By J. Krishnamurti
E-Text Source: www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net

Index
Awareness
Is There A God?
Fear
How To Live In This World
Relationship
Conflict
The Religious Life
Seeing The Whole
Morality
Suicide
Discipline
What is
The Seeker
Organisation
Love And Sex
Perception
Suffering
The Heart And The Mind
Beauty And The Artist
Dependence
Belief
Dreams
Tradition
Conditioning
Happiness
Learning
Self-Expression
Passion
Order
The Individual And The Community
Meditation And Energy
Ending Thought
The New Human Being

Acknowledgement
The copyright of this book is held by Krishnamurti Foundations. We are providing this e-book solely for non-commercial usage as a noble service. The printed book can be purchased from Krishnamurti Foundations.

Awareness

Questioner: I should like to know what you mean by awarenessbecause you have often said that awareness is really what yourteaching is about. I've tried to understand it by listening toyour talks and reading your books, but I don't seem to get veryfar. I know it is not a practice, and I understand why you soemphatically repudiate any kind of practice, drill, system,discipline or routine. I see the importance of that, forotherwise it becomes mechanical, and at the end of it the mindhas become dull and stupid. I should like, if I may, to explorewith you to the very end this question of what it means to beaware. You seem to give some extra, deeper meaning to this word,and yet it seems to me that we are aware of what's going on allthe time. When I'm angry I know it, when I'm sad I know it andwhen I'm happy I know it.

Krishnamurti: I wonder if we really are aware of anger, sadness,happiness? Or are we aware of these things only when they areall over? Let us begin as though we know nothing about it at alland start from scratch. Let us not make any assertions, dogmaticor subtle, but let us explore this question which, if one reallywent into it very deeply, would reveal an extraordinary statethat the mind had probably never touched, a dimension nottouched by superficial awareness. Let us start from thesuperficial and work through. We see with our eyes, we perceivewith our senses the things about us - the colour of the flower,the humming bird over the flower the light of this Californiansun, the thousand sounds of different qualities and subtleties,the depth and the height, the shadow of the tree and the treeitself. We feel in the same way our own bodies, which are theinstruments of these different kinds of superficial, sensoryperceptions. If these perceptions remained at the superficiallevel there would be no confusion at all. That flower, thatpansy, that rose, are there, and that's all there is to it.There is no preference, no comparison, no like and dislike, onlythe thing before us without any psychological involvement. Isall this superficial sensory perception or awareness quiteclear? It can be expanded to the stars, to the depth of theseas, and to the ultimate frontiers of scientific observation,using all the instruments of modern technology.

Questioner: Yes, I think I understand that.

Krishnamurti: So you see that the rose and all the universe andthe people in it, your own wife if you have one, the stars, theseas, the mountains, the microbes, the atoms, the neutrons, thisroom, the door, really are there. Now, the next step; what youthink about these things, or what you feel about them, is yourpsychological response to them. And this we call thought oremotion. So the superficial awareness is a very simple matter:the door is there. But the description of the door is not thedoor, and when you get emotionally involved in the descriptionyou don't see the door. This description might be a word or ascientific treatise or a strong emotional response; none ofthese is the door itself. This is very important to understandright from the beginning. If we don't understand this we shallget more and more confused. The description is never thedescribed. Though we are describing something even now, and wehave to, the thing we are describing is not our description ofit, so please bear this in mind right through our talk. Neverconfuse the word with the thing it describes. The word is neverthe real, and we are easily carried away when we come to thenext stage of awareness where it becomes personal and we getemotional through the word.

So there is the superficial awareness of the tree, the bird, thedoor, and there is the response to that, which is thought,feeling, emotion. Now when we become aware of this response, wemight call it a second depth of awareness. There is theawareness of the rose, and the awareness of the response to therose. Often we are unaware of this response to the rose. Inreality it is the same awareness which sees the rose and whichsees the response. It is one movement and it is wrong to speakof the outer and inner awareness. When there is a visualawareness of the tree without any psychological involvementthere is no division in relationship. But when there is apsychological response to the tree, the response is aconditioned response, it is the response of past memory, pastexperiences, and the response is a division in relationship.This response is the birth of what we shall call the "me" inrelationship and the "non-me". This is how you place yourself inrelationship to the world. This is how you create the individualand the community. The world is seen not as it is, but in itsvarious relationships to the "me" of memory. This division isthe life and the flourishing of everything we call ourpsychological being, and from this arises all contradiction anddivision. Are you very clear that you perceive this? When thereis the awareness of the tree there is no evaluation. But whenthere is a response to the tree, when the tree is judged withlike and dislike, then a division takes place in this awarenessas the "me" and the "non-me", the "me" who is different from thething observed. This "me" is the response, in relationship, ofpast memory, past experiences. Now can there be an awareness, anobservation of the tree, without any judgement, and can there bean observation of the response, the reactions, without anyjudgement? In this way we eradicate the principle of division,the principle of "me" and "non-me", both in looking at the treeand in looking at ourselves.

Questioner: I'm trying to follow you. Let's see if I have got itright. There is an awareness of the tree, that I understand.There is a psychological response to the tree, that I understandalso. The psychological response is made up of past memories andpast experiences, it is like and dislike, it is the divisioninto the tree and the "me". Yes, I think I understand all that.

Krishnamurti: Is this as clear as the tree itself, or is itsimply the clarity of description? Remember, as we have alreadysaid, the described is not the description. What have you got,the thing or its description?

Questioner: I think it is the thing.

Krishnamurti: Therefore there is no "me" who is the descriptionin the seeing of this fact. In the seeing of any fact there isno "me". There is either the "me" or the seeing, there can't beboth. "Me" is non-seeing. The "me" cannot see, cannot be aware.

Questioner: May I stop here? I think I've got the feeling of it,but I must let it sink in. May I come again tomorrow?

