herself was obviously a very shrewd woman. Though at the time I knew little about her or her work, I could see that there was not much in life that had escaped her.
And then Krishnamurti entered the room. He walked towards me with an inviting smile, and we shook hands. I was immediately struck by his remarkably handsome face, and after a few minutes conversation I was equally charmed by his attractive personality. These two impressions were very strong, and I suppose they determined in some ways my future attitude towards him. I heard later from other people that their first impressions of Krishnamurti were the same as mine. My former superciliousness gave way to a feeling of pleasure. At first I thought that this feeling was due to the aesthetic delight caused by his appearance. Indeed, he was much more handsome than his photographs made him appear. He seemed no older than twenty-two or twenty-three, and he had the slender grace of a shy young animal. His eyes were large and deep and his features finely cut. His head was crowned with thick silky black hair. But it cannot have been the aesthetic impression or the musical quality of the voice alone that had put me at ease so quickly. He was obliging, though reserved; but in spite of this after half an hour's conversation he made me believe that I had known him most of my life; and yet there was nothing particularly easygoing about him, though there was a pronounced feeling of balance and proportion in his manner. And there was an undercurrent of human warmth which was responsible for the atmosphere of spiritual intimacy between us.
These were my first impressions of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti .
In 1925 the Theosophical Society considered that the moment had come for Krishnamurti to acknowledge his destiny in more formal fashion, and this official recognition accordingly took place during the celebration of the jubilee of the Society. Theodore Besterman, a biographer of Mrs. Besant, describes most effectively the central scene of the proceedings: ' ... In the shadow of the great banyan tree in the grounds of the Adyar headquarters, Mr. Krishnamurti was addressing some three thousand assembled delegates. ... A few of those present had been warned what to expect, and these communicated their excitement to those around them. The whole audience was in the sort of state in which the individual is merged in the mass a revivalist psychology The words of the speaker became more and more urgent. "We are all expecting Him", he said; "He will be with us soon." A pause, and then, with a dramatic change from the third person to the first, the voice went on, "I come to those who want sympathy, who want happiness. ... I come not to destroy but to build." . . .
And afterwards Mrs. Besant said that "the voice not heard on earth for two thousand years had once again been beard".' It was now decided that Krishnamurti should have something more than the merely spiritual sphere of influence which was provided by the 'Order of the Star', and various properties were purchased for the establishment of enormous camps in different continents. A suitable territory was bought in the Ojai Valley in California, where people from all over America could gather for yearly meetings at which Krishnamurti would deliver his message. California was particularly dear to Krishnamurti's heart, since it was here that his beloved younger brother Nityananda had died a few years ealier. For the Australian followers there was erected the Amphitheatre in Sydney; for the Indian friends a camp in the Rishi Valley. A Dutch nobleman, Baron Philip Pallandt van Eerde, an enthusiastic admirer of Krishnamurti, put at his disposal his Castle Eerde at Ommen in Holland with its old gardens and extensive grounds. Eerde was to become Krishnamurti's European headquarters, and here his European followers were to assemble at a vast camp meeting which was to be held every summer.
In January 1927 Krishnamurti spoke at a meeting in California, and concluded his speech by reading one of his recent poems, which ended with these words: 'lam the Truth, I am the Law, I am the Refuge, I am the Guide, The Companion and the Beloved.
The imaginative reporter of the Theosophist added to this a poetic summing up of the situation: 'As the last words were uttered there was a sprinkle of light rain that seemed like a benediction and, spanning the valley, a perfect rainbow arch shone out.' Meanwhile Mrs. Besant was travelling from country to country, giving lectures to packed halls and speaking in her masterly way of the new World Teacher.
Many details of this extraordinary story flashed through my mind when Krishnamurti entered that room. But after half an hour's conversation with him I was willing to forget most of the reports I had heard. The picturesque story of his life seemed to me no longer of much importance. How right I was I could not foresee at the time.
We parted friends, and I accepted an invitation to come to stay with Krishnamurti at Eerde. There I should meet his friends from all over the world; and, besides listening to his public speeches, I should also have an opportunity of further personal conversation. I actually went twice to Eerde in the course of the summer. The first time I could only spend two or three days there, so I decided to visit Krishnamurti again in a month's time, when I should be able to stay at least ten days, and witness the huge gathering of theosophists and members of Krishnamurti's own movement. There would be many visitors from the United States, from India and even from Australia.
To a writer of fiction the atmosphere at Eerde would probably offer the most attractive material I could imagine all sorts of books inspired by it psychological, devotional, religious, romantic, hysterical, lyrical, satirical. How tempting it would have been for a novelist to describe the little castle, an elegant building of the early eighteenth century rising up from a moat and connected with the 'mainland' by a delightful semicircular terrace; the romantic canal spanned by a decorative stone bridge; the long low pavilions on each side of the castle; the formal circular garden in front of it. And what opportunities were offered by the ancient park around the castle, its dignified avenues, its magnificent trees, its fields, its river, its water roses on the pond.
And then the guests themselves, wandering reverently along the garden paths, discussing under old trees the deepest problems of life, and greeting one another with smiles of forgiveness and looks of understanding. There were fair Scandinavian girls with transparent complexions, and voices so soft that they seemed incapable of saying any but the holiest of things. Some of them helped in the kitchen, others in the offices, and in the evenings they sat together and held one another's hands. Though I have not found out for certain, I imagine that they were 'disciples' who had been driven by faith to leave their comfortable homes in Oslo or Stockholm and to come to the castle to work for the common good. There were several Americans in whose mouths the Masters, gurus and astral worlds used to lose all their ethereal qualities and become convincingly matter of fact. There was a very learned French lady with at least three daughters who looked as though they preferred the Cote d'Azur to the Dutch scenery, but had to content themselves with their mother's knowledge of all sorts of devas, Chinese saints and Tibetan gomtchengs. There was an Italian countess who was always telling me of yet another dream she had had about Krishnamurti; and there were several elderly English ladies, quiet, kind, helpful, and wearing a surprising amount of jewelry, though their jewels, even if less obvious, were in a way like the taboos and charms of African Negroes, made of lions' teeth or human bones, since although they were mostly of gold and often of precious stones, their triangular or circular shapes showed clearly that they were worn for their symbolical significance and not in order to satisfy a craving after beauty. Then there were several Indians of indeterminate age but obviously higher education, who at night would sometimes appear in their attractive native coats, with tight white trousers and coloured shoes, the envy of their American, Dutch, British and Scandinavian brethren, many of whom wore homely sandals and looked altogether less picturesque. Some charming Australians and Anglo-Indians and a Scottish couple completed the house-party.
The writer of fiction would have found even better models and more vivid 'local colour' in the large camp, situated in the woods a couple of miles outside the castle. Such readers as have ever attended a theosophical or practically any sort of religious convention will know the type, and I shall refrain from describing it at length. They generally abhor the idea of meat as violently as that of wine or tobacco; they look deep into your eyes when they talk to you; they have a weakness for sandals, for clothes without any particular distinction of shape, for the rougher kind of texiles and such colours as mauve, bottle-green and purple. The men affect long hair, while the women keep theirs short. There were several workmen and farmers among them who had been saving up their money for several years in order to come here. Two German youths had walked for two or three weeks from a distant part of Germany. Indeed, the three thousand visitors would have been worthy of a much more gifted pen than mine.
The organization of the camp lay in the hands of a few Dutch followers of Krishnamurti, experienced business men, who had succeeded in turning out this model 'camp city' in the midst of uninhabited forests and fields. Tourists and journalists from many countries arrived solely to visit the camp, and organizers of similar gatherings would come from distant countries in order to learn from the organization at Ommen. There were rows upon rows of tents of all sizes; there were shower baths, attractive huts with post office, bookshops, photographer, ambulance and information bureau. In huge dining-tents excellent vegetarian meals were served; there was a lecture tent with seats for three thousand people and there was even an open-air theatre. Everywhere one found helpful guides and interpreters and a fine spirit of fellowship.
As the Dutch summer was at times trying with incessant rain and icy winds the nerves of the people must have been somewhat strained. Harmony could be achieved only by self-discipline. Ignorance of the language was, no doubt, a tiresome handicap for many people. Some of them must have come merely for the sake of a new experience and for human fellowship, for the Serbs and Russians, South Americans, Rumanians, Turks and Greeks who hardly knew one word of English could not understand much during the lectures. And yet most of them remained happily till the very last day. This was undoubtedly due, to a very great extent, to the efficiency of the organization.
As I did not live in camp, which I visited only for the lectures and an occasional meal, I knew the routine of life at the castle much better. Since the castle itself was not large enough to accommodate the twenty or more personal guests of Krishnamurti, most of us were put up in the long pavilion flanking the castle. Besides Krishnamurti and his closest friend Rajagopal, the head of the whole organization, only a few friends stayed within the castle itself. The dining-room, library, reception rooms and offices were on the ground floor. In the reception rooms there were several attractive pieces of Dutch furniture, and the main room, called the state room, contained, besides some fine panelling, four handsome Flemish tapestries specially made for the castle. An ingeniously constructed wooden Louis XIV staircase led from the entrance hall to the first floor and to the bedrooms. The former owner of the castle, 6aron van Pallandt, was a quiet middle-aged gentleman, who had kept for himself only one or two of the castle rooms. He went on administering the big estate, and all the secretarial, clerical and household work, besides that of organizing the movement itself, was done voluntarily.
I stayed in one of the two pavilions, where all the rooms were alike simple, attractive and comfortable. Every visitor had to look after his own room and make his own bed. When, however, after a day or two some kind spirit had discovered that my talent for manual domestic work was more original than effective, my services in this direction were no longer expected, and for the remainder of my stay there, whenever I returned to my room after breakfast, I found that my bed had already been made with enviable skill. In the morning we assembled in the big state room. We took off our shoes more experienced guests than myself would appear in bedroom slippers and sat down on the floor to meditate. Perhaps it was my native cynicism that prevented my enjoying the morning meditations as much as I ought to have done. It always put me into the wrong frame of mind.
There were several problems connected with the morning meditations about which I wished to be enlightened. Of course I might have asked any of the other twelve or fifteen fellow guests attending this service, but I could never summon the courage to do this, for fear lest they might find out how ignorant I really was. I wanted to ask them whether they considered it necessary to meditate in a crowd. I sincerely believed in meditation, but I always found it much more successful in solitude or with a single companion. Just when I was getting into the right frame of mind, one of the meditators must needs sneeze or cough, and thereupon all my limited powers of concentration would be dissipated.
And I should have liked also to ask whether it was essential to sit on the floor without having been instructed previously how to do it. Most of us had been brought up in the Western world, and were not used to Eastern attitudes. I found that my attention had to be directed towards my aching spine and ankles, and a good deal of the energy that was wanted for a better purpose was thus wasted. Eastern postures for meditation are taught solely by the yoga of body control, and can be learnt successfully only in the Far East. Of the eighty-four different postures for the various meditations, only the first few have ever been mastered by any European. Even the elementary 'lotus posture' which is indispensable to meditation done in the pose adopted by my fellow meditators, can only be comfortably assumed after many patient and painful exercises. How, then, could I expect all these people, most of whom had never been to the East, or undergone the essential training, to have the necessary command over their bodies? I could see for myself that hardly one of them was sitting in the correct attitude that of intertwined ankles and straight spine. Possibly the worst indication of my own immaturity was to be found in the fact that the sight of all these people sitting there in stockinged feet always evoked in me a schoolboy propensity for practical joking.
