Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day

Group Discussion 20th November, 1947 | Madras, India

Ordinarily, in the physical sense, we desire to continue through property, through our job and through our routine. Psychologically, we continue through our memory. All our systems are based on continuity. We seek continuity in property, name, and identifying ourselves with something. When we find that there is no continuity or permanency in objects we turn to psychological factors, such as beliefs and ideas and so on. The thought, being afraid of discontinuity, thinks in terms of the continuity of the soul. 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. So thought is really concerned with continuity and not with Truth or God. Continuity is a time-process and there cannot be a renewal in the time-process.

Tags: death, thought

Related Quotes
So, can you, while living, vigorous, active, end your attachment, end a particular habit voluntarily, easily, quietly?
What is death? Surely, it is the complete cessation of everything that you have known
Most of us are so weighed down by the known, by the yesterday, by the memories, by the `me', the `self', which is but a bundle of memories accumulated yesterday, having no actual existence in itself.
It requires an intense energy to stand alone.
Except for the human beings, it was a new day; nothing was like yesterday.
When you lose your relationship with nature and the vast heavens, you lose your relationship with man.
We have divided life into dying and living. And this division has brought about great fear. And out of that fear we invent all kinds of theories, very comforting, may be illusory, but it is very comforting, illusions are comfortably neurotic.
We are saying: Be dead to love; it doesn't matter. Live entirely in your intellect and in your verbal manipulations, your cunning arguments.
In Asia they believe in reincarnation; that is, the believer is born over and over again until in time he becomes perfect.
Death isn't some horrific thing, something to be avoided, something to be postponed, but rather something to be with day in and day out.
One has to find out the meaning of living, not merely giving an intellectual significance to it, but looking at what it means to live.
Creativeness is not a process of becoming or achieving, but a state of being in which self-seeking effort is totally absent.
It is one fact in life, we are all going to die. That is an absolute, irrevocable fact.
It is we human beings who are always concerned about death - because we are not living.
Is death merely the ending of the physical organism? Is that what we are afraid of? Is it the body that we want to continue? Or is it some other form of continuance that we crave?
Colour was god and death was beyond the gods.
The Christians have taken comfort in the idea of resurrection, and the Hindus and the Buddhists in a future life. Future life of what?
In what manner should one live one's daily life?"
What is death, what does it mean to die? - and that is an absolute certainty that we are all going to die, and what does that mean?
When you say to somebody `I love you', what does it mean?
It is a stupid person that wants to continue - no man who understood the rich feelings of life would want continuity.
It seems to me that our problems, whatever they are, can be dissolved totally only by burning away the process of will - which may sound completely foreign to a Western mind, and even to the Eastern mind.
That which has continuity cannot possibly be innocent.
We refuse to accept life as it is in fact.
The word 'innocence' means 'incapable of being hurt'.
Thought is the response of memory, experience, knowledge, the known, in the known is the 'me', though consciously I may not know the 'me' totally, the 'me' lives in this interval.
Do we know what love is? Never knowing it is the wonder of it, the beauty of it.
Is there time to overcome death; or is death always in harmony with life, with love, with pain; or is death something to be put far away, one day we have to face it but not now?
Can you invite death? Which means to end that which you have experienced, that which you have gathered, psychologically, so that you become totally inwardly anonymous, so that you are inwardly absolutely nothing?
Life is not what we would like it to be; life is not permanent at all.
Some people believe that the "I" has had a birth in the distant past and will continue in the future. It is irrelevant to me, it has no significance at all.
Questioner: Will you please talk about death? I do not mean the fear of death but rather the promise and hope which the thought of death must always hold for those who are aware throughout life that they do not belong.
Because we are as the dead we fear death; the living do not.
If death is truly a great problem for you, not merely a verbal or emotional issue nor a matter of curiosity which can be appeased by explanations, then in you there is deep silence.
if we were aware of what is, then the truth of sorrow, of impermanency, of imprisonment would liberate thought from its own ignorance.
We have never understood the significance of Death.
To us, God is the ultimate continuance and Death the ultimate denial of continuance.
I think it is important that we should understand the whole question of death because, in that, there is renewal.
As one cannot think of the unknown, one can only think of the known, the outcome of the thought which is the result of the past.
In order to bring about a renewal we must die; and that means we must start anew, putting away completely all memories of the past.
We are not concerned with physical continuity. What we are primarily concerned about is whether through things there is psychological continuity;
... to understand the immortal, the imperishable, we have to understand the ending which we call death.
Surely death is as lovely as the real is, because both are the unknown, but a mind that is merely functioning within the known can never understand the unknown.
We do not know what God is, what Death is, and what Love is.
Why does the mind separate itself from the stream of continuity and say 'I remember'?
If we really go into it, if we are aware of its significance, we will find that, that which is spiritual is timeless and therefore beyond our reach and therefore beyond continuity;
The transitory cannot find the permanent; it must cease for the permanent to be.
When you treat impermanency as impermanent then there is nothing; but when you are seeking permanency as an opposite to transitory, the permanency itself is transitory.
Memory is time, and time is not the door to reality;
A man who has a problem, who is continuously worried for a number of years, is dead, for him there is no renewal; he is of the living dead, he merely continues.
Life and death are one, and the man who knows they are one is he who dies every minute.
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.
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?
Are emotions the instruments of transformation?