* * *

Questioner: I think I have really understood, non-verbally, whatyou said yesterday. There is the awareness of the tree, there isthe conditioned response to the tree, and this conditionedresponse is conflict, it is the action of memory and pastexperiences, it is like and dislike, it is prejudice. I alsounderstand that this response of prejudice is the birth of whatwe call the "me" or the censor. I see clearly that the "me", the"I", exists in all relationships. Now is there an "I" outside ofrelationships?

Krishnamurti: We have seen how heavily conditioned our responsesare. When you ask if there is a "me" outside of relationship, itbecomes a speculative question as long as there is no freedomfrom these conditioned responses. Do you see that? So our firstquestion is not whether there is a "me" or not outside ofconditioned responses, but rather, can the mind, in which isincluded all our feelings, be free of this conditioning, whichis the past? The past is the "me". There is no "me" in thepresent. As long as the mind is operating in the past there isthe "me", and the mind is this past, the mind is this "me".

You can't say there is the mind and there is the past, whetherit is the past of a few days ago or of ten thousand years ago.So we are asking: can the mind free itself from yesterday? Nowthere are several things involved, aren't there? First of allthere is a superficial awareness. Then there is the awareness ofthe conditioned response. Then there is the realization that themind is the past, the mind is this conditioned response. Thenthere is the question whether this mind can free itself of thepast. And all this is one unitary action of awareness because inthis there are no conclusions. When we say the mind is the past,this realization is not a verbal conclusion but an actualperception of fact. The French have a word for such a perceptionof a fact, they call it "constatation". When we ask whether themind can be free of the past is this question being asked by thecensor, the "me", who is that very past?

Questioner: Can the mind be free of the past.

Krishnamurti: Who is putting that question? Is it the entity whois the result of a great many conflicts, memories andexperiences - is it he who is asking - or does this questionarise of itself, out of the perception of the fact? If it is theobserver who is putting the question, then he is trying toescape from the fact of himself, because, he says, I have livedso long in pain, in trouble, in sorrow, I should like to gobeyond this constant struggle. If he asks the question from thatmotive his answer will be a taking refuge in some escape. Oneeither turns away from a fact or one faces it. And the word andthe symbol are a turning away from it. In fact, just to ask thisquestion at all is already an act of escape, is it not? Let usbe aware whether this question is or is not an act of escape. Ifit is, it is noise. If there is no observer, then there issilence, a complete negation of the whole past.

Questioner: Here I am lost. How can I wipe away the past in afew seconds?

Krishnamurti: Let us bear in mind that we are discussingawareness. We are talking over together this question ofawareness.

There is the tree, and the conditioned response to the tree,which is the "me" in relationship, the "me" who is the verycentre of conflict. Now is it this "me" who is asking thequestion? - this "me" who, as we have said, is the verystructure of the past? If the question is not asked from thestructure of the past, if the question is not asked by the "me",then there is no structure of the past. When the structure isasking the question it is operating in relationship to the factof itself, it is frightened of itself and it acts to escape fromitself. When this structure does not ask the question, it is notacting in relationship to itself. To recapitulate: there is thetree, there is the word, the response to the tree, which is thecensor, or the "me", which comes from the past; and then thereis the question: can I escape from all this turmoil and agony?If the "me" is asking this question it is perpetuating itself.

Now, being aware of that, it doesn't ask the question! Beingaware and seeing all the implications of it, the question cannotbe asked. It does not ask the question at all because it seesthe trap. Now do you see that all this awareness is superficial?It is the same as the awareness which sees the tree.

Questioner: Is there any other kind of awareness? Is there anyother dimension to awareness?

Krishnamurti: Again let's be careful; let's be very clear thatwe are not asking this question with any motive. If there is amotive we are back in the trap of conditioned response. When theobserver is wholly silent, not made silent, there is surely adifferent quality of awareness coming into being?

Questioner: What action could there possibly be in anycircumstances without the observer - what question or whataction?
Krishnamurti: Again, are you asking this question from this sideof the river, or is it from the other bank? If you are on theother bank, you will not ask this question; if you are on thatbank, your action will be from that bank. So there is anawareness of this bank, with all its structure, its nature andall its traps, and to try to escape from the trap is to fallinto another trap. And what deadly monotony there is in allthat! Awareness has shown us the nature of the trap, andtherefore there is the negation of all traps; so the mind is nowempty. It is empty of the "me" and of the trap. This mind has adifferent quality, a different dimension of awareness. Thisawareness is not aware that it is aware.

Questioner: My God, this is too difficult. You are saying thingsthat seem true, that sound true, but I'm not there yet. Can youput it differently? Can you push me out of my trap?

Krishnamurti: Nobody can push you out of your trap - no guru, nodrug, no mantra, nobody, including myself - nobody, especiallymyself. All that you have to do is to be aware from thebeginning to the end, not become inattentive in the middle ofit. This new quality of awareness is attention, and in thisattention there is no frontier made by the "me". This attentionis the highest form of virtue, therefore it is love. It issupreme intelligence, and there cannot be attention if you arenot sensitive to the structure and the nature of these man-madetraps.

Is There a God?

Questioner: I really would like to know if there is a god. Ifthere isn't life has no meaning. Not knowing god, man hasinvented him in a thousand beliefs and images. The division andthe fear bred by all these beliefs have divided him from hisfellow men. To escape the pain and the mischief of this divisionhe creates yet more beliefs, and the mounting misery andconfusion have engulfed him. Not knowing, we believe. Can I knowgod? I've asked this question of many saints both in India andhere and they've all emphasized belief. "Believe and then youwill know; without belief you can never know." What do youthink?

Krishnamurti: Is belief necessary to find out? To learn is farmore important than to know. Learning about belief is the end ofbelief. When the mind is free of belief then it can look. It isbelief, or disbelief, that binds; for disbelief and belief arethe same: they are the opposite sides of the same coin. So wecan completely put aside positive or negative belief; thebeliever and the non-believer are the same. When this actuallytakes place then the question, "Is there a god?" has quite adifferent meaning. The word god with all its tradition, itsmemory, its intellectual and sentimental connotations - all thisis not god. The word is not the real. So can the mind be free ofthe word?