Had it not been for my shortcomings, the morning meditations would undoubtedly have provided me with a source of inspiration. Someone read aloud a few words I believe it was always one of Krishnamurti's sayings and after that we were meant to meditate upon it. The tightly shut eyes of the other guests made me feel very envious of the wonderful ten minutes they were spending on some blissful plane. From the state room we moved into the dining-room for breakfast, which was always an enjoyable meal, with excellent honey and delectable nut pastries. Lunch, too, was a very attractive meal, not only by virtue of the quality of the vegetarian dishes but equally because hunger, and the pleasure of satisfying it, induced many of the guests to cast off their reserve and to show a greater individuality of character than conversation at other times had led one to expect.
As a rule everyone attended to his own wants, but I was often permitted to wait on Annie Besant, and I several times had the privilege of sitting next to her at meals, and each time it was a joy to be near this exceptional woman. There was a childlike quality about her not the childishness of old age, but rather the essential simplicity and happy disposition of childhood itself. You felt that she knew so much more than anybody else present; but her greater wisdom and experience never interfered with her manner of treating even the youngest members of the party as her equals. The saintliness that hung over Eerde, like a pink cloud in a play, made me somewhat sceptical; and yet the first meeting between Annie Besant and Krishnamurti on her arrival at the castle had greatly impressed me. Krishnamurti had been waiting for the car that was bringing his guest, in the circular garden in front of the castle. He was by himself and we, his other guests, kept in the background. One could see that he was nervous. When the car arrived, Krishnamurti walked up to it to open the door. Annie Besant appeared, dressed in white Indian robes with white shoes, and a white shawl over her snow-white hair. Krishnamurti bowed his head and kissed the old lady's hand. She in her turn put both her hands on his black hair and whispered a few words to him. In her face there was the expression of the deepest tenderness, and I could see that she was crying. It was obvious that their welcome was an expression of their personal affection for each other and had nothing to do with their theosophical relationship. Krishnamurti took Annie Besant's arm and led her slowly towards the castle. We were introduced to her and shook hands. Her eyes were still moist and the loving smile was still lingering on her lips. Krishnamurti hardly ever came down to breakfast. Generally he remained in his bedroom. It was a very simple bedroom, and must have been the smallest in the castle. Each morning after breakfast some of his most intimate fellow workers used to walk up the staircase and disappear into a room which connected with Krishnamurti's bedroom. My curiosity was pricked by these morning processions. I imagined mysterious happenings behind the doors: special initiations or mental exercises of a higher order, reserved only for the 'inner circle'. I never found out what went on behind the doors probably household bills and questions of daily routine were discussed.
In the mornings and on most afternoons there were lectures in the big tent in the woods. Krishnamurti spoke almost every day; and then there followed speeches by Annie Besant, Mr. Jinarajadasa, the vice-president of the Theosophical Society, a Frenchman Prof. Marcault, a Dutch scholar Dr. van der Leeuw, and one or two other followers of Krishnamurti. The main tenor of Krishnamurti's talks was that the " Kingdom of Happiness" lies within ourselves, and the other lecturers spoke on very much the same lines. Krishnamurti's principal talks were of an autobiographical kind, and he tried to explain in them how he himself had found truth by giving up all conventional conceptions of life one after another.
There were several meetings at the castle in the afternoon, and often at these there were visitors, both legitimate and also of a less legitimate but more intrusive kind. Many people from the camp would come to see the home in which their prophet lived. They were taken inside the castle and along the quiet garden paths, and they often hardly dared utter a word. There were also sightseers and tourists, who had heard of the new messiah from India and who would peep through the gates a though expecting strange miracles to occur at any moment. They looked at Krishnamurti's guests, apparently convinced that we were the disciples of a magician or of a yogi. Each time I left the castle or came back, I noticed the inquisitive glances of the occupants of some motor car, and I would hear their interested chatter. This embarrassed me and made me wish that I had the power to produce white rabbits from my coat pocket or flames from my mouth, since I always felt as though the people in the cars were not being treated with that consideration to which they believed themselves entitled. In the hall of the castle there was a very large and very new gramophone, given to Krishnamurti by one of his admirers and placed here for the enjoyment of the guests. I knew that Krishnamurti was a great lover of music, and I caught him one evening sitting by himself in the corner of a little study off the main hall. It was after dinner and the room was quite dark. I can still remember the record : it was the slow movement of the G Minor Quartette by Debussy that almost unreal piece of strangely coloured cascades and sudden melancholy halts. Whenever I hear that movement I see the night over the castle and Krishnamurti sitting by himself in the little room and listening joyfully to the violins.
Several members of our house-party were fond of music, and would spend the evening listening to the gramophone. The prevailing taste seemed to be Parsifal, Gotterdammerung, and Siegfried. The listeners would sit in just those attitudes in which you would have expected to find them, when revelling in the superior boredom of Kundry's endless laments or Siegfried's narratives. Their eyes were closed, their souls no doubt very wide open, in their faces was a mixture of happiness and reverence, and you could see all the silver and mauve ethereal pictures that the music painted for them. Perhaps I was too frivolous for them, and at times I would become genuinely alarmed by my cynicism, and would decide never again to make critical comments even to myself. And yet there was one thing which gave real cause for a certain irritation.
My inability to find the true meaning of Krishnamurti's teaching led to the anxiety that my visit might be an utter failure. Krishnamurti's lectures were too vague to give me clear answers to any of my questions. I had been hoping to find those answers among the people who stayed at the castle and who must have known exactly what was to be understood. They were only too willing to help me; but it seemed to me that they had all sacrificed their personalities in order to become members of the Order of the Star in the East. I talked to many of them in the course of the day, but they left too little impression to enable me to distinguish them in my mind later on. They all met me halfway; and they would talk of reincarnation and karma with an understanding smile on their lips and as though they were speaking of the next train from Ommen to the Hook of Holland. They did their very best to copy Krishnamurti, to be kind and sincere or to make jokes and show how jolly they were. But I was not among doctors, farmers, schoolmasters, politicians, housewives; I was just among theosophists and members of the Order of the Star. I had expected that their new spiritual experience would have made them more enlightened about their former problems; that they would talk with greater understanding about the world at large. There were political and economical congresses, religious disputes, naval conferences going on all over the world; new movements in art, in literature, music, the theatre, the cinema were being experimented with; the world talked of unemployment and reparations; there were thousands of things that had to be discussed, improved upon but none of them seemed to have penetrated the woods of Eerde.
One day I was told that the moment had arrived when Krishnamurti's message would be heard by the outside world which had hitherto known it only through distorted newspaper reports. A new organ was to be founded. My opinion was sought, since I had had some experience and enjoyed press connections that might be helpful. The publications of the Order of the Star periodicals, pamphlets and news-sheets were run by amateurs. I knew that the outside world could only be reached if one were to use a language intelligible to it. Devotional poetry, accounts of personal visions were not likely to convince men and women used to a matter-of-fact world. Those lawyers, business men, theologians and scientists of the outside world would only grasp Krishnamurti's ideas if they could be presented in a clear and sober way. People must see that they were dealing not with dreamers but with men who knew the world and her needs better than others did, and who therefore might be able to solve some of the most pressing problems.
The few people with whom the plans were discussed listened patiently to my suggestions; they nodded obligingly, and assured me that this was the right way to proceed. In actual practice not one of these suggestions was adopted, and the events of the following months showed that a metaphorical and semi-theosophical jargon was still being employed for enlightening the world at large about the 'World Teacher'.
I am sure that none but myself was to blame for my intellectual disappointment. The general atmosphere of adoration had put me into a state of expectancy which simply could not be satisfied anyhow or by anyone. My intellectual upbringing had made me expect a clearer message than Krishnamurti was willing or able to offer. I had not yet found in his friends and followers that inner readjustment to life that would have allowed me to accept the new message in the form in which it was offered. I had gathered enough to see that Krishnamurti's teaching was not Eastern, that it repudiated passivity. Everyone should find truth for himself; should listen to no-one but himself; should consider unification with happiness as the final goal. But when I asked how this could be achieved I received no clear answers. It is not enough to see the summit of Mont Blanc. If we want to reach the top, we must be informed as to the most advantageous season, the best route, and such details of equipment as the most suitable boots to wear. Most of Krishnamurti's answers would be dissipated in similes and metaphors. You asked him about your personal troubles, your religious beliefs, your intellectual doubts, your emotional difficulties, and he would talk to you about mountain peaks and streams running through fields. When asked about his own road and the road along which one might find happiness, he would answer: The direct path, which I have trodden, you will tread when you leave aside the paths that lead to complications. That path alone gives you the understanding of life. ... If you are walking along the straight path, you need no signposts.' But where, exactly, the direct path lay, or how we were to find it, he did not disclose. The very same day Krishnamurti might renounce all paths and say that no one path was better than any other.
I had several talks with him, and each time I eagerly looked forward to our meeting. We would talk as we walked through the woods and across the fields of Eerde. One afternoon we suddenly found ourselves in front of a charming litlle house, flat roofed and rather modern, surrounded by high trees but with a view on one side across the fields. It was Krishnamurti's retreat, a self-contained little home, where he could get away from people, meditate and rest in solitude, He must have been very sensitive to solitude. He was not very strong physically, and though he went in for all sorts of games and was a great lover of lawn tennis, he remained rather delicate. The camp with its thousands of people, with its daily lectures, interviews and visitors, must have been a heavy strain on his health.
I found no further intellectual satisfaction either in Krishnamurti's lectures or in his books, and I wondered whether this was not due to his Eastern origin. On the other hand, I had experienced no similar difficulties when reading the writings of Eastern sages. Even if one did not grasp their full meaning, there still remained enough to provide intellectual contentment. Among the books by Krishnamurti that I tried to read were Temple Talks, The Kingdom of Happiness and The Pool of Wisdom. There were also a few volumes of poetry. I admired their oriental beauty and their deep ring of sincerity, but I was baffled by their vagueness. It is certainly unfair to judge lyrical poetry by the same rules as those by which we attempt to judge scientific books. On the other hand Krishnamurti's poetry was supposed to contain not only the lyrical confession of a sensitive youth with the gift for poetry but also the account of a deep spiritual experience. When I read:
'As the flower contains the scent, So I hold Thee, O world, In my heart. Keep me within the heart. For I am liberation And happiness. As the precious stone Lies deep in the earth, So I am hidden Deep in thy heart . . .'
I enjoyed the beauty of the poem and I felt the truth in it. But this poem, called 'I am with thee' and written in 1927, was considered by Krishnamurti's followers and even his biographer Lily Heber as of great importance. I seemed to remember having seen poems of that kind in various anthologies containing Eastern poetry. At times you would even find such poems in those slender volumes published by young men who had come down from Oxford and Cambridge and had been greeted by some of the London critics with prophecies of a splendid literary future. But we were not dealing with a talented young man whose earlier poems had been accepted by the Editor of the Oxford Outlook. We were dealing with a teacher who did not repudiate this title; who allowed thousands to come and listen to him and to expect guiding principles from him, and who must have been conscious of the immense responsibility that all this implied. I felt that I had a right not only to expect answers but even to expect them in a language that I could understand; in a language that was common to people of the Western world. I even felt entitled to expect perfection in everything he said or did. The unity between the content and the form was of great importance in a person like Krishnamurti. When I read:
' Thou must cleanse thyself Of the conceit of little knowledge ; Thou must purify thyself Of thy heart and mind; Thou must renounce all Thy companions, Thy friends, thy family, Thy father, thy mother, Thy sister and thy brother ; Yea, Thou must renounce all; Thou must destroy Thy self utterly To find the Beloved.
