Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening

Krishnamurti Quote of the Day

Frognerseteren, Norway | 1st Public Talk, 6th September, 1933

Questioner: Who is the savior of souls?

Krishnamurti: If one thinks about it for a moment, one sees that that phrase, 'the savior of souls,' has no meaning. What is it that we mean when we say a soul? An individual entity? Please correct me if I am wrong. What do we mean when we talk about a soul? We mean a limited consciousness. To me, there is only that eternal life - contrasted with that limited consciousness which we call the 'I'. When that 'I' exists, there is duality: the soul and the savior of souls, the lower and the higher. You can understand that complete unity of life only with the cessation of self-consciousness or 'I'-ness, which creates the duality. To me, immortality, that eternal becoming, has nothing in common with individuality. If man can free himself of his many limitations, then that freedom is eternal life, then mind and heart know eternity; but man cannot discover eternity so long as there is limitation.

So the question, 'Who is the savior of souls?' ceases to have any meaning. It arises because we are looking at life from the point of view of self-limited consciousness which we call the 'I'. Therefore we say, 'Who will save me? Who will save my soul?' No one can save you. You have held that belief for centuries, and yet you are suffering; there is still utter chaos in the world. You yourself must understand; nothing can give you wisdom except your own action in the present, which must create harmony out of conflict. Only from that can wisdom arise.

Tags: duality

Related Quotes
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.
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.
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.
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.