Questioner: I don't know what that means.

Krishnamurti: The word is the tradition, the hope, the desire tofind the absolute, the striving after the ultimate, the movementwhich gives vitality to existence. So the word itself becomesthe ultimate, yet we can see that the word is not the thing. Themind is the word, and the word is thought.

Questioner: And you're asking me to strip myself of the word?How can I do that? The word is the past; it is memory. The wifeis the word, and the house is the word. In the beginning was theword. Also the word is the means of communication,identification. Your name is not you, and yet without your nameI can't ask about you. And you're asking me if the mind can befree of the word - that is, can the mind be free of its ownactivity?

Krishnamurti: In the case of the tree the object is before oureyes, and the word refers to the tree by universal agreement.Now with the word god there is nothing to which it refers, soeach man can create his own image of that for which there is noreference. The theologian does it in one way, the intellectualin another, and the believer and the non-believer in their owndifferent ways. Hope generates this belief, and then seeking.This hope is the outcome of despair - the despair of all we seearound us in the world. From despair hope is born, they also aretwo sides of the same coin. When there is no hope there is hell,and this fear of hell gives us the vitality of hope. Thenillusion begins. So the word has led us to illusion and not togod at all. God is the illusion which we worship; and thenon-believer creates the illusion of another god which heworships - the State, or some utopia, or some book which hethinks contains all truth. So we are asking you whether you canbe free of the word with its illusion.

Questioner: I must meditate on this.

Krishnamurti: If there is no illusion, what is left?

Questioner: Only what is.

Krishnamurti: The "what is" is the most holy.

Questioner: If the "what is" is the most holy then war is mostholy, and hatred, disorder, pain, avarice and plunder. Then wemust not speak of any change at all. If "what is" is sacred,then every murderer and plunderer and exploiter can say, "Don'ttouch me, what I'm doing is sacred".

Krishnamurti: The very simplicity of that statement, " `what is'is the most sacred", leads to great misunderstanding, because wedon't see the truth of it. If you see that what is is sacred,you do not murder, you do not make war, you do not hope, you donot exploit. Having done these things you cannot claim immunityfrom a truth which you have violated. The white man who says tothe black rioter, "What is is sacred, do not interfere, do notburn", has not seen, for if he had, the Negro would be sacred tohim, and there would be no need to burn. So if each one of ussees this truth there must be change. This seeing of the truthis change.

Questioner: I came here to find out if there is god, and youhave completely confused me.

Krishnamurti: You came to ask if there is god. We said: the wordleads to illusion which we worship, and for this illusion wedestroy each other willingly. When there is no illusion the"what is" is most sacred. Now let's look at what actually is. Ata given moment the "what is" may be fear, or utter despair, or afleeting joy. These things are constantly changing. And alsothere is the observer who says, "These things all change aroundme, but I remain permanent". Is that a fact, is that what reallyis? Is he not also changing, adding to and taking away fromhimself, modifying, adjusting himself, becoming or not becoming?So both the observer and the observed are constantly changing.What is is change. That is a fact. That is what is.

Questioner: Then is love changeable? If everything is a movementof change, isn't love also part of that movement? And if love ischangeable, then I can love one woman today and sleep withanother tomorrow.

Krishnamurti: Is that love? Or are you saying that love isdifferent from its expression? Or are you giving to expressiongreater importance than to love, and therefore making acontradiction and a conflict. Can love ever be caught in thewheel of change? If so then it can also be hate; then love ishate. It is only when there is no illusion that "what is" ismost sacred. When there is no illusion "what is" is god or anyother name that can be used. So god, or whatever name you giveit, is when you are not. When you are, it is not. When you arenot, love is. When you are, love is not.

Fear

Questioner: I used to take drugs but now I am free of them. Whyam I so frightened of everything? I wake up in the morningsparalysed with fear. I can hardly move out of bed. I'mfrightened of going outside, and I'm frightened of being inside.Suddenly as I drive along this fear comes upon me, and I spend awhole day sweating, nervous, apprehensive, and at the end of theday I'm completely exhausted. Sometimes, though very rarely, inthe company of a few intimate friends or at the house of myparents, I lose this fear; I feel quiet, happy, completelyrelaxed. As I came along in my car today, I was frightened ofcoming to see you, but as I came up the drive and walked to thedoor I suddenly lost this fear, and now as I sit here in thisnice quiet room I feel so happy that I wonder what I was everfrightened about. Now I have no fear. I can smile and truthfullysay: I'm very glad to see you! But I can't stay here for ever,and I know that when I leave here the cloud of fear will engulfme again. That is what I'm faced with. I've been to ever so manypsychiatrists and analysts, here and abroad, but they merelydelve into my memories of childhood - and I'm fed up with itbecause the fear hasn't gone at all.

Krishnamurti: Let's forget childhood memories and all thatnonsense, and come to the present. Here you are, and you say youare not frightened now; you're happy for the moment and canhardly imagine the fear you were in. Why have you no fear now?Is it the quiet, clear, well-proportioned room, furnished withgood taste, and this sense of welcoming warmth which you feel?Is that why you are not frightened now?

Questioner: That's part of it. Also perhaps it is you. I heardyou talk in Switzerland, and I've heard you here, and I feel akind of deep friendship for you. But I don't want to depend onnice houses, welcoming atmospheres and good friends in order notto be afraid. When I go to my parents I have this same feelingof warmth. But it is deadly at home; all families are deadlywith their little enclosed activities, their quarrels, and thevulgarity of all that loud talk about nothing, and theirhypocrisy. I'm fed up with it all. And yet, when I go to themand there is this certain warmth, I do feel, for a while, freeof this fear. The psychiatrists can't tell me what my fear isabout. They call it a "floating fear". It's a black, bottomless,ghastly pit. I've spent a great deal of money and time on beinganalysed and it really hasn't helped at all. So what am I to do?

Krishnamurti: Is it that being sensitive you need a certainshelter, a certain security, and not being able to find it, youare frightened of the ugly world? Are you sensitive?