I could see a glimpse of Krishnamurti's philosophy, but I felt that the same truth might have been expressed less pretentiously: 'Thou must purify thyself of thy heart and mind. Thou must renounce all thy companions, thy friends, thy family, thy father, thy mother, thy sister and thy brother . . .' If we write these lines without the lineal demarcation of poetry we acknowledge at once the fine statement contained in them, but we do not maintain that they are poetry. And yet I wanted Krishnamurti to write poetry that would convince people, and such as I might show to my sceptical friends. When after a certain time I was able to perceive the main idea of Krishnamurti's teaching I understood that it was complete libera- tion, which means complete happiness. It is achieved by love and it rests within our own inherent power. Krishnamurti defined it in later years when he said: 'The goal of human feeling is love which is complete in itself, utterly detached, knowing neither subject nor object, a love which gives equally to all without demanding anything whatever in return, a love which is its own eternity.'
As far as I understand, this is the teaching of Christ, the teaching of Buddha. We all heard these words when we were given our first religious instruction. I asked myself, therefore: If Krishnamurti's teaching is just a repetition of the teaching of Christ, or of Buddha, then why all this theosophical background; why the Star in the East, that huge organisation; why the talk of a new path; why the followers, camps and labels? Would it not have been wiser to remain in our old-established Churches which give us clearer words for all these messages? Is it all humbug?
I was very fond of Krishnamurti, otherwise I should have left Eerde after the first few days. But I wanted Krishnamurti to be able to help me in my own way, and to help the other three thousand people in their own way. I wanted to be able to convince the cynic within myself that Krishnamurti was right and capable of helping, and that he had fulfilled my highest expectations. Instead, I felt uncomfortable when the Saul within myself would say to the Paul after every talk I had with Krishnamurti: 'Wasn't I right? Did you grasp more to-day than yesterday? Didn't I tell you it would be a waste of time? Why don't you talk instead to the rivers and the trees? Their language will be more intelligible.'
And yet there were people, with less intellectual resistance, who perceived Krishnamurti's message quite clearly. Looking back on those days I am particularly struck by the impression Krishnamurti made on a man brought up in the rough school of English workingclass life, a man matured in political battles. I mean George Lansbury. This is what the old labour leader wrote after one of the meetings at Ommen: 'I have seen the glorious march of the Socialists in Paris, in Brussels, in Stockholm and in our own country, and I have seen them sitting and standing round our platform. But I think that these gatherings round the camp fire . . . are somehow the most wonderful sight of all. . . . When we Socialists come together, we come together pledging oursefves to fight in order to raise the material conditions of ourselves and our fellows. Round this camp fire we were listening to one who is teaching us the hardest of all truths . . . that if mankind is to be redeemed it must be redeemed through the individual action of each one of us. ... There must be great hope for the future . . . whilst there are living in our midst those who are inspired by a great ideal to work and toil for impersonal causes.'
I hoped that Mr. Lansbury was right, and that some of the characteristics that I seemed to have found among Krishnamurti's followers were only evident when they were all together. They may have talked and behaved in quite a different manner when left to themselves in their normal surroundings. Perhaps all these people were really leaders in their various professions, efficient and capable of reforming their individual worlds in a direction that had disclosed itself to them during their visit to Eerde. Perhaps it was only due to blindness on my own part that even when I saw them later in London at one or two gatherings and in several offices, I again had the impression they had given me at Ommen.
Though my intellect remained critical, I felt that I was indeed becoming happier every day through my contact with Krishnamurti, and that only intellectual barriers within myself prevented me from accepting him as wholeheartedly as I longed to do. But even this reaction irritated me. I knew that the three thousand people who had come here were as anxious to catch his smile and were almost in a fever every time Krishnaji, as they called him affectionately, addressed or approached them. I had imagined myself more critical than they.
Only the evenings round the camp fire were really impressive. After dinner we would drive out in cars belonging to members of our house-party to the camp fire in the woods. A large amphitheatre had been built there, with innumerable circular rows of seats; in their midst was Krishnamurti's own seat. This was made of large tree trunks and suggested some huge Niebelungen throne. Each time I saw this seat I imagined that Wotan and Hunding and the many substantial valkyries must have sat in such chairs when attending a family party in Valhalla. Krishnamurti, slender, dark, rather shy, looked strange and lost on his Wagnerian throne. Most of the people who had comd to the camp at Ommen looked upon the evening gatherings, quite rightly, as the climax of the day. Krishnamurti, stepping into the centre of the amphitheatre where a huge heap of wood for a beacon had been prepared, would kindle it and stand in front of it for a few minutes watching the fire grow higher and higher. Then he would walk back slowly to his seat. Smoke would begin to rise to the sky and the flames would suffuse thousands of eager faces with a red glow. Many members of the audience were sitting with their hands resting quietly in their laps and their eyes shut, and you could see how deeply they enjoyed the moment. In the evenings there was a festive feeling, there was an atmosphere of human fellowship and spiritual satisfaction. It was a real holiday to the three thousand people. On one or two occasions the light of the flames and the last pink of a sun that had disappeared more than an hour ago would merge into each other and would produce striking colour effects in which, I daresay, some of the people present discovered symbolical meanings.
I have never heard Krishnamurti speak so well as he did in the evenings round the camp fire. On the whole he was not a very effective speaker; he often repeated himself; he often halted; and many of his sentences were too long. His hold over the masses was not due to any forensic talents. In the evening his words seemed to come more easily to him, and his voice would carry melodiously across the silent crowd, the pictures evoked by his words becoming more clearly visible and the whole atmosphere more convincing. Now and then he would begin an Indian chant at the end of the evening, and on such occasions he was even more impressive than during his speech. Though he spoke English with mastery, you could not help feeling that English was not his language. It was, I remember thinking at the time, the melodious quality of his voice that may have given that impression. In the evenings round the camp fire the contrast between his entire personality and the English language would become more striking. For he then wore Indian clothes, a simple brown coat reaching below the knees and buttoned up to the neck, tight white trousers and white shoes, and his appearance would only emphasize the emotion produced by his voice. During the Indian chants the precise meaning of his words seemed to matter little, and there was no longer a gulf between the man and his words. In the unintelligible Hindustani there was the magic sound that words assume in a strange tongue. After his chants Krishnamurti would sit silently for a few minutes, with an expression of great serenity on his face. He would then leave his seat and walk away to the car that took him back to the castle.
One or two experiences may help to show what a real influence Krishnainurti had on my life. It may be considered a mere coincidence that when I met Krishnamurti for the first time, on that rainy Sunday morning in Westminster, I gave up smoking. I had smoked since I was seventeen, usually thirty cigarettes a day, and I had become something of a slave to the habit. Nevertheless I had never tried to give up smoking, because I had never seen any convincing reason for so doing. Even to-day I cannot explain clearly why I should have given it up the day I met Krishnamurti. We did not discuss the subject; I did not know that he himself did not smoke. And yet to give up smoking at once seemed the most natural thing. Though I carried a cigarette case in my pocket for many days I never felt tempted to light another cigarette. Nor have I smoked since.
The other incident is more difficult to describe. I had been trying for a long time to meditate in the evenings on a particular subject. I used to do it in bed before going to sleep. For months on end I would reach a certain point in my meditation after which it would break up. Either my attention would falter or else I fell asleep before getting beyond the particular point. A few days after I had met Krishnamurti I succeeded for the first time. I experienced the feeling of "sinking into a deep well". Though the well seemed bottomless I had simultaneously the two opposed sensations of going on sinking and yet of having reached the bottom. This was accompanied by a very vivid impression of light. The strongest impression, however, was of receiving at once an emotional shock and a mathematical revelation. It is difficult to describe this last sensation: no metaphor or comparison represents it correctly. Though I do not claim any mystical significance for my experience, I can best translate it into words by quoting an abler pen than my own. When Dean Inge once described mystical experiences he said: 'What can be described and handed on is not the vision itself but the inadequate symbols in which the seer tries to preserve it in his memory. . . . But such experiences, which rather possess a man than are possessed by him, are in their nature as transient as the glories of a sunset. . . . Language, which was not made for such purposes, fails lamentably to reproduce even their pale reflection.' What, however, can be said is the fact that the culminating point of my experience made me unspeakably happy. It was such an acute happiness that it was almost like a feeling of physical delight or physical pain. The division between delight and pain seemed lifted. How long the moment lasted I could not tell; but I imagine it to have been no more than the fraction of a second. When it was all over, I was awake and fully conscious, and I recorded my experience to myself with a feeling of deep gratitude.
The above experiences showed me that Krishnamurti's effect upon me was vital enough to act even against my intellectual resistance. In the summer of 1929 I found in a newspaper a report which described at some length how Krishnamurti had suddenly dissolved the Order of the Star, broken deliberately all connections with the Theosophical Society and their teaching about himself, and renounced all the claims that had been made in his name. He had, then, at last summoned the courage to sever all the ties that had held back his own spiritual convictions through so many years, and that had forced him to act in the shadow of what looked like spiritual usurpation.
The recent rupture had taken place on 3 August 1929 at the yearly summer camp at Ommen. Krishnamurti decided to renounce all the authority that thousands of people had been using as comfortable crutches for their own spiritual incapacity. This is how Mr. Theodore Besterman described the critical meeting in his biography of Mrs. Besant: 'One morning Mr. Krishnamurti rose to deliver his address to the assembled campers. It could be seen at once that he was now speaking for himself and not merely as a mouthpiece; and his words confirmed the impression in no dubious manner. ... He announced the dissolution of the Order of the Star and at one blow laid low the whole elaborate structure so painfully and painstakingly built up by Mrs. Besant during the past eighteen years. "I maintain", Krishnamurti said, "that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally. ... A belief is purely an individual matter, and you cannot and must not organize it." He declared that he did not want followers ... he made it unmistakably clear that his words were directed against those who had built up the elaborate structure for him during those eighteen years. Krishnamurti added: "You have been preparing for this event, for the coming of the World Teacher. For eighteen years you have organized, you have looked for someone who would give a new delight to your hearts . . . who would set you free. ... In what matter has such a belief swept away all the unessential things in life? In what way are you freer, greater? ..." Mr. Krishnamurti continued: "You can form other organizations and expect someone else. With that I am not concerned, nor with creating new cages. . . . My only concern is to set men absolutely, unconditionally free."
After this Mr. Krishnamurti gave up all the possessions heaped upon him, and gradually severed his connection with all organizations. It was not difficult to perceive what enormous courage it needed to make such a far-reaching decision. To understand its magnitude one has to remember what Krishnamurti was renouncing. There existed an organization with many thousands of members; there were platforms from which to speak in the four most important corners of the globe; there was an independent commercial organization with its magazines, its books and various publications in a dozen different languages; there were helpers among all classes of society, willing to make practically any mental or material sacrifice; there was, in short, a working machine for the transmission of a spiritual message, as powerful as any institution had ever been. To understand what it must have meant to give it all up, one has to visualize the money, the worry, the energy, the time needed for the establishment of an organization for the disseminating of non-commercial ideals, no matter whether of a religious, social, political, intellectual or any other kind. To throw it overboard as though it meant nothing required personal courage, moral integrity and spiritual conviction.
