Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day

Ojai, California | 7th Public Talk 25th June, 1944

Questioner: Don't you think that there is a principle of destruction in life, a blind will, quite independent of man, always dormant, ready to spring into action, which can never be transcended?

Krishnamurti: Surely we know that within us there are these two opposing capacities: to destroy and to create, to be good and to be harmful. Now, are they independent of each other? Is the will to destroy separate from the will to live, or is the will to live, to become, in itself a process of destruction? What makes us destroy? What makes us angry, ignorant, brutal; what urges us to kill, to seek vengeance, to deceive? is it a blind will, a thing over which we have no control whatever - let us call it the devil - an independent force of evil, or an uncontrollable ignorance? Is the urge to destroy inane or is it the response to a deeper demand to live, to be, to become? Is this reaction never to be transcended, or can it slow down to be examined and so understood? To slow down a response is possible. Or is there a blind spot which can never be examined, a result of heredity, an inborn result which has so conditioned our thinking that we are incapable of looking into it? And so we think that there is a power of destruction, of evil, which cannot be transcended.

Surely anything that has been created, that has been made up, can be understood by those who have created it. This dual process of good and evil is in us to create and to destroy. We have created it and so we can understand it; but to understand it we must have the faculty of dispassionate observation of ourselves which requires great alertness and pliable awareness. Or we can say that in all of us potentially there is a dormant evil, a power that is in itself destructive. Though we may be loving, generous, merciful, this power - like an earthquake - completely impersonal, seeks an occasional outburst. And as over an earthquake, over acts of nature we have no control, so over this power we have no influence whatever.

Now is this so? Can we not, in understanding ourselves, understand the causes that exist in us to destroy and to create? If first we can clear the confusion that exists in the superficial layer of our conscious mind, then into it because it is open, clear, the deeper layers of consciousness, with their contents, can project themselves. This clarification of the superficial layer comes when thought-feeling is not identifying but detached and so capable of observing without comparison and judgment. Then only can it, the conscious mind, discover what is true. Thus you can test for yourself whether there is in you an element which is absolutely beyond your control, an element which is destructive. Then you can find out whether it is the result of conditioning or whether it is ignorance or whether it is a blind spot or an independent, uncontrollable evil force. Only then can you discover whether or not you are capable of transcending it.

The more you comprehend yourself and so bring about right thinking the less you will find that there is any tendency, any ignorance, any force within you that cannot be transcended. And out of this you will discover an ecstasy that comes with understanding, with wisdom. It is not the faith and the hope of the foolish. In understanding ourselves completely and thus creating the faculty to delve deeply within, we will find there is nothing that cannot be examined or understood. Out of this self-knowledge comes creative understanding; but because we do not understand ourselves there is ignorance. What thought has created thought can transcend.

Tags: contradiction, duality, transcendence

Related Quotes
You can only understand acquisitiveness, or any other problem, in its isolation, not by bringing it into comparison, into opposition.
That which is achieved through the cultivation of the opposites is still within the opposite, though one may think that the state one has achieved has transcended the opposites.
Questioner: Last Sunday I understood from what you said that we do not take time from our jobs, family, activities, to study ourselves. This seems a contradiction of your former statement that one can be aware in everything one does.
Happy is he who sees the false as the false and that which is true as true.
The very nature of the self is to create contradiction.
We are ever-changing contradictory thoughts-feelings: love and hate, peace and passion, intelligence and ignorance.
We have to think of our existence as a whole, as a total process, and not as many unrelated processes at different levels.
When right thinking comes into being, there is no contradiction.
Sirs, how very respectful you are to me, and how very cruel you are to your servant, to your wife, to your neighbours?
Contradiction is when I do not see clearly, when choice comes into action.
It is a fallacy to think that there can be no radical transformation in the world unless there is mass action.
You cannot call yourself a nationalist and at the same time talk of peace.
Contradiction is one of the hindrances to transformation as it will not allow any moment of full attention on something directly.
If you do not see any contradiction, it does not mean that there is no contradiction.
Why do we live with this sense of duality, opposing each other at all levels of our existence, resisting each other and bringing about conflict and war?
Our very search for the understanding of life, for the meaning of life, our struggle to comprehend the whole substance of life or to find out what truth is, destroys our understanding.
What is it that we mean when we say a soul? An individual entity?
The desire to become, without understanding duality, is a vain struggle;
We must become aware of this complex problem of duality through constant watchfulness, not to correct but to understand;
In all of us there is the dormant will to destroy like anger, ill will, which extended leads to world catastrophes; and also within us there is the desire to be thoughtful and compassionate.
In opposition there is no understanding.
Any becoming involves non-becoming and as long as there is becoming there must be duality with its endless conflict.
As long as the thinker is concerned only with the modification of his thoughts and not with the fundamental transformation of himself, so long conflict and sorrow will continue.
We falsely separate the thought from the thinker and so try to deal only with the part, to educate and modify the part, thereby hoping to transform the whole.
Just as long as effort is made to become, so long will duality exist, the thinker separating himself from his thought.
As this conflict [of opposites] is wearing you out in your daily life, it is absolutely necessary for you to understand it and thus be free from this conflict.
It is only when one understands the centre which is the individual from which the left and the right come into being, there can be true revolution, not revolution to the left or to the right. but, as long as you are thinking in terms of the left or the right, you cannot understand the centre.
Is love also a response, a reaction not to be named and so left to wither?
The problem of duality, which your sacred books have said you must transcend, which all your life you have struggled to transcend but in which you are still caught, seems to me, fallacious.
The thinker plays an insidious and clever trick on himself and separates himself from the thought and then does something about thought.
How does the 'thinker' come into being?
The 'I' comes into being through desire; then the 'I' feels established and creates the desire which is outward, the desire and 'I' thus becoming two separate entities, which means that the thinker and the thought are separate.
You admit that the thinker and the thought are one and yet there is no change in your way of living. Why?
In 'becoming' there is always the dual; in 'being' there is no duality.
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.
As long as the thinker is concerned only with the modification of his thoughts and not with the fundamental transformation of himself, so long conflict and sorrow will continue.
Can I transcend that which is, and not transform it, not make it into something else?