Questioner: Yes, I think so. Perhaps not in the way you mean,but I am sensitive. I don't like the noise, the bustle, thevulgarity of this modern existence and the way they throw sex atyou everywhere you go today, and the whole business of fightingyour way to some beastly little position. I am really frightenedof all this - not that I can't fight and get a position formyself, but it makes me sick with fear.

Krishnamurti: Most people who are sensitive need a quiet shelterand a warm friendly atmosphere. Either they create it forthemselves or depend on others who can give it to them - thefamily the wife, the husband, the friend. Have you got such afriend?

Questioner: No. I'm frightened of having such a friend. I'mfrightened of being dependent on him.

Krishnamurti: So there is this issue; being sensitive, demandinga certain shelter, and depending on others to give you thatshelter. There is sensitivity, and dependence; the two often gotogether. And to depend on another is to fear losing him. So youdepend more and more, and then the fear increases in proportionto your dependence. It is a vicious circle. Have you enquiredwhy you depend? We depend on the postman, on physical comfortand so on; that's quite simple. We depend on people and thingsfor our physical well-being and survival; it is quite naturaland normal. We have to depend on what we may call theorganizational side of society. But we also dependpsychologically, and this dependence, though comforting, breedsfear. Why do we depend psychologically?

Questioner: You're talking to me about dependence now, but Icame here to discuss fear.

Krishnamurti: Let's examine them both because they areinterrelated as we shall see. Do you mind if we discuss themboth? We were talking about dependence. What is dependence? Whydoes one psychologically depend on another? Isn't dependence thedenial of freedom? Take away the house, the husband, thechildren, the possessions - what is a man if all these areremoved? In himself he is insufficient, empty, lost. So out ofthis emptiness, of which he is afraid, he depends on property,on people and beliefs. You may be so sure of all the things youdepend on that you can't imagine ever losing them - the love ofyour family, and the comfort. Yet fear continues. So we must beclear that any form of psychological dependence must inevitablybreed fear, though the things you depend on may seem almostindestructible. Fear arises out of this inner insufficiency,poverty and emptiness. So now, do you see, we have three issues- sensitivity, dependence and fear? The three are interrelated.Take sensitivity: the more sensitive you are (unless youunderstand how to remain sensitive without dependence, how to bevulnerable without agony), the more you depend. Then takedependence: the more you depend, the more there is disgust andthe demand to be free. This demand for freedom encourages fear,for this demand is a reaction, not freedom from dependence.

Questioner: Are you dependent on anything?

Krishnamurti: Of course I'm dependent physically on food,clothes and shelter, but psychologically, inwardly, I'm notdependent on anything - not on gods, not on social morality, noton belief, not on people. But it is irrelevant whether or not Iam dependent. So, to continue: fear is the awareness of ourinner emptiness, loneliness and poverty, and of not being ableto do anything about it. We are concerned only with this fearwhich breeds dependence, and which is again increased bydependence. If we understand fear we also understand dependence.So to understand fear there must be sensitivity to discover, tounderstand how it comes into being. If one is at all sensitiveone becomes conscious of one's own extraordinary emptiness - abottomless pit which cannot be filled by the vulgarentertainment of drugs nor by the entertainment of the churches,nor the amusements of society: nothing can ever fill it. Knowingthis the fear increases. This drives you to depend, and thisdependence makes you more and more insensitive. And knowing thisis so, you are frightened of it. So our question now is: how isone to go beyond this emptiness, this loneliness - not how isone to be self-sufficient, not how is one to camouflage thisemptiness permanently?

Questioner: Why do you say it is not a question of becomingself-sufficient?

Krishnamurti: Because if you are self-sufficient you are nolonger sensitive; you become smug and callous, indifferent andenclosed. To be without dependence, to go beyond dependence,doesn't mean to become self-sufficient. Can the mind face andlive with this emptiness, and not escape in any direction?

Questioner: It would drive me mad to think I had to live with itfor ever.

Krishnamurti: Any movement away from this emptiness is anescape. And this flight away from something, away from "whatis," is fear. Fear is flight away from something. What is is notthe fear; it is the flight which is the fear, and this willdrive you mad, not the emptiness itself. So what is thisemptiness, this loneliness? How does it come about? Surely itcomes through comparison and measurement, doesn't it? I comparemyself with the saint, the master, the great musician, the manwho knows, the man who has arrived. In this comparison I findmyself wanting and insufficient: I have no talent, I aminferior, I have not realised; I am not, and that man is. So outof measurement and comparison comes the enormous cavity ofemptiness and nothingness. And the flight from this cavity isfear. And the fear stops us from understanding this bottomlesspit. It is a neurosis which feeds upon itself. And again, thismeasurement, this comparison, is the very essence of dependence.So we are back again at dependence, a vicious circle.

Questioner: We have come a long way in this discussion andthings are clearer. There is dependence; is it possible not todepend? Yes, I think it is possible. Then we have the fear; isit possible not to run away from emptiness at all, which means,not to escape through fear? Yes, I think it is possible. Thatmeans we are left with the emptiness. Is it possible then toface this emptiness since we have stopped running away from itthrough fear? Yes, I think it is possible. Is it possiblefinally, not to measure, not to compare? For if we have comethis far, and I think we have, only this emptiness remains, andone sees that this emptiness is the outcome of comparison. Andone sees that dependence and fear are the outcome of thisemptiness. So there is comparison, emptiness, fear, dependence.Can I really live a life without comparison, withoutmeasurement?

Krishnamurti: Of course you have to measure to put a carpet onthe floor!

Questioner: Yes. I mean can I live without psychologicalcomparison?

Krishnamurti: Do you know what it means to live withoutpsychological comparison when all your life you have beenconditioned to compare - at school, at games, at the universityand in the office? Everything is comparison. To live withoutcomparison! Do you know what it means? It means no dependence,no self-sufficiency, no seeking, no asking; therefore it meansto love. Love has no comparison, and so love has no fear. Loveis not aware of itself as love, for the word is not the thing.