I was glad that I had doubted neither Krishnamurti's sincerity nor his intrinsic spiritual value. The events of August 1929 strengthened the impression I had received when the young Indian entered the dark panelled room in Westminster. Had I not suddenly seen that it mattered little what his life had been up till then? And had I not felt that his personality had nothing in common with the striking headlines in the newspapers?
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 05 Dec 2016||#322|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
So spoke (the young) Krishnamurti in 1934 (to a select TS audience in Adyar)
Question: Which is the wiser course to take - to protect and shelter the (poor and ?) ignorant by advice and guidance, or to let them find out through their own experience and suffering to extricate themselves from the effects of such experience and suffering?
Krishnamurti: I would say neither; I would say "help them to be intelligent", which is quite a different thing. When you want to "guide and protect" the ignorant, you are really giving them a shelter which you have created for yourself. And to let them drift through (painful ?) experiences, is equally foolish. But we can help another by (starting a ?) true education - not this modern (mentally standardising ?) education, this passing through examinations and universities. If we could help another to become intelligent, that is all we need do. But that is the most difficult thing in the world, for ( the awakening of ?) intelligence does not offer (any prospect of psychological ?) shelter from the struggles and turmoils of life. (Not to mention that ?) we can help another to free himself from acquisitiveness, from the many illusions and hindrances which bind him(or her ?), only when we begin to free ourselves. But we have this (activistic ?) attitude of wanting to improve the (education of the ?) masses while ourselves are still ignorant, still caught up in (various forms of greed and ?) acquisitiveness. When we begin to free ourselves, then we shall ( be able to ?) help another naturally and truly.
Question: While I agree with you as to the necessity for the individual to discover ( his ?) superstitions, do you not think that an organized movement in that direction is necessary ?
Krishnamurti: If you were truly free (inwardly ?) , if you had creative intelligence, then out of that would come (the right) action; you would tackle the human problems fundamentally, that is, through education, through schools, through literature, through art; to have the right kind of education, you must have organization; but all that will come naturally if a few individuals are truly awake, are truly intelligent.
Question: Reincarnation explains much that is otherwise full of mystery and puzzling in life. It shows, among other things, that highly cherished personal relationships of any one incarnation do not necessarily continue in the next. Thus, strangers are in turn our relations and vice versa; this reveals the kinship of the human soul, a fact which, if properly understood, should make for true brotherhood. Hence, if reincarnation is a natural law and you happen to "know" that it is such; or, equally, if you happen to know that there is no such law, why do you not say so? Why do you always prefer in your answers to leave this highly important and interesting subject surrounded with the halo of mystery?
Krishnamurti: (Because ?) I don't think it is important; I don't think it solves anything fundamentally. I don't think it makes you understand that fundamental (quality of ?) living, that unity (wholeness ?) , which is not the unity of uniformity.
Yet you desire to protect that ( self-conscious ?) "accumulation of ignorance" which you call the"I", that accumulation from which springs this idea of (having ever ?) more and more, that centre of ('personal ?) growth' which is but an illusion. So while you are looking to time to bring about perfection, that (illusory ?) self-consciousness merely increases. What will free the mind is the completeness of (self-) understanding in ( the everyday ?) action; that is, when your mind and heart are acting harmoniously, when they are no longer tethered to a belief, bound by a dogma, by fear, by false value, then there is freedom. And that freedom is the ecstasy of perception.
Question: Public schools in England and elsewhere recognize the importance of developing will and character, which are commonly regarded as the best equipment with which to embark on life, for will insures success, and character insures a moral sanction. What have you to say about will and character, and what is their true value to the individual?
Krishnamurti: What is their true value to the (liberated ?) individual? None, from my point of view. But that does not mean that you must be without will, without character. What do you mean by 'will'? Will is the outcome of resistance. And out of that resistance grows the idea of "I must and I must not." But ( an enlightened ?) perception and understanding, frees the mind and heart from resistance, and so from this constant battle (inner conflict ?) of "I must and I must not."
Question: You said yesterday that ( our psychological ?) memory, which is the (karmic ?) residue of our accumulated actions, gives rise to the idea of time and hence 'progress'. Please develop the idea further with special reference to the progress towards human happiness.
Krishnamurti: There is progress in the field of mechanical science, progress with regard to machines, motor cars, modern conveniences, and the conquering of (cosmic) space. But I am not referring to that kind of progress, because in the mechanical progress of science there can never be ( an inner ?) fulfillment for man. There will be better cars, better aeroplanes, better machines, but ( our inner ?) fulfillment is not to be realized through this continual process of mechanical perfection - not that I am against machines.
Many other questions have been asked me with regard to the Theosophical Society, whether I would accept the presidency if it were offered me, and what would be my policy if I were elected; whether the Theosophical Society, which 'strives to educate the masses and raise the ethical standard', should be disbandedand so on. I do not intend to stand for the presidency of the Theosophical Society because I do not belong to that Society - I do not believe in ( the spiritual value of ?) religious organizations, I don't want to 'guide' a single man. I don't want to influence ( the free will of ?) any single person; for the very desire to guide shows inherently that one has (in mind) an end, a goal, towards which he thinks all humanity must come like a band of ( 'happy ?) sheep'. That is what 'guidance' ?) implies (psychologically ?) . I do not want to urge any man towards a particular goal or an end; what I want to do is to help him to become intelligent, and that is quite a different thing.
I should like to make a resumé of what I have been saying during the last five or six days, and naturally I must be "paradoxical". Truth is ( sometimes sounding ?) 'paradoxical' . I hope that those of you who have intelligently followed what I have been saying will understand and act, but not make a 'standard' of me for your actions. For ( an authentic self- ?) understanding, the first requirement is doubt with regard to the ideas which you yourselves hold . To me, to doubt (one's attachment to the known ?) is a (medical ?) ointment that heals. Doubt is merely an inquiry after true values, and when you have found out true values for yourself, doubt ceases.
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 09 Dec 2016||#323|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
So spoke (the young) Krishnamurti in 1935 (New York City, March, 1935)
Friends, I want to give a brief (prep ?) talk before answering the questions, to explain something which perhaps may be difficult to understand. I will try to make it as simple and clear as possible.
I think most of us are trying to find out what is true happiness, for without being intelligently happy, life becomes very superficial, futile, and rather dreary. And so, in search of what we call happiness, we go from one experience to another, from one belief to another, from one theory to another, until we find such beliefs, such ideas, as give us satisfaction. Now, the very search for happiness (often ) result in a series of 'escapes' (psychological diversions ?): it may be, through sensation, through the mere multiplication of experiences, and the increase of power. These escapes become (the accepted socio-cultural ?)standards or values by which we cover up ( our inner ?) conflicts.
After all, when you are conscious of ( the discomforts generated by the ongoing ?) conflicts, there is disturbance which creates unhappiness; and to escape from that unhappiness you seek various (compensatory ?) experiences and develop certain values, standards, measures, so gradually you become unconscious of all except those standards, those patterns, and your life is becoming a living imitation of these values which you have established in your search for happiness. Being so bound, (the superficial ?) mind is always creating further values, establishing further standards, and is ever sitting in judgment. Until the mind frees itself from this continual process of attributing ( false ?) values, it is never fresh, new; never creatively empty, if I may use that word without being misunderstood. For in creative emptiness alone is there the birth of truth.
Now it is the very essence of stupidity (ignorance ?) to escape from conflict through a series of established values, or through forming a new set of values since the very essence of intelligence is to understand life or experience with an unburdened mind and heart, anew, afresh.
Instead of meeting life without any preconceived demands, you come to it with a mind and heart already prejudiced, almost incapable of swift adjustment, quick pliability. The lack of this instantaneous discernment of the movement of life creates sorrow. (Our state of inner) conflict is the indication of ( a temporal ?) bondage, which cannot be conquered, but whose significance must be understood.
You might say that a mind which does not give values is really the mind of a primitive. It is true in one sense; the primitive meets life unconsciously, incompletely, without understanding its significance fully. But to meet life completely and to understand its significance fully, requires a mind that is unconditioned by the past, and this can come about only through intense awareness, through discernment. This demands, unlike the mind of the primitive, integrate action in the present without the urge of fear or the search for a reward. It is the intelligence of complete all-oneness.
( In a nutshell, the responible awareness of our inner ?) conflict is the very process of awakening man to a 'full consciousness'.Then that mind and that heart shall awaken to the reality of life, the Bliss of the Present.
Question: Do you advocate renunciation and self-abnegation as a means of finding personal happiness?
Krishnamurti: 'Personal' happiness does not exist . There is only the creative ecstasy of life, whose expressions are many. This idea of self-sacrifice, renunciation, self-abnegation, is false. You are really (attempting a ?) 'trade' in, exchanging your self- abnegation, for happiness.
Let me put it differently. I begin to accumulate because I think happiness lies through accumulation, I may find at the end of a certain time that possession does not bring me happiness. Therefore I begin to renounce possessions and try to possess and pursue abnegation; which is only another form of (devious ?) acquisitiveness. But if I discern the inherent significance of possessiveness, then in that there is creative happiness.
Question: Isn't it true that the essential can be found in all the phases of life, in everything?
Krishnamurti: Can't we look at life, not from this point of view of the essential and the unessential, but from that which is intelligent, and all-comprehensive? Why have we this division of the essential and the unessential, the important and the unimportant? Because we are always thinking in terms of (optimising our psychological ?) acquisitions; but if we look at it from the point of view of (a holistic) understanding, then this division ceases, then we are meeting life continually as a whole. To a mind that is really not (measuring and ?) attributing values but is trying to live completely to such a mind there are no degrees of changing values, and therefore there is no conflict ( of interest ?) between the stationary, and the constant movement of life.
Question: It is all right for you to talk about fundamental things of life, but what about the ordinary man?
Krishnamurti: We are discussing about how to live intelligently, and therefore divinely, humanely; not with this competitive, ruthless brutality of acquisitiveness, of exploitation, whether by a class or by a teacher, economic or religious. All this applies, naturally, to us all, that is to the 'ordinary' man.
If we, all of us here, really felt deeply about these things, really understood, we should act with intelligence. First, surely, one must begin with oneself. One must deal with the fundamental things because they are the simplest; and in a civilization that is becoming more and more complex, if we don't understand for ourselves these 'simple' but fundamental things, we shall but add to the confusion, exploitation and ignorance.
So what we are discussing applies to everyone (ready to listen ?) , and as you have the opportunity, which, unfortunately, not everyone has, if you become conscious, aware, and begin to understand and therefore act, such action will help to dispel ignorance, the cause of suffering.
Question: How can one cope with memory and the obsession of its 'images' ?
Krishnamurti: First of all, by understanding (that our 'psychological' ?) memory is nothing else than (a residue of our ?) incompleted actions, the "scars" of actions which have not been completely lived or completely understood. Till that action is wholly understood, the (time-binding ?) memory of it or 'scar' (hurt ?) on the mind continues. The (self-conscious ?) mind is mostly the residue or the scars of many incompleted, unfulfilled actions which creates inevitably a conflict.
