Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day

Group Discussion 13th December, 1947 | Madras, India

Now, suppose a reaction arises and you do not name it. Then, you do not absorb it into consciousness, but you are merely aware of it; the feeling and the response or reactions would cease after running their course; the feeling is not judged or evaluated and it is not absorbed into memory.

We are all accustomed to name every reaction and refer it to the frame of references, memory, almost instinctively. But if you experiment with it and refuse to name a feeling when it arises in you, you will see that there is a time-lag, between the feeling and the naming. For instance, if a man treads on your feet, you have the reaction of pain, which is inevitable and cannot be helped; but you do not hit back the man who has trodden on your feet. When you refuse to name it, though the reaction is there, it is not put into the frame of references. The pain has now a different significance. Next time you will be more careful where you put your feet. Thus, by understanding the reaction, you would be observant and alert and be aware of what is actually taking place without the framework of references. This is intelligence.

We have now discovered that we are always fighting reactions without understanding their significance; and if we do not name them, i.e. if we do not refer them to the framework of references, they wither away. This happens whether the qualities are pleasurable or painful.

Tags: feeling, naming

Related Quotes
When we do not put a feeling in the framework of references, the feeling comes to an end, withers away.
I wonder how far you have been experimenting with what we have been discussing, namely, the problem of conflict and effort which brings about duality, the opposite, and the problem of terming a feeling.
If you are not naming a quality or terming a feeling, then the feeling dies away.
Should not a wise man be indifferent to flattery and insult?
If I am not a scoundrel and somebody calls me a scoundrel I want to find out, I want to discover whether he is correct.
... feeling is always the new, though it is out of an old conditioning; if you treat it as new, then you will understand the old.
You all want many things. You want fame, you build around yourselves a hood of ideas, of exclusions, and that is why a man who loves is dangerous to society; and so society, which is you, begins to build a thought process, which soon destroys love.
When there is no naming, only then is it possible to be fully aware of that which is called the void of loneliness.
The mind needs to be occupied with something? You understand? It needs to be occupied, whether with god, with smoke, with sex, with something, it has to be occupied, therefore it is afraid not to be occupied.
It is extremely difficult and arduous to express, and still not be caught in the net of words.
Merely labelling a state does not mean that we understand it; on the contrary, it is a hindrance to understanding.
The word is not the thing. the word 'God' is not God, and therefore the term is independent of God though you may call it God.
You bring a framework of references to a living feeling and thereby absorb the living feeling into time, which only strengthens memory, which is the I.
I wonder how far you have been experimenting with what we have been discussing, namely, the problem of conflict and effort which brings about duality, the opposite, and the problem of terming a feeling.
If you are not naming a quality or terming a feeling, then the feeling dies away.
Should not a wise man be indifferent to flattery and insult?
If I am not a scoundrel and somebody calls me a scoundrel I want to find out, I want to discover whether he is correct.
You may have understood the verbal expressions of what I have explained, but the living significance, the inward meaning, you will understand only through experimentation.