How to Live in This World

Questioner: Please, sir, could you tell me how I am to live inthis world? I don't want to be part of it yet I have to live init, I have to have a house and earn my own living. And myneighbours are of this world; my children play with theirs, andso one becomes a part of this ugly mess, whether one wants to ornot. I want to find out how to live in this world withoutescaping from it, without going into a monastery or around theworld in a sailing boat. I want to educate my childrendifferently, but first I want to know how to live surrounded byso much violence, greed, hypocrisy, competition and brutality.

Krishnamurti: Don't let's make a problem of it. When anythingbecomes a problem we are caught in the solution of it, and thenthe problem becomes a cage, a barrier to further exploration andunderstanding. So don't let us reduce all life to a vast andcomplex problem. If the question is put in order to overcome thesociety in which we live, or to find a substitute for thatsociety, or to try to escape from it though living in it, itmust inevitably lead to a contradictory and hypocritical life.This question also implies, doesn't it, the complete denial ofideology? If you are really enquiring you cannot start with aconclusion, and all ideologies are a conclusion. So we mustbegin by finding out what you mean by living.

Questioner: Please, sir, let's go step by step.

Krishnamurti: I am very glad that we can go into this step bystep, patiently, with an enquiring mind and heart. Now what doyou mean by living?

Questioner: I've never tried to put it into words. I'mbewildered, I don't know what to do, how to live. I've lostfaith in everything - religions, philosophies and politicalutopias. There is war between individuals and between nations.In this permissive society everything is allowed - killing,riots, the cynical oppression of one country by another, andnobody does anything about it because interference might meanworld war. I am faced with all this and I don't know what to do;I don't know how to live at all. I don't want to live in themidst of such confusion.

Krishnamurti: What is it you are asking for - a different life,or for a new life which comes about with the understanding ofthe old life? If you want to live a different life withoutunderstanding what has brought about this confusion, you willalways be in contradiction, in conflict, in confusion. And thatof course is not a new life at all. So are you asking for a newlife or for a modified continuity of the old one, or tounderstand the old one?

Questioner: I'm not at all sure what I want but I am beginningto see what I don't want.

Krishnamurti: Is what you don't want based on your freeunderstanding or on your pleasure and pain? Are you judging outof your revolt, or do you see the causation of this conflict andmisery, and, because you see it, reject it?

Questioner: You're asking me too many things. All I know is thatI want to live a different kind of life. I don't know what itmeans; I don't know why I'm seeking it; and, as I said, I'mutterly bewildered by it all.

Krishnamurti: Your basic question is, isn't it, how are you tolive in this world? Before you find out let us first see whatthis world is. The world is not only all that surrounds us, itis also our relationship to all these things and people, toourselves, to ideas. That is, our relationship to property, topeople, to concepts - in fact our relationship to the stream ofevents which we call life. This is the world. We see divisioninto nationalities, into religious, economic, political, socialand ethnical groups; the whole world is broken up and is asfragmented outwardly as its human beings are inwardly. In fact,this outer fragmentation is the manifestation of the humanbeing's inner division.

Questioner: Yes, I see this fragmentation very clearly, and I amalso beginning to see that the human being is responsible.

Krishnamurti: You are the human being!

Questioner: Then can I live differently from what I am myself?I'm suddenly realizing that if I am to live in a totallydifferent way there must be a new birth in me, a new mind andheart, new eyes. And I realize also that this hasn't happened. Ilive the way I am, and the way I am has made life as it is. Butwhere does one go from there?

Krishnamurti: You don't go anywhere from there! There is nogoing anywhere. The going, or the searching for the ideal, forwhat we think is better, gives us a feeling that we areprogressing, that we are moving towards a better world. But thismovement is no movement at all because the end has beenprojected out of our misery, confusion, greed and envy. So thisend, which is supposed to be the opposite of what is, is reallythe same as what is, it is engendered by what is. Therefore itcreates the conflict between what is and what should be. This iswhere our basic confusion and conflict arises. The end is notover there, not on the other side of the wall; the beginning andthe end are here.

Questioner: Wait a minute, sir, please; I don't understand thisat all. Are you telling me that the ideal of what should be isthe result of not understanding what is? Are you telling me thatwhat should be is what is, and that this movement from what isto what should be isn't really a movement at all?

Krishnamurti: It is an idea; it is fiction. If you understandwhat is, what need is there for what should be?

Questioner: Is that so? I understand what is. I understand thebestiality of war, the horror of killing, and because Iunderstand it I have this ideal of not killing. The ideal isborn out of my understanding of what is, therefore it is not anescape.

Krishnamurti: If you understand that killing is terrible do youhave to have an ideal in order not to kill? Perhaps we are notclear about the word understanding. When we say we understandsomething, in that is implied, isn't it, that we have learnt allit has to say? We have explored it and discovered the truth orthe falseness of it. This implies also, doesn't it, that thisunderstanding is not an intellectual affair, but that one hasfelt it deeply in one's heart? There is understanding only whenthe mind and the heart are in perfect harmony. Then one says "Ihave understood this, and finished with it", and it no longerhas the vitality to breed further conflict. Do we both give thesame meaning to that word understand?

Questioner: I hadn't before, but now I see that what you aresaying is true. Yet I honestly don't understand, in that way,the total disorder of the world, which, as you so rightlypointed out, is my own disorder. How can I understand it? Howcan I completely learn about the disorder, the entire disorderand confusion of the world, and of myself?

Krishnamurti: Do not use the word how, please.
Questioner: Why not?

Krishnamurti: The how implies that somebody is going to give youa method, a recipe, which, if you practise it, will bring aboutunderstanding. Can understanding ever come about through amethod? Understanding means love and the sanity of the mind. Andlove cannot be practised or taught. The sanity of the mind canonly come about when there is clear perception, seeing things asthey are unemotionally, not sentimentally. Neither of these twothings can be taught by another, nor by a system invented byyourself or by another.