If the mind and heart can free themselves from the (false) values, which are but memories stored up for self-defensive purposes, then life is an eternal becoming. But that requires, as I said, great purposefulness, an incessant inquiry into the cause and significance of suffering, conflict. If you are merely seeking (sensory ?) satisfaction, the bliss of the Eternal Present is not for you. It is only in moments of great crisis, great conflict, that the mind (has the opportunity to ?) free itself from all these self-protective accumulations and accretions. Then only is there the ecstasy of life (also known as ?) Truth.
Question: If everyone gave up all possessions, as you (seem to ?) suggest, what would happen to all business and the ordinary pursuits of life? Are not business and possessions necessary if we are to live in this (materialistic ?) world?
Krishnamurti: I have never said give up. I have said that ( our psychological attitude of ?) 'acquisitiveness' is the cause of competition, of exploitation, of class distinctions, of wars and so on. Now if one discerns the real significance of possessiveness, whether of things or of people or of ideas (and ?) if the mind can free itself from that, then there can be intelligent happiness and well-being in the world. And, as I said, this freedom from acquisitiveness is not to be learned about eventually, it must be discerned immediately, and that is where the difficulty lies. If we cannot see the falseness of possessiveness immediately, we shall then not be able individually, and therefore collectively, to have a different civilization, a different way of living.
So my whole (psychological ?) 'attack'is on that desire for possessiveness, acquisitiveness. You may think now that possessiveness gives happiness. But if you think about it deeply, you will see that this craving for ($$$) power has no end. It is a continual struggle in which there is no cessation of conflict, suffering. So, it is one of the most difficult things, to free the mind and heart from acquisitiveness.
(Sory time:) A sannyasi in search of truth, sought various teachers. In his wanderings he was told that a certain king was enlightened, that he was teaching wisdom. So this sannyasi went to the king. The king instructed him (various stuff ?) concerning Truth. One day, while the king was teaching him, the palace caught fire. Serenely the king continued with his teaching, while the sannyasy was greatly disturbed because his spare loin cloth was burning.
You know (psychologically speaking ?) you are all in that position. You may not be possessive with regard to clothes, houses, friends, but there is some hidden pursuit for a (spiritual ?) gain to which you are attached, to which you cling. As long as these unexplored, hidden psychological poisons exist, there must be continual conflict, suffering.
Question: You say that you are affiliated with no organization, yet obviously you are trying to make people think along certain lines. Can the world thought be changed without an organization whose purpose it is to bring your ideas constantly before the public?
Krishnamurti: What I am saying is that to live greatly, to think creatively, one must be completely open to life, without any self-protective reactions, as you are when you are "in love". So you must be in love with life. This requires great intelligence, not information or knowledge, but that great intelligence which is awakened when you meet life openly, completely, when the mind and heart are utterly vulnerable to life,
Question: Even after they have passed beyond the need of organized authority, most people are troubled with the inner conflict of choice between desire and fear. Can you explain how to distinguish, or what you consider true desire?
Krishnamurti: Is there such a thing as 'true desire'? The essential desire and the unessential desire? One day you want a hat, another day a car, and so on, satisfying your cravings. Yet another day you want to attain the 'highest truth' or 'God'. You pass through a whole series of desires. What is the essential in all this? Can't you meet (the very process of ?) desire intelligently? Suppose you (become aware that you ?) are possessive. Don't develop a contrary resistance; be completely and wholly aware of it; then you will discern the whole significance of acquisitiveness. You can only understand acquisitiveness, or any other (inner) problem, by bringing it into opposition. When there is no (inner conflict created by the?) opposite desires, then only is there the discernment of the true significance of desire. But as long as mind is caught up in the conflict of opposites, there can be only an escape, a substitution as the essential and the unessential, the false and the true. In this there is no creative happiness.
Question: Are there not times when one needs to separate oneself from outward confusion to aid in the realization of true self?
Krishnamurti: If you put ( the immediate ?) needs first, then they become your masters and intelligence is destroyed. To find out your (true ?) needs requires intelligence, for needs are constantly changing, constantly renewing themselves. So if you are (exclusively ?) seeking solitude merely in order to find out what Truth is, then solitude becomes only a means of escape. But in (the context of an integrated inner ?) search during your active life there come naturally periods of solitude. These moments of solitude then are not false; they are natural, spontaneous.
Question: You said on Monday that to have true intelligence, one must have passed through a state of great 'aloneness'. Is this the only way of arriving at true intelligence?
Krishnamurti: Let us consider what we do now. We are seeking security, constantly hedging ourselves in with (mental) certainties. We have established ( a whole emergency set of such ?) comforting securities, certainties. Please think it over and you will see that this is so.
But it is only when you are stripped of all (psychological expectations ?) in terms of of security, certainty, only when you are completely stripped of all protective measures and reactions, that there is (an opportunity for ?) the ecstasy of truth. In those moments of complete all-oneness, which only comes when all escapes and their significance have been truly discerned (and disposed of ?) , is there the Blessedness of the Present.
|Back to Top|
|Mon, 12 Dec 2016||#324|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
So Spoke the (still young ) Krishnamurti in 1937 (Ommen, Holland)
K: Hate is not dissolved through experience nor through any accumulation of virtue, nor can it be overcome by the practice of love. All these merely cover up fear hate. Be aware of this and then there will be a tremendous transformation in your life.
Questioner: What relationship has the illusion of this psychological growth to the growth which we see around us?
Krishnamurti: We see that ( inwardly ?) that which is capable of growth is not enduring. But to our psychological growth each one of us clings, as something permanent. If we felt deeply and so were aware that all things are in continual change, a constant becoming, then perhaps we should be able to free ourselves from the conflict which exists in ourselves and so with the neighbour, with society.
Questioner: It seems to me I cannot jump from hate to love, but I can transform my antipathy slowly into a feeling of understanding and like.
Krishnamurti: We cannot wipe the mind clean of past conditioning and start anew. But we can be aware what it is that maintains fear, hate. We can be aware of the psychological causes and reactions that prevent us from acting integrally. The past is dominating us, with its beliefs, hopes, fears, conclusions, memories; this prevents us from integral action. We cannot wipe out the past, for in its essence the mind is of the past. But by being aware of the accumulations of the past and their effect on the present, we shall begin to free ourselves without violence from those values which cripple the mind and heart.
Questioner: Don't you think that we can see the different escapes? We can know that hatred is poisonous, and at the same time we know that we are going on with it. I think that if we would comprehend it fully, then we must be willing to leave everything - home, wife, everything; we must shake hands and say goodbye and go to a concentration camp.
Krishnamurti: Do not think of the consequences of being without hate, but consider if you can free yourself from it. Do you say to yourself that you are incapable of getting rid of hate?
Questioner: We do not feel hate at this moment.
Krishnamurti: Here you have momentarily escaped from it, but the problem still exists. You cannot escape from it, either here or in any other place. It is a problem to you, whether you want it or not. Though it is a problem, you have put it away, you have become unconscious of it. And therefore you say that you do not know how you will act with regard to it.
Questioner: We often wish that life itself would directly act, and take away from us those things we cherish though we know their worthlessness. Is this also an escape?
Krishnamurti: Some people seem relieved in time of war. They have no responsibilities; their life is directed by the War Office. In this lies one of the main reasons why authority temporal or spiritual, flourishes and is worshipped. We have been trained to think that hate is inevitable, that we must go through this stage, that it is part of human heritage, instinct. Whatever effort you make to ( substitute ?) hate by love, is in vain, for violence, fear, reveal themselves in another form. We have to go much deeper than mere discipline; we have to find out why this duality of 'love' and 'hate' exists within us. Until this dual process ceases, the conflict of opposites must continue.
Questioner: I do not quite see how the mind has divided itself into love and hate.
Krishnamurti: There is good and evil, the light and the dark. Light and darkness cannot exist together. One destroys the other. If (there is inner ?) light, then darkness, evil, ceases to exist. But we are in a state of continual effort, because that which to us is light, is not light, it is only the (artificial ?) 'light' of the intellect.
The (state of inner) conflict in which we exist is not a struggle between good and evil, but between our various self-protective desires. There cannot be a conflict between light and darkness; where light is, darkness is not. There must be the cessation of all intellectual safeguards. This cessation comes spontaneously, when the mind reveals to itself its own process. When reason no longer has the capacity to protect you, through explanations, escapes, logical conclusions, then when there is complete vulnerability, utter nakedness of your whole being, there is the flame of love.
Truth alone can free each one from the sorrow and confusion of ignorance. Truth is not the end of experience it is life itself. It is not of tomorrow, it is of no time. It is not a result, an achievement, but (comes in ?) the cessation of fear, want.
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 14 Dec 2016||#325|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
So Spoke Krishnamurti in 1938 (Ommen, Holland)
Krishnamurti: (...) We must understand deeply the inward nature of the mind itself, and this understanding is not born of a day; it needs immense awareness of our whole being. The mind, as I said, is a battlefield of various desires, values, hopes, and any effort on its part to free itself from them can only accentuate the conflict. Struggle exists so long as desire in any form continues; when one desire discriminates against another, one series of values against another, one ideal against another, this conflict must continue. This discriminative power of desire, choice, must cease, and this can happen only when one understands, inwardly feels the blind effort of the intellect. The deep observation of this process, without want, without judgment, without prejudice, and so without desire, is the beginning of that ( choiceless ?) awareness which alone can free the mind of its own destructive fears, habits, illusions. But with the majority of us the difficulty is to pierce through those forms of ( self-centred ?) emotion which are really the stimulations of desire, fear, for such emotions are destructive of love. They prevent integral awareness.
Questioner: Are desire and (self-) interest, as we know them now, the same?
Krishnamurti: If (self-) interest is merely the result of desire, to gain, to be satisfied, to succeed, then interest is the same as desire and therefore destructive of creative life.
Questioner: How can I attain the quality of "desirelessness" without having the desire to attain it?
Krishnamurti: Sir, this is exactly what I have been talking about this morning. Why do you want to attain 'desirelessness'? Is it not because you have found through experience that desire is painful, desire brings fear, desire creates conflict or a success that is cruel? So you crave to be in a state of desirelessness, which can be achieved, but it is of death, for it is merely the result of fear. You want to be free from all fear, and so you make desirelessness the ideal, the pattern to be pursued. But the motive behind that ideal is still desire and so still of fear.
Questioner: Is mind life itself? Because one cannot divide up life as mind and emotion?
Krishnamurti: As I have explained, the (temporal ?) mind has merely become an instrument of self-protection of various forms, and it has divided itself into emotion and thought - not that life has divided it nor that emotions have separated themselves from the mind, but the mind, through its own desires, has broken up itself into different parts. The mind has discovered that by being desireless it will be less prone to suffering. It has learnt through experience, through knowledge, that desirelessness might bring the ultimate comfort, which it hopes is truth, God, and so on. So it makes an effort to be without desire and therefore divides itself into different parts.
Questioner: Is it possible to be without desire when one has a physical body?
Krishnamurti: What do you say, sir? This is a problem that you have to face, that we all have to face. ( The time-bound ?) Mind, as I said, is ever seeking satisfaction through various forms. Necessity has thus become a means of gratification. This expresses itself in many ways - greed, power, position, and so forth. Can one not exist in this world without desire? You will find this out in your daily life. Do not separate needs from desire, which would be a false approach to the understanding of desire. When needs are glorified as a means for self-importance, then desire starts the complex process of ignorance. If you merely emphasize needs, and make a principle of it, you are again approaching the question of desire from a most unintelligent point of view, but if you begin to consider the process of desire itself, which breeds fear and ignorance, then needs will have their significant value.
