Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening

next quote »»

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day

Group Discussion 18th April, 1948 | Chennai, India

Krishnamurti: Let us discover it together by going into it slowly and deeply. When do you have emotions?

Question: From the mind, from external stimulants. Do we get this instantaneously?

Krishnamurti: When do you feel emotions?

Question: When you know that some person causes you pleasure or pain?

Krishnamurti: When you see a glorious sunset, is there an emotion? You are only in a state of experiencing. It is only after that state when you record or when you communicate that experience to yourself or to another, you verbalise it. Look at a tree. When you come upon it afresh, what takes place? When do you say "I am feeling, I have strong sentiment"? Is not one part of it due to communication?

Question: When you see a beggar, you may or may not feel an emotion.

Krishnamurti: If that person is dull, he will not feel. When do you feel an emotion?

Question: When you see a cobra and have a feeling of fear, there is no communication.

Krishnamurti: Communication is one part of emotion. When I tell you I love you, I have an emotion. In communicating, that emotion becomes strengthened. When is it that we feel emotion?

Question: When you see a cobra, the mind comes into action and also the process of memory. Then there is emotion of fear.

Krishnamurti: I want to discover it. I should not make a definite statement.

Question: Can you ever predict when you are having emotions?

Krishnamurti: Have you ever had any emotions?

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

Krishnamurti: Are emotions the instruments of transformation? When do you feel emotion? You said, that, through external or inward stimulants, you get a feeling and by terming it you give it a permanency and strengthen it. By not terming it you diminish it. That emotion or feeling cannot bring about revolution. Will stimuli provide the neces- sary impetus? Will intensity of emotion transform? You say that great grief can transform an individual, or an ecstasy can. Can they bring about a sustained revolution of values? Can sorrow be the instrument of transformation? Can sorrow beget intelligence? We know that the shock of sorrow cannot bring about intelligence.

Question: Intense feeling is not conducive to intelligence.

Krishnamurti: You have not said what you mean by emotion.

Question: Emotion is unreason, instinctive impulse.

Krishnamurti: Can't you find out when you have an emotion and then start from there?

Question: Emotion comes into being when you are empty.

Krishnamurti: Is that so? My son dies. I have a strong emotion. Will that sorrow of loneliness, breaking of habit, bring about a revolution of values? Emotions, feelings of pleasure or pain, are first nervous responses, and then psychological responses - that is, responses of memory. Will grief modify your character? Will the shock of my son's death change my character?

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

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

Question: (2) Great grief can make a man a scoundrel also.

Krishnamurti: Grief has no effect on character; but, the thought about grief has. My son dies and I think about it. It is my attitude towards that grief that makes a change in me. I go to a temple, I give up some old habits and seek an escape. This is not a real change or revolution. So, you must become aware that you are escaping; then only you will be in direct relationship and you will discover your state of being. Facing the actual state without seeking any escape from it leads to inner revolution. Devotion, various forms of emotion, sentimentality may modify the superficial structure of one's being but they cannot bring about transformation which is a complete alteration in direction. Why is it then that there is no transformation?