Questioner: You are too persuasive, sir, or is it perhaps thatyou are too logical? Are you trying to influence me to seethings as you see them?

Krishnamurti: God forbid! Influence in any form is destructiveof love. Propaganda to make the mind sensitive, alert, will onlymake it dull and insensitive. So we are in no way trying toinfluence you or persuade you, or make you depend. We are onlypointing out, exploring together. And to explore together youmust be free, both of me and of your own prejudices and fears.Otherwise you go round and round in circles. So we must go backto our original question: how am I to live in this world? Tolive in this world we must deny the world. By that we mean: denythe ideal, the war, the fragmentation, the competition, the envyand so on. We don't mean deny the world as a schoolboy revoltsagainst his parents. We mean deny it because we understand it.This understanding is negation.

Questioner: I am out of my depth.

Krishnamurti: You said you do not want to live in the confusion,the dishonesty and ugliness of this world. So you deny it. Butfrom what background do you deny it, why do you deny it? Do youdeny it because you want to live a peaceful life, a life ofcomplete security and enclosure, or do you deny it because yousee what it actually is?

Questioner: I think I deny it because I see around me what istaking place. Of course my prejudices and fear are all involved.So it is a mixture of what is actually taking place and my ownanxiety.

Krishnamurti: Which predominates, your own anxiety or the actualseeing of what is around you? If fear predominates, then youcan't see what is actually going on around you, because fear isdarkness, and in darkness you can see absolutely nothing. If yourealize that, then you can see the world actually as it is, thenyou can see yourself actually as you are. Because you are theworld, and the world is you; they are not two separate entities.

Questioner: Would you please explain more fully what you mean bythe world is me and I am the world?

Krishnamurti: Does this really need explaining? Do you want meto describe in detail what you are and show you that it is thesame as what the world is? Will this description convince youthat you are the world? Will you be convinced by a logical,sequential explanation showing you the cause and the effect? Ifyou are convinced by careful description, will that give youunderstanding? Will it make you feel that you are the world,make you feel responsible for the world? It seems so clear thatour human greed, envy, aggression and violence have broughtabout the society in which we live, a legalized acceptance ofwhat we are. I think this is really sufficiently clear and let'snot spend any more time on this issue. You see, we don't feelthis, we don't love, therefore there is this division between meand the world.
Questioner: May I come back again tomorrow?

* * *

He came back the next day eagerly, and there was the brightlight of enquiry in his eyes.

Questioner: I want, if you are willing, to go further into thisquestion of how I am to live in this world. I do now understand,with my heart and my mind, as you explained yesterday, the utterimportance of ideals. I had quite a long struggle with it andhave come to see the triviality of ideals. You are saying,aren't you, that when there are no ideals or escapes there isonly the past, the thousand yesterdays which make up the "me"?So when I ask: How am I to live in this world?" I have not onlyput a wrong question, but I have also made a contradictorystatement, for I have placed the world and the "me" inopposition to each other. And this contradiction is what I callliving. So when I ask the question, "How am I to live in thisworld?" I am really trying to improve this contradiction, tojustify it, to modify it, because that's all I know; I don'tknow anything else.

Krishnamurti: This then is the question we have now: must livingalways be in the past, must all activity spring from the past,is all relationship the outcome of the past, is living thecomplex memory of the past? That is all we know - the pastmodifying the present. And the future is the outcome of thispast acting through the present. So the past, the present andthe future are all the past. And this past is what we callliving. The mind is the past, the brain is the past, thefeelings are the past, and action coming from these is thepositive activity of the known. This whole process is your lifeand all the relationship and activity that you know. So when youask how you are to live in this world you are asking for achange of prisons.

Questioner: I don't mean that. What I mean is: I see veryclearly that my process of thinking and doing is the pastworking through the present to the future. This is all I know,and that's a fact. And I realize that unless there is a changein this structure I am caught in it, I am of it. From this thequestion inevitably arises: how am I to change?

Krishnamurti: To live in this world sanely there must be aradical change of the mind and of the heart.

Questioner: Yes, but what do you mean by change? How am I tochange if whatever I do is the movement of the past? I can onlychange myself, nobody else can change me. And I don't see whatit means - to change.

Krishnamurti: So the question "How am I to live in this world?"has now become "How am I to change?" - bearing in mind that thehow doesn't mean a method, but is an enquiry to understand. Whatis change? Is there any change at all? Or can you ask whetherthere is any change at all only after there has been a totalchange and revolution? Let's begin again to find out what thisword means. Change implies a movement from what is to somethingdifferent. Is this something different merely an opposite, ordoes it belong to a different order altogether? If it is merelyan opposite then it is not different at all, because allopposites are mutually dependent, like hot and cold, high andlow. The opposite is contained within, and determined by, itsopposite; it exists only in comparison, and things that arecomparative have different measures of the same quality, andtherefore they are similar. So change to an opposite is nochange at all. Even if this going towards what seems differentgives you the feeling that you are really doing something, it isan illusion.

Questioner: Let me absorb this for a moment.

Krishnamurti: So what are we concerned with now? Is it possibleto bring about in ourselves the birth of a new order altogetherthat is not related to the past? The past is irrelevant to thisenquiry, and trivial, because it is irrelevant to the new order.

Questioner: How can you say it is trivial and irrelevant? We'vebeen saying all along that the past is the issue, and now yousay it is irrelevant.

Krishnamurti: The past seems to be the only issue because it isthe only thing that holds our minds and hearts. It alone isimportant to us. But why do we give importance to it? Why isthis little space all-important? If you are totally immersed init, utterly committed to it, then you will never listen tochange. The man who is not wholly committed is the only onecapable of listening, enquiring and asking. Only then will he beable to see the triviality of this little space. So, are youcompletely immersed, or is your head above the water? If yourhead is above the water then you can see that this little thingis trivial. Then you have room to look around. How deeply areyou immersed? Nobody can answer this for you except yourself. inthe very asking of this question there is already freedom and,therefore, one is not afraid. Then your vision is extensive.When this pattern of the past holds you completely by thethroat, then you acquiesce, accept, obey, follow, believe. It isonly when you are aware that this is not freedom that you arestarting to climb out of it. So we are again asking: what ischange, what is revolution? Change is not a movement from theknown to the known, and all political revolutions are that. Thiskind of change is not what we are talking about. To progressfrom being a sinner to being a saint is to progress from oneillusion to another. So now we are free of change as a movementfrom this to that.