Questioner: Please give us your views or anything you care to say on the subject of how to bring up children.
Krishnamurti: You want to help the child to grow to its own fullest integral capacity, but as there are not adequate teachers and schools for this purpose, education becomes a problem. You as a parent may have certain definite ideas that will help the child to be intelligently critical and to be spontaneously himself at all times, but unfortunately at school, nationalism, race hatred, leadership, tradition, example, and so on, are inculcated in the child, thus counteracting all that you may be doing at home. So either you have to start a school of your own where prejudices of race, country, examples, religious superstitions, beliefs, are not inculcated in the children - which means that an intelligent human being as a teacher is necessary; and one is rarely found. Or you must send the child to the schools that already exist, hoping for the best, and counteracting at home all the stupid and pernicious things he learns at school, by helping him to be intelligent and critical. But generally you have not the time to do this, or you have too much money, so you employ nurses to look after your children. It is a complex problem which each parent must deal with according to his capacity, but unfortunately this is paralysed by his own fears, superstitions, beliefs.
Questioner: At least we can give the child a right environment at home.
Krishnamurti: Even that is not enough, is it? For the (psychological) pressure of (public ?) opinion is very great. A child feels out of it if he does not put on some kind of uniform or carry a wooden gun when the majority of them are doing it. There is the demand of the so-called 'nation' whose government, with its colossal power, forces the individual to a certain pattern, to carry arms, to kill, to die. Then there is the 'organized religion', which, through belief, dogma, and so on, equally tries to destroy the individual. Thus the individual is being continually thwarted of his ( spiritual ?) fulfilment. This is a problem of our whole life, not to be solved through mere explanations and assertions.
|Back to Top|
|Wed, 14 Dec 2016||#326|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
So Spoke Krishnamurti in 1940 (Ojai, California)
We are all well aware of the appalling chaos and misery that exist at the present time, not only in the world about us but also in ourselves. To this problem there must be a complete solution. There must be some cause for this confusion and misery not only in ourselves but also in our relationship with mankind which we call 'society'. If we can understand the fundamental cause, then perhaps this problem will be forever solved.
We will consider two different approaches to the problem of conflict and sorrow. The one is the approach from the outside, and the other from within.
When we try to solve the problem of existence from the outside as it were, we soon realize that there must be a complete social and economic change; we see that there must be the elimination of barriers, racial, national, economic. We perceive also that we must be free of religious barriers, with their separative dogmas and beliefs, which cause different groups to be formed in antagonistic competition with one another. In this external approach there is a possibility of losing oneself in an ideology, in service, in the state, and so on; one hopes unconsciously that through this self-forgetfulness, one's own sorrows, anxieties, responsibilities, and conflicts, will disappear. And yet, in spite of the attempt to sacrifice oneself to the outer, there still remains (in the background ?) the 'I' with its personal, limited ambitions, hopes, fears, passions, and greed.
The other approach to the problem of suffering and conflict is from within; We try to remove the cause of conflict and misery by logical and rational conclusions. There is the idea that the individual is a spiritual essence, and if through constant assertion and control he can discipline thought and emotion according to a particular idea, he will be able to identify himself with that spiritual essence and thus escape his daily conflict in relationship and action. Thus the pattern, the belief, becomes more important than the understanding of life. There is ever competition between religious groups; their leaders are thinking in terms of conversion and so cannot coalesce. Behind the weight of tradition, escape, and worship, there is ever the I, with its worldliness, possessive love, and craving for its own immortality.
The complete answer to this problem of conflict and suffering lies in understanding the process of craving, not through mere control and introspection, but through becoming aware of its expression in our daily thought and action. That is, by becoming aware of greed, possessive love, and the desire for personal continuity, there comes into being a comprehensive understanding without the conflict of choice. This needs an experimental approach and earnest application.
Unless we thoroughly understand and so transcend the process of craving, however well the outer is planned and made orderly, this inward process will ever overcome the outer and bring about disorder and confusion. However carefully and sanely the social and economic conditions are arranged, as long as individual thought is acquisitive, possessive, seeking security for itself either here or in the hereafter, these well-arranged social orders will constantly be disintegrated. The inner is ever overcoming the outer and until we transcend craving, the superficially well-arranged social order is in vain.
We as individuals must direct our thought to that freedom in which there is no sense of the I, the freedom from the self. This freedom from the self can only come about when we understand the process of craving as acquisitiveness, possessive love, and personal immortality. For, the world is the extension or projection of the individual, and if the individual looks to authority and legislation to bring about a drastic change within himself, he will be caught in a vicious circle of thoughtlessness from which there is no release.
Through constant and alert awareness, thought must free itself from worldliness and discern greed from need; thought must free itself from possessive love, and love completely, without fear without the thought of self; thought must free itself from the craving for personal immortality through property, family, or race, or through the continuation of the individual I.
Questioner: Can continued effort in meditation lead to full awareness?
Krishnamurti: Without (self-) understanding and love, any form of meditation must lead to illusion: without true awareness, any form of meditation is an escape from reality. When there is awareness we observe that thought is ever approximating itself to a pattern, to a memory, to a past experience; it is measuring itself against an opinion or a standard. Though mind may reject outward patterns, standards, values, yet it may cling to its own so-called experience; this experience without true discernment may be the continuation of narrow and prejudiced thought, and unless mind frees itself from its bondages, meditation only strengthens its own limitation. So through alert awareness of daily thought, speech, and action, thought must free itself from its fetters; this freedom is the true beginning of meditation.
Questioner: You are in a happy position, all you need is given to you by (pretty wealthy ?) friends. We have to earn money for ourselves and our families, we have to contend with the world. How can you understand us and help us?
Krishnamurti: Each one of us has to contend with some particular environment. Whatever the circumstances of our life may be, we have to understand and so transcend them. Thought must dig deep into its own conscious and subconscious states and liberate itself from those influences and bondages that make it personal, greedy, possessive, and cruel. Truth is to be understood in our daily thoughts, conduct, and activities. It is foolish to be envious of another, for the other is ourselves.
Questioner: In one of your recent talks you stressed the importance of action. Is what I "do" of tremendous importance?
Krishnamurti: I said that if thought is limited by memories, traditions, prejudices, by the past, then any action springing from it can only create further ignorance and sorrow. If one thinks in terms of a particular race or religion, then such thinking must be limited, separative. Sanely and deliberately, as individuals we can set about to free thought from those causes that bring about limitation. Then what one thinks and does greatly matters. If one acts thoughtlessly then one increases and perpetuates limitation and sorrow. But by becoming aware of the past and the causes of conditioning, if one is interested and therefore concentrated, one can free thought from its bondages. This demands earnestness and integral awareness. Also you are the world, and by your particular action or inaction, you can increase or help to diminish ignorance.
Questioner: I would like to devote my life to awakening men to a desire for freedom. Your dissertations or writings seem to be the best instrumentality, or should each develop his own technique?
Krishnamurti: Before we (try to ?) awaken another, we must be sure that we ourselves are awake and alert. This does not mean that we must wait until we are free. We are free insofar as we begin to understand and transcend the limitations of thought. Before one begins to preach awareness and freedom to another, which is fairly easy, one must begin with oneself. Instead of converting others to our particular form of limitation we must begin to free ourselves from the pettiness and narrowness of our own thoughts.
Questioner: You said, if I remember rightly, that we must tackle the problem of our own inner insufficiency. How can one tackle that problem?
Krishnamurti: Why does one accumulate things, property, and so on? In oneself there is poverty and so one tries to enrich oneself through worldly things; this enrichment of oneself brings social disorder and misery. Observing this, certain states and religious sects prohibit individuals from possessing property and being worldly, but this inner poverty, this aching insufficiency still continues, and it must be filled. So thought seeks and craves for enrichment in other directions. If we do not find enrichment through possessions, we try to seek it in relationship or in ideas, which leads-to many kinds of delusion. So long as there is craving, there must be this painful insufficiency; without understanding the process of craving, the cause, we try to deal with the effect, insufficiency, and get lost in its intricacies. By becoming aware of the fallacy of accumulative sufficiency, thought begins to free itself of those possessions which it has accumulated for itself through fear of incompleteness. Completeness, wholeness, is not the aggregation of many parts or the expansion of the self; it is to be realized through (self) understanding and love.
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 15 Dec 2016||#327|
|Dan McDermott United States 159 posts in this forum Offline||
Hi John, Dan ,all
I take k.'s 'understanding' to be equivalent to his 'state of observation' (his answer when questioned about 'who' was doing this 'looking', seeing',etc.) I think that is what you are getting at above? In my case personally, it seems there are more and more 'instances' when thought is 'seen'. A different kind of seeing where the 'thought' is no longer 'moored' to a 'me' (as is usually the case). The 'thought' continues for a bit in this way and then the normal mode of me having 'my' thoughts returns. I think he has made the idea that this was 'possible' basically all or even any time, a 'stumbling block' to many who haven't even ever experienced this even in a 'meditation' situation. I think that the possibility for this 'understanding' of thought even if only periodically, is a 'result' of what we spoke about in the past which was the creating a 'space' in the brain through a meditator-less meditation 'progressively' allowing these moments of 'observation' of thought/thinking to occur.
Reflecting on this further (rightly or wrongly) these 'zones' (of freedom?) like the 'state of observation' or 'understanding' or 'choiceness awareness' are either there in the brain dormant or they need to be created. (and that awakening or creation takes place 'over time' through 'meditation?) And K., I believe has not admitted the possibility of 'time' in the process. Has not admitted the process of 'becoming'. His daunting "just do it sir?" But does it 'turn out' that time is in fact, necessary...a lot of it?
When there is only fear without any hope of escape, in its darkest moments, in the utter solitude of fear, there comes from within itself, as it were, the light which shall dispel it."
This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 15 Dec 2016.
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 15 Dec 2016||#328|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
Pretty much, yes, Dan, except that this 'k term' observation is for me just another example of the overly holistic (and/or... overly simplified ?) K terminology , describing a lot of inner facts by 'what they should do' rather than by' what they actually 'are'. For instance it took me quite a lot of quality time to realise that the brain's cells themselves can understand or perceive the totality of something in a direct way, but only if they can 'exit' ( by pure Grace or by...meditation ?) their habitual 'thinker-controlled thinking' ( in this particular case, the 'me'-thinking about what and how 'I' am observing)
For millenia of our species' evolution ( mainly on the brain level) we have succesfully 'upgraded' the natural capacity of the animal brain to deal directly with its surrounding reality into a 'superior and far safer' way to deal with the same reality in a knowledgeable way ( experience loaded concepts, mental skills, values, etc) And it's almost a 'no-brainer' for the modern man to think that dealing with his everyday challenges the 'knowledgeable' way is giving him the 'upper hand' in practically everything related to material life.
So, when K is talking about 'choiceless awareness' or 'attention in observation' these are instantly translated in terms of traditional (Buddhist or mystical ?) concepts with no connexion to our everyday life ( in biblical terms these would perhaps be the 'seeds that fall on barren soil' ?)