Tags: emotion, thought

Related Quotes
Thinking and feeling are to me the same, because I have lost the distinction of what you call thought and emotion.
when thought, which is emotion, which is action itself, is unimpeded in its movement, is not compelled or influenced or bound by an idea, and does not proceed from the background of tradition or habit, then that movement is creative.
True search can begin only when we do not separate mind from emotion.
If what I am saying acts merely as a stimulation, then there arises the question of how to apply it to your daily life with its pains and conflicts.
Desire is not emotion; desire is the result of a mind that is ever seeking satisfaction, whose values are based on satisfaction.
Only in deep emotion is there no craving for satisfaction.
Desire and emotion are two different and distinct processes; desire being entirely of the mind, and emotion the integral expression of one's whole being.
A mind-heart that is burdened with the memory of yesterday cannot live in the eternal present.
What is awareness? There is objective awareness. Then, there is the emotional response to each other or to truth.
What is the necessary impetus to bring about a revolution leading to individual action?
There is only thinking, and thinking is impermanent
There is no such thing as pure thought, or ''free'' thought
We must find out - if it is possible or not - whether there is a different dimension, a different approach, to life altogether.
Thinking is materialistic, it is a process of matter.
Most of us want to be occupied; otherwise we shall feel lost, otherwise we do not know what to do, we will be lonely, we will be confronted with what we actually are
What is the relationship of attention to inattention, and to awareness?
Only the mind that has emptied itself of the known is creative.
Thought is the very denial of love, and it cannot enter into that space where the me is not.
Self-knowledge is only from moment to moment, and therefore there is a creative happiness from moment to moment.
You have only one head, care for it, don't destroy it. It's so easy to poison it.
An intelligent mind acts in the field of thought intelligently, sanely, without resistance;
To walk alone, unimpeded by thought, by the trail of our desires, is to go beyond the reaches of the mind.
Can thought be aware of its own movement? Can thought see itself, see what it is doing, both in the outer and the inner?
It is odd what importance we give to the printed word, to so-called sacred books.
To transform, I must look at what is; and I am not looking at it as long as I have an ideal.
Sir, don't follow any authority. Authority is evil. Authority destroys, authority perverts, authority corrupts;
As long as you think time and thought are necessary, in the psychological world, in the world of the self, in the world of psyche, in the world of inside the skin, then you will be perpetually in fear.
In the life we we generally lead there is very little solitude.
If you have no thoughts, there is no thinker; so it is thought that creates the thinker.
The thinker is a fictitious entity, an unreal state. There is only thought; and the bundle of thoughts creates the 'I', the thinker.
Is there any thought which is not conditioned?
Experiencing without memory is one state, and experiencing with memory is another.
The thinker is the thought. They are not separate, they are a joint phenomenon and not separate processes.
Thought is the outcome of incomplete experience.
A fundamental question cannot be answered by somebody else.
Thought is a very strange thing, is it not?
Thinking and feeling are to me the same, because I have lost the distinction of what you call thought and emotion.
Thought is like the waters of a river. It must be in continual movement. Eternity is that movement.
when thought, which is emotion, which is action itself, is unimpeded in its movement, is not compelled or influenced or bound by an idea, and does not proceed from the background of tradition or habit, then that movement is creative.
What do I mean by right thinking?
Our daily thought and action are controlled by the past, by the concealed motives, memories, and hidden cravings.
Love transcends the friend and the enemy.
If you would understand something do you compare it with something else or do you study it for itself?
The complete integration of the thinker with his thought cannot be experienced if there is no understanding of the process of becoming and the conflict of opposites.
Is not the maker of the problem more important than the problem itself?
Is the thinker different from his thought?
In right meditation the concentrator is the concentration; as generally practised the thinker is the concentrator, concentrating upon something or becoming something.
Our thought is conditioned by the past; the I, the me and the mine, is the result of stored up experience, ever incomplete.
How is thought which has become the means of self-expansion to act without giving sustenance to the ego, the cause of conflict and sorrow?
How can thought which is the outcome of time, of self-protective activity, comprehend that which is not of time?
If you have the capacity to allow thought to unroll itself fully then you will perceive that one thought contains, or is related to, all thought.
What is known is not the Real.
How can the mind which is restless and going swiftly backwards and forwards, be aware of its activities?
As long as the mind is moving from the known to the known, it is 'dead', and a 'dead' thing cannot understand anything.
Continuity implied through a belief or through the soul is the product of thought and therefore it is the result of the known, because thought can only think of something which it knows
When we are thinking about something beyond, it is also the process of the mind and therefore it is unreal.
Thought is always moving from the known to the known, from memory to memory, from continuity to continuity, and it cannot think of the unknown.
If the thinker is the thought, inseparably, then being the creator, he can begin to solve himself without being concerned with the problem, or with the thought.
So, as long as the thinker is separate from his thought, there will be problems, one after the other, innumerable problems;
My thought, which is the outcome of yesterday, can respond only in terms of yesterday; and when it asks, 'how can I go beyond?', it is asking a wrong question.
To be free from the background, from the conditioning influences, from memory, there must be freedom from continuity; and, there is continuity as long as thought and feeling are not ended completely.
If the thinker can understand himself, then the whole problem is solved.
Thoughts themselves are the thinker, they are not separate.
Question: Why is your teaching so purely psychological?
If you have no thoughts, there is no thinker.
Understanding the thought process is the beginning of meditation, which is self-knowledge.
What is the necessary impetus to bring about a revolution leading to individual action?