Questioner: Have I really understood this? What am I to do withanger, violence and fear when they arise in me? Am I to givethem free reign? How am I to deal with them? There must bechange there, otherwise I am what I was before.

Krishnamurti: Is it clear to you that these things cannot beovercome by their opposites? If so, you have only the violence,the envy, the anger, the greed. The feeling arises as the resultof a challenge, and then it is named. This naming of the feelingre-establishes it in the old pattern. If you do not name it,which means you do not identify yourself with it, then thefeeling is new and it will go away by itself. The naming of itstrengthens it and gives it a continuity which is the wholeprocess of thought.

Questioner: I am being driven into a comer where I see myselfactually as I am, and I see how trivial I am. From there whatcomes next?

Krishnamurti: Any movement from what I am strengthens what I am.So change is no movement at all. Change is the denial of change,and now only can I put this question: is there a change at all?This question can be put only when all movement of thought hascome to an end, for thought must be denied for the beauty ofnon-change. In the total negation of all movement of thoughtaway from what is, is the ending of what is.

Relationship

Questioner: I have come a long way to see you. Although I ammarried and have children I have been away from them, wandering,meditating, as a mendicant. I have puzzled greatly over thisvery complicated problem of relationship. When I go into avillage and they give me food, I am related to the giver, as Iam related to my wife and children. In another village whensomebody gives me clothes I am related to the whole factory thatproduced them. I am related to the earth on which I walk, to thetree under which I take shelter, to everything. And yet I amalone, isolated. When I am with my wife, I am separate evenduring sex - it is an act of separation. When I go into a templeit is still the worshipper being related to the thing heworships: separation again. So in all relationships, as I seeit, there is this separation, duality, and behind or through it,or around it, there is a peculiar sense of unity. When I see thebeggar it hurts me, for I am like him and I feel as he feels -lonely, desperate, sick, hungry. I feel for him, and with him,for his meaningless existence. Some rich man comes along in hisbig motor car and gives me a lift, but I feel uncomfortable inhis company, yet at the same time I feel for him and am relatedto him. So I have meditated upon this strange phenomenon ofrelationship. Can we on this lovely morning, overlooking thisdeep valley, talk over together this question?

Krishnamurti: Is all relationship out of this isolation? Canthere be relationship as long as there is any separateness,division? Can there be relationship if there is no contact, notonly physical but at every level of our being, with another? Onemay hold the hand of another and yet be miles away, wrapped inone's own thoughts and problems. One may be in a group and yetbe painfully alone. So one asks: can there be any kind ofrelationship with the tree, the flower, the human being, or withthe skies and the lovely sunset, when the mind in its activitiesis isolating itself? And can there be any contact ever, withanything at all, even when the mind is not isolating itself?

Questioner: Everything and everybody has its own existence.Everything and everybody is shrouded in its own existence. I cannever penetrate this enclosure of another's being. However muchI love someone, his existence is separate from mine. I canperhaps touch him from the outside, mentally or physically, buthis existence is his own, and mine is for ever on the outside ofit. Similarly he cannot reach me. Must we always remain twoseparate entities, each in his own world, with his ownlimitations, within the prison of his own consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Each lives within his own tissue, you in yours, hein his. And is there any possibility, ever, of breaking throughthis tissue? Is this tissue - this shroud, this envelope - theword? Is it made up of your concern with yourself and his withhimself, your desires opposed to his? Is this capsule the past?It is all of this, isn't it? It isn't one particular thing but awhole bundle which the mind carries about. You have your burden,another has his. Can these burdens ever be dropped so that themind meets the mind, the heart meets the heart? That is reallythe question, isn't it?

Questioner: Even if all these burdens are dropped, if that werepossible, even then he remains in his skin with his thoughts,and I in mine with my thoughts. Sometimes the gap is narrow,sometimes it is wide, but we are always two separate islands.The gap seems to be widest when we care most about it and try tobridge it.

Krishnamurti: You can identify yourself with that villager orwith that flaming bougainvillaea - which is a mental trick topretend unity. Identification with something is one of the mosthypocritical states - to identify oneself with a nation, with abelief and yet remain alone is a favourite trick to cheatloneliness. Or you identify yourself so completely with yourbelief that you are that belief, and this is a neurotic state.Now let's put away this urge to be identified with a person oran idea or a thing. That way there is no harmony, unity or love.So our next question is: can you tear through the envelope sothat there is no more envelope? Then only would there be apossibility of total contact. How is one to tear through theenvelope? The "how" doesn't mean a method, but rather an enquirywhich might open the door.

Questioner: Yes, no other contact can be called relationship atall, though we say it is.

Krishnamurti: Do we tear the envelope bit by bit or cut throughit immediately? If we tear it bit by bit, which is what analystssometimes claim to do, the job is never done. It is not throughtime that you can break down this separation.

Questioner: Can I enter into the envelope of another? And isn'this envelope his very existence, his heartbeats and his blood,his feelings and his memories?

Krishnamurti: Are you not the very envelope itself?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: The very movement to tear through the otherenvelope, or extend outside of your own, is the very affirmationand the action of your own envelope: you are the envelope. Soyou are the observer of the envelope, and you are also theenvelope itself. In this case you are the observer and theobserved: so is he, and that's how we remain. And you try toreach him and he tries to reach you. Is this possible? You arethe island surrounded by seas, and he is also the islandsurrounded by seas. You see that you are both the island and thesea; there is no division between them; you are the entire earthwith the sea. Therefore there is no division as the island andthe sea. The other person doesn't see this. He is the islandsurrounded by sea; he tries to reach you, or, if you are foolishenough, you may try to reach him. Is that possible? How canthere be a contact between a man who is free and another who isbound? Since you are the observer and the observed, you are thewhole movement of the earth and the sea. But the other, whodoesn't understand this, is still the island surrounded bywater. He tries to reach you and is everlastingly failingbecause he maintains his insularity. It is only when he leavesit and is, like you, open to the movement of the skies, theearth, and the sea, that there can be contact. The one who seesthat the barrier is himself can no longer have a barrier.Therefore he, in himself, is not separate at all. The other hasnot seen that the barrier is himself and so maintains the beliefin his separateness. How can this man reach the other? It is notpossible.

* * *

Questioner: If we may I should like to continue from where weleft off yesterday. You were saying that the mind is the makerof the envelope around itself, and that this envelope is themind. I really don't understand this. Intellectually I canagree, but the nature of perception eludes me. I should likevery much to understand it - not verbally but actually feel it -so that there is no conflict in my life.

Krishnamurti: There is the space between what the mind calls theenvelope which it has made, and itself. There is the spacebetween the ideal and the action. In these differentfragmentations of space between the observer and the observed,or between different things it observes, is all conflict andstruggle, and all the problems of life. There is the separationbetween this envelope around me and the envelope around another.In that space is all our existence, all our relationship andbattle.

Questioner: When you talk of the division between the observerand the observed do you mean these fragmentations of space inour thinking and in our daily actions?

Krishnamurti: What is this space? There is space between you andyour envelope, the space between him and his envelope, and thereis the space between the two envelopes. These spaces all appearto the observer. What are these spaces made of? How do they comeinto being? What is the quality and the nature of these dividedspaces? If we could remove these fragmentary spaces what wouldhappen?

Questioner: There would then be true contact on all levels ofone's being.

Krishnamurti: Is that all?

Questioner: There would be no more conflict, for all conflict isrelationship across these spaces.

Krishnamurti: Is that all? When this space actually disappears -not verbally or intellectually - but actually disappears - thereis complete harmony, unity, between you and him, between you andanother. In this harmony you and he cease and there is only thisvast space which can never be broken up. The small structure ofthe mind comes to an end, for the mind is fragmentation.

Questioner: I really can't understand this at all, though I havea deep feeling within me that it is so. I can see that whenthere is love this actually takes place, but I don't know thatlove. It's not with me all the time. It is not in my heart. Isee it only as if through a misty glass. I can't honestly graspit with all my being. Could we, as you suggested, consider whatthese spaces are made of, how they come into being?

Krishnamurti: Let's be quite sure that we both understand thesame thing when we use the word space. There is the physicalspace between people and things, and there is the psychologicalspace between people and things. Then there is also the spacebetween the idea and the actual. So all this, the physical andpsychological, is space, more or less limited and defined. Weare not now talking of the physical space. We are talking of thepsychological space between people and the psychological spacein the human being himself, in his thoughts and activities. Howdoes this space come about? Is it fictitious, illusory, or is itreal? Feel it, be aware of it, make sure you haven't just got amental image of it, bear in mind that the description is neverthe thing. Be quite sure that you know what we are talkingabout. Be quite aware that this limited space, this division,exists in you: don't move from there if you don't understand.Now how does this space come about?

Questioner: We see the physical space between things....

Krishnamurti: Don't explain anything; just feel your way intoit. We are asking how this space has come into being. Don't givean explanation or a cause, but remain with this space and feelit. Then the cause and the description will have very littlemeaning and no value. This space has come into being because ofthought, which is the "me", the word - which is the wholedivision. Thought itself is this distance, this division.Thought is always breaking itself up into fragments and creatingdivision. Thought always cuts up what it observes into fragmentswithin space - as you and me, yours and mine, me and mythoughts, and so on. This space, which thought has createdbetween what it observes, has become real; and it is this spacethat divides. Then thought tries to build a bridge over thisdivision, thus playing a trick upon itself all the time,deceiving itself and hoping for unity.

Questioner: That reminds me of the old statement about thought:it is a thief disguising himself as a policeman in order tocatch the thief.

Krishnamurti: Don't bother to quote, sir, however ancient it is.We are considering what actually is going on. In seeing thetruth of the nature of thought and its activities, thoughtbecomes quiet. Thought being quiet, not made quiet, is therespace?

Questioner: It is thought itself which now rushes in to answerthis question.

Krishnamurti: Exactly! Therefore we do not even ask thequestion. The mind now is completely harmonious, withoutfragmentation; the little space has ceased and there is onlyspace. When the mind is completely quiet there is the vastnessof space and silence.

Questioner: So I begin to see that my relationship to another isbetween thought and thought; whatever I answer is the noise ofthought, and realizing it, I am silent.

Krishnamurti: This silence is the benediction.

Conflict

Questioner: I find myself in a great deal of conflict witheverything about me; and also everything within me is inconflict. People have spoken of divine order; nature isharmonious; it seems that man is the only animal who violatesthis order, making so much misery for others and for himself.When I wake up in the morning I see from my window little birdsfighting with each other, but they soon separate and fly away,whereas I carry this war with myself and with others inside meall the time; there is no escaping it. I wonder if I can ever beat peace with myself. I must say I should like to find myself incomplete harmony with everything about me and with myself. Asone sees from this window the quiet sea and the light on thewater, one has a feeling deep within oneself that there must bea way of living without these endless quarrels with oneself andwith the world. Is there any harmony at all, anywhere? Or isthere only everlasting disorder? If there is harmony, at whatlevel can it exist? Or does it only exist on the top of somemountain which the burning valleys can never know?

Krishnamurti: Can one go from one to the other? Can one changethat which is to that which is not? Can disharmony betransformed into harmony?

Questioner: Is conflict necessary then? It may perhaps, afterall, be the natural order of things.

Krishnamurti: If one accepted that, one would have to accepteverything society stands