Possibly he meant by 'time' the illusory time of ' our psychological becoming' ( the personal agenda of 'wishful thinking' ?) As for the 'just do it' ...it would certainly invalidate most- if not all- his 60 years of being the 'world teacher'. There is definitely 'a time to sow and a time to harvest', but in terms of his teachings this is in the first place a matter of 'listening'. This 'listening with all one's being' is indeed not a matter of time, and this would represent the successful 'sowing', but even if the inner soil is good, how long it would take for the delicate plant to find its place in the sun is a very intimate issue- just between the 'plant' and the Cosmic Order (how many of K's gifted, brilliant, generous and enthusiastic followers Just did it ?)
|Back to Top|
|Thu, 15 Dec 2016||#329|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
So Spoke Krishnamurti in 1944 (Ojai, California)
K: To comprehend the whole we must first understand ourselves. The root of understanding lies in oneself and without the understanding of oneself there is no comprehension of the world; for the world is oneself. The other, the friend, the relation, the enemy, the neighbour, near or far, 'is' yourself. Self-knowledge is the beginning of right thinking and in the process of self-knowledge the Infinite is discovered. The 'Book of self-knowledge' has no beginning and no end. It is a constant process of discovery and ( if ?) what is discovered is true, the truth is liberating, creative. To read this book of self-knowledge is to become aware. Through self-awareness each thought-feeling is examined with out judgment and thus allowed to flower which brings understanding; for in following each thought-feeling fully we will find that in it all ( the process of our self-centred ?) thinking is contained. We can "think - feel" completely only when we are not seeking a ( personal ?) result, an end.
In this process of self-knowledge, the right thinking comes into being; and right thinking frees the mind from craving. The freedom from craving is virtue. Mind must free itself from craving, the cause of ignorance and sorrow. For the mind to be virtuous, to be free from craving, complete candor, honesty, which comes with humility, is essential. And such integrity is not a virtue, not an end in itself but is a byproduct of thought freeing itself from the process of craving, which principally expresses itself in sensuality, in prosperity or worldliness, in ( the desire for achieving ?) personal immortality or fame. Thought in freeing itself from craving will comprehend the nature of fear and so in transcending it there will be love which is in itself eternal. Simple life does not consist merely with the contentment of a few things but rather in the freedom from acquisitiveness, dependence and distraction, inner and outer. Through constant awareness the time-binder, the identifying process of memory which builds up the self, is thus dissolved. Only then can the ultimate reality come into being.
To understand oneself, this complex entity, is most difficult. A mind that is burdened with value and prejudice, judgment and comparison cannot comprehend itself. Self-knowledge comes with choiceless awareness and when craving no longer distorts thought-feeling then in that fullness, when the mind is utterly still, creatively empty, the Highest is.
Questioner: I had son who was killed in this war. He did not want to die. He wanted to live and prevent this horror being repeated. Was it my fault that he was killed?
Krishnamurti: It is the fault of every one of us that this present horror is going on. It is the outward result of our every day inner life of greed, ill will and lust, of competition, acquisitiveness and specialized religion. It is the fault of everyone who, indulging in these, has created this terrible calamity. Because we are nationalistic, singularistic, passionate, each one of us is contributing to this mass murder. You have been taught how to kill and how to die, but not how to live. If you wholeheartedly abhorred killing and violence in any form then you would find ways and means to live peacefully and creatively. If that were your chief and primary interest then you would search out every cause, every instinct that makes for violence, for hatred - are you so wholeheartedly interested in stopping war? If you are then you must eradicate in yourself the causes of violence and killing for any reason whatsoever. If you wish to stop wars then there must take place a deep, inner revolution of tolerance and compassion; then thought-feeling must free itself from its identification with any group, from greed and those causes that breed enmity.
A mother told me that to give up these things would not only be extremely difficult but also would mean great loneliness and utter isolation which she could not face. You might agree with her and so by your (inner ?) laziness, thoughtlessness, add fuel to the ever increasing flames of war. If, on the contrary, you attempted seriously to eradicate the causes of enmity and violence in yourself, there would be peace and joy in your heart which would have immediate effect about you.
Do not think that wars cannot be stopped by so humble and lowly a beginning - a stone may alter the course of a river - to go far you must begin near. To understand the world chaos and misery you must comprehend your own confusion and sorrow, for out of these come the (1,000,000 X) magnified issues of the world. To understand yourself there must be constant meditative awareness which will bring to the surface the causes of violence and hate, greed and ambition, and by studying them without identification, thought will transcend them. For none can lead you to peace save yourself; there is no leader, no system that can bring war, exploitation, oppression to an end save yourself. Only by your thoughtfulness, by your compassion, by your awakened understanding can there be established good will and peace.
Questioner: Though you explained last week how to get rid of hate, would you mind going into it again as I feel that what you said was of great importance.
Krishnamurti: Hate is the result of a petty mind, of a small mind. A mind that is (caught in its temporal ?) bondage is capable of resentment. An ignorant mind is the cause of enmity and of conflict.
So the problem then is not how to get rid of hate but rather how to destroy ignorance, the 'self'(-ishness ?) , that causes narrow thought-feeling. If you merely overcome hate without understanding the ways of ignorance then that ignorance will produce other forms of antagonism, and so thought-feeling will be violent and ever in conflict. How then are you to free the mind from ignorance, from stupidity? Through constant awareness; by becoming aware that your thought-feeling is small, petty and narrow and not being ashamed of it, by understanding the causes that have made it little and self-enclosed. in understanding the deep and extensional causes, intelligence, disinterested generosity and kindliness come into being and hate yields to compassion. Through constant awareness the cause of ignorance, the process of the self, with its burden of the me and the mine, my achievement, my country, my possessions, my god, is being discovered, understood and dissolved. To understand there must be no judgment or comparison, no acceptance or denial, for all identification prevents that passive awareness in which alone the discovery of what is true is made. And it is this discovery that is creative and liberating. If the mind is aware negatively, passively, then being open it is able to discover the bondage, the limiting influence or idea, and so free itself from them.
So no problem can be solved on its own ( strictly personal ?) level; it is to be solved on a different level of 'abstraction'. Thinking is a process of expansion, of inclusive inquiry, not a concentrated denial or assertion. In trying to understand hate and its causes, in trying to free thought-feeling from hindrances, from delusions, mind becomes deeper and more extensive. In the greater the lesser ceases to be.
Questioner: Is there anything after death or is it the end? Some say there is continuation, others annihilation. What do you say?
Krishnamurti: In this question many things are involved; and as it is complex we will have to go into it deeply and openly. First of all, will the individual(istic) 'self'( - consciousness ?) with name and form continue, or will he cease to exist? Will he take birth again? Before we can answer this question we must find what makes up individuality. Is not individuality, though it may have a different form and name, the result of a series of accumulated responses and memories from the past, from yesterday? Each one of us is the result of the past and the past contains the you and the many, the you and the other. You are the result of your father and mother, of all the fathers and mothers; you are the father, the maker of the past, the father of the future. Thus through identifying memory the 'self' is created, the me and the mine; so the self becomes the time-binder. From this arises the question of whether this 'self' continues or is annihilated after death. Only when the self(centred consciousness ?) , the creator of the past, the present and the future, the time-binder, is transcended, then only is there that which is deathless, timeless.
In this there is also the question of cause and effect. Are cause and effect separate or is effect (already contained ?) within the cause? They flow together, they exist together and they are a joint phenomenon, not to be separated. Though the 'effect' may take "time" to come into being, the seed of the effect is in the cause, it coexists with the cause. It is no longer cause and effect but a much more subtle, delicate problem to be thought out, to be experienced. Cause-effect becomes the means of restricting, conditioning consciousness and these restrictions produce conflict and sorrow.
( For homework: )These restrictions, subtle and inward, must be self-discovered and understood which will ultimately free thought from ignorance and pain.
In this question of birth and death, of continuity and annihilation, is there not implied ( the thinking in terms of ?) progress, gradualism? Is the 'self' a permanent entity, a spiritual essence? Is the self not made up, put together and so impermanent? Is not the self a result and so, in itself, not a spiritual essence? Has not the 'self' a continuity through identifying memory, subject to time, and therefore impermanent and transitory? That which is in itself impermanent, put together, a result, how can it reach the Causeless, the Eternal? That which is the cause of ignorance and sorrow, how can it attain supreme bliss? That which is the product of time, how can it know the timeless?
Now, realizing the impermanency of the 'self', there are those who say the permanent is to be found by throwing off the many (residual ?) layers of the self which requires time and so to reincarnate is necessary. The 'self' (-centred consciousness ?) , the result of craving, the cause of ignorance and sorrow, continues, as we observe; but to transcend it we must not think in terms of time. This idea of gradualism exists, does it not, because we do not "think-feel" directly and simply? We choose a satisfactory explanation, a rationalization of our confused and lazy effort. Through conditioned thinking, through postponement can the Real be discovered? The 'self'(-centred consciousness ?) , the cause of ignorance and sorrow, must it not cease to be before there can be Light? Is its cessation a matter of time, a horizontal process, or is enlightenment only possible when thought-feeling abandons this horizontal process of time and so can think-feel vertically, directly? Along this horizontal path of (our continuity in ?) time, of postponement, of ignorance, truth is not; it is to be found vertically at any point along the horizontal process if thought-feeling can 'step out' of it, freeing itself from craving and time. This freedom is not dependent on time but on the intensity of awareness and the fullness of self-knowledge.
We must break through these conditionings not in time, not in the future, but in the "ever present". In the present is the Eternal.
Only the 'right thinking' ( insightful thinking ?) can free our thought-feeling from ignorance and sorrow; right thinking is not the result of time but of becoming intensely aware in the present of all conditioning which prevents clarity and understanding.
The realization of that which is immortal, deathless, does not lie along the path of self-continuity, nor is it in its opposite. In the opposites there is conflict but not truth. Through self-awareness and in the clarity of self-knowledge the "thought-feeling" unfolds into the Real, into the Timeless.
I shall be told that I have not answered the question, that I have gone round about it. What would you have me say - that there is or that there is not? Is it not more important to know how to discover for yourself what is true than to be told what is? The one will be merely verbal and so of little significance while the other will bring true experience and so is of great importance. But if I assert merely that there is continuity or that there is not, such a statement will only strengthen belief and that is the very thing that stands in the way of the real. What is necessary is to go beyond our narrow beliefs and formulations, our cravings and hopes to experience that which is deathless and timeless.
Questioner: Will not the scientists ( eventually manage to ?) save the world?
Krishnamurti: What do we mean by the scientists? Those who work in the laboratories and outside of them are human beings like us, with national and racial prejudices, greedy, ambitious, cruel. Will they save? Are they saving the world? Are they not using their technical knowledge to destroy more than to heal? In their laboratories they maybe seeking knowledge and understanding but are they not driven by their self (-interest) , by competitive spirit, by passions like other human beings?
In ourselves is the whole, the beginning and the end. We find the book of self-knowledge difficult to read and being impatient and greedy for results we turn to the scientists, to the organized groups, to the professionals, to the leaders. So we are never saved, none can deliver us, for deliverance from ignorance and sorrow comes through our own understanding. To re-educate ourselves is a strenuous task demanding constant awareness and great pliability, not opinion and dogma but understanding. To understand the world each one must understand himself, for he is the world; out of self-knowledge comes right thinking. It is right thinking alone that will bring order, clarity and creative peace. To think-feel anew of the pain of existence each one must become aware so as to think out, feel out each thought-feeling and this is prevented if there is identification or judgment.
Questioner: I am not particular interested in nationalism nor in virtue. But I am greatly impressed by what you say about the Uncreated. Will you please go into it a little more, though it is difficult.
Krishnamurti: To think about the Uncreated without the mind truly freeing itself from craving is to indulge in superstition and speculation. To experience the Uncreated, the Immeasurable, mind must cease to be acquisitive, must free itself from ill will, from copy. Mind must cease to be the storehouse of accumulated memories. That which we worship is our creation and so it is not the real. The (self-centred) 'thinker and his thought' must come to an end for the uncreated to be.
The Uncreated can only be when the mind is capable of utter stillness. When thought begins to free itself from craving there is right thinking. It is right thinking that will ultimately bring about clarity of perception - but few are capable of experiencing without symbols, without imagination, without formulations. Negative understanding frees the mind from copy, from the created. Our minds are filled with memories, with knowledge, with action and response to relationship and things. There is no inward rich stillness without pretension and desire and so there is no creative emptiness. A mind rich in activity, rich in possession, rich in memory is not aware of its own (inner) poverty. Such a mind is incapable of negative comprehension; such a mind is incapable of experiencing the uncrated. Supreme wisdom is denied to it.
Questioner: How am I to still the mind in which it may be possible to realize something which will affect daily problems? How am I also to retain the still mind?
Krishnamurti: Just as a lake is calm when the breezes stop so when the mind has understood and thus transcended the conflicting problems it has created, great stillness comes into being. This tranquillity is not to be induced by will, by desire; it is the outcome of the freedom from craving.
Most of our so-called 'meditation' consists in stilling the mind by various methods - such narrowing concentration brings its own result but it is not the intelligence and wisdom which bring naturally, without compulsion, tranquillity. This understanding is to be awakened, cultivated through constant awareness of every "thought-feeling-action", of every disturbance whether small or great. In understanding and so dissolving the conflicts and the disturbances which are in the conscious mind, in the external layer, and thus bringing clarity, it is able then to be passive and so understand the deeper, the interrelated layers of consciousness with their accumulations, impressions, memories. Thus through constant awareness the deep process of craving, the cause of 'self' and so of conflict and pain, is observed and understood (and 'ended ' ?) . Without self-knowledge and right thinking there is no meditation and without meditative awareness there is no self-knowledge.
|Back to Top|
|Fri, 16 Dec 2016||#330|
|John Raica Canada 536 posts in this forum Offline||
So Spoke Krishnamurti in 1945 (Ojai, California)
K: Is there ( within us ?) an enduring state of creative tranquillity? Is there an end to the seemingly endless struggle of the opposites? Is there an imperishable ecstasy? The end to conflict and sorrow is through understanding and transcending the ways of the 'self' (identified consciousness ?) and in discovering that imperishable Reality which is not the creation of the (temporal ?) mind. (The way of ?) self-knowledge is 'arduous' but without it ignorance and pain continue; without self-knowledge there can be no end to strife. The "ultimate solution" lies in freedom from craving; not in another but in yourself is the way.
The unity of mankind is to be found only in Love, in the illumination that Truth brings. This "oneness" of man is not to be established through mere economic and social readjustment. The world is ever occupied with this superficial adjustment; it is ever trying to rearrange values within the pattern of acquisitiveness; it tries to establish security on the insecurity of craving and so brings disaster upon itself. We hope that outward revolution, outward change of values will transform man; they do affect him but acquisitiveness, finding gratification at other levels continues. This endless and purposeless movement of acquisitiveness cannot at any time bring peace to man, and only when he is free of it can there be creative being. There must be persistent self-awareness, and the more earnest and strenuous you are the more thought will free itself from its own self-created bondages ( attachments ?).
In the bliss of the Real the ( division between the ?) experiencer and the experience cease. A mind-heart that is burdened with the memory of yesterday cannot live in the eternal present. Mind-heart must die each day for eternal being.
Questioner: To me what you are saying is something new and very vitalizing but the 'old' intrudes and distorts. It seems that the new is overpowered by the past. What is one to do?
Krishnamurti: ( The self-centred process of?) thought is the result of the past acting in the present; the past is constantly sweeping over the present. The perception of the new is so fleeting; no sooner is it felt than the swift current of the past sweeps over it and the new ceases to be. To die to the many yesterdays, to renew each day is only possible if we are capable of being passively aware. In this passive awareness there is an intense stillness in which the new is ever unfolding, in which silence is ever extending with measure.
To some of you these talks and discussions may have brought a new and vitalizing understanding; what is important is not to put the new into old patterns of thought or phrase. Let it remain new, uncontaminated. If it is true it will cast out the old, the past by its, very abundant and creative light. The desire to make the creative present enduring, practical or useful makes it worthless. Let the new live without anchorage in the past, without the distorting influence of fears and hopes. Die to your experience, to your memory. Die to your prejudice, pleasant or unpleasant. As you die there is the incorruptible; this is not a state of nothingness but of creative being. It is this renewal that will, if allowed, dissolve our problems and sorrows however intricate and painful. Only in death of the 'self' is there life.
Questioner: Do you believe in karma?
Krishnamurti: The root of the Sanskrit word 'karma' means to act, to do. ( Any temporal ?) action is the result of a cause. Is not our existence the product of enchaining conditioning? Cause is ever undergoing a modification and an alert awareness is necessary to follow and understand it. A silent and choiceless awareness not only reveals the cause but also frees thought-feeling from it. Can effect be separated from cause? Is not effect ever present in the cause? We desire to reform, to rearrange the effects without radically altering the cause. This occupation with effect is a form of escape from the basic cause. It is comparatively easy to discover the superficial causes but to discover and transcend craving, which is the deep cause of all conditioning, is arduous and demands constant awareness.
Questioner: It has never occurred to me myself as being able to attain liberation. The ultimate I can conceive of is that perhaps I might be able to hold and strengthen that entirely incomprehensible relation to God which is the only thing I live by. And I really do not even know what that is. You talk about being and becoming. I realize that these words mean fundamentally different attitudes and mine ha been definitely one of becoming. I now want to transform what has been becoming all along into being. Am I fooling myself?
Krishnamurti: We must first understand the process of becoming and all its implications before we can comprehend what is being. Is not the structure of our thought-feeling based on time? Do we not think-feel in terms of gain and loss, of becoming and not becoming? We think Reality or God is to be reached through time, through becoming. We think that life is an endless ladder for us to climb ever to greater and greater insights. Our thinking-feeling is caught in the horizontal process of becoming; the becomer is ever accumulating, ever gaining, ever expanding. The self, the becomer, the creator of time, can never experience the Timeless. The self, the becomer, is the cause of conflict and sorrow.
Does becoming lead to being? Through time can there be the Timeless? Through conflict can there be tranquillity? Through war, hate, can there be love? Only when becoming ceases is there being; through the horizontal process of time the Eternal is not; conflict does not lead to tranquillity; hate cannot be changed to love. The becomer can never be tranquil. Craving can never lead to that which is beyond and above all craving. The chain of sorrow is broken only when the becomer ceases to become, positively or negative
Being is only when there is no effort to become - positive or negative, ; only when the becomer is self-aware and understands the enchaining sorrow and wasted effort of becoming and no longer uses will, then only can he be silent. His desire and his will have subsided; then only is there the tranquillity of supreme wisdom. To become non-greedy is one thing and being without greed is another; to become implies a process but being does not. Process implies time; the state of being is not a result, not a product of education, discipline, conditioning. You cannot transform noise into silence; silence can only come into being when noise ceases. Result is a time process, a determined end through a determined means; but through a process, through time, the Timeless is not. Self-awareness and right meditation will reveal the process of becoming. Meditation is not the cultivation of the becomer but through self-knowledge the meditator, the becomer ceases.
Questioner: If we only consider the obvious meaning of your words, memory constitutes one of the mechanisms against which you have warned time and again. And yet you yourself, for instance, sometimes use written notes to aid your memory in reconstructing the introductory remarks which you obviously have thought out previously. Does there exist one necessary and even indispensable kind of memory related to the outside world of facts and figures, and an entirely different kind of memory which might be called psychological memory, which is detrimental because it interferes with the creative attitude which you have hinted at in expressions like "lying fallow" - "dying each day" etc?
Krishnamurti: Should we not, as the questioner points out, be aware of the two kinds of memories: the indispensable, relating to facts and figures, and the psychological memory? Without this indispensable memory we could not communicate with each other. We accumulate and cling to psychological memories and so give continuity to the self; thus the self, the past, is ever increasing, ever adding to itself. It is this accumulating memory, the self, that must come to an end; as long as thought-feeling is identifying itself with the memories of yesterday it will be ever in conflict and sorrow; as long as thought-feeling is ever becoming it cannot experience the bliss of the Real. That which is Real is not the continuation of identifying memory. According to what has been stored up one experiences; according to one's conditioning and psychological memories and tendencies are the experiences, but such experiences are ever enclosing, limiting. It is to this accumulation that one must die.
Is the experience of the Real based on memory, on accumulation? Is it not possible for thought-feeling to go above and beyond these interrelated layers of memory? Continuance is memory and is it possible for this memory to cease and a new state come into being? Can the educated and conditioned consciousness comprehend that which is not a result? It cannot and so it must die to itself. Psychological memory, ever striving to become, is creating results, barriers, and so is ever enslaving itself. It is to this becoming that thought-feeling must die; only through constant self-awareness does this self-identifying memory come to an end; it cannot come to an end through an act of will for will is craving and craving is the accumulation of identifying memory.
Truth is not to be ( verbally ?) formulated; only when there is freedom from becoming, from the self-identifying memory, does it come into being. Our thought is the result of the past and without understanding its conditioning it cannot go beyond itself. Thought-feeling become a slave to its own creation, to its own power of illusion if it is unaware of its own ways. Only when thought ceases to formulate can there be creation.
Questioner: Do not the images of saints, Masters, help us to meditate rightly?
Krishnamurti: As meditation is of the highest importance we ought to approach it rightly from the very beginning. Right means create right ends; the end is in the means. Only right meditation can bring about right understanding. It is essential for the 'meditator' to understand himself, not the objects of his meditation, for the meditator and his meditation are one, not separate. Without understanding oneself meditation becomes a process of self-hypnosis inducing experiences according to one's conditioning, one's belief. The dreamer must understand himself, not his dreams; he must awaken and put an end to them. If the meditator is seeking an end, a result, then he will hypnotize himself by his desire. Meditation is often a self-hypnotic process; it may produce certain desired results but such meditation does not bring enlightenment. Before you learn to concentrate, understand the structure of your whole being, not just one part of it. With self-awareness there comes self-knowledge, right thinking. This self-awareness or understanding creates its own discipline and concentration; such pliable discipline is enduring, effective, not the self-imposed discipline of greed and envy. Understanding ever widens and deepens into extensional awareness; this awareness is essential for right meditation. Meditation of the heart is understanding.
If the 'meditator' begins to understand himself then his meditation has great significance. Through self-awareness and self-knowledge there comes right thinking; only then can thought go above and beyond the conditioned layers of consciousness. Meditation then is being, which has its own eternal movement; it is Creation itself for the ( self-centred ?) "meditator" has ceased to be.
|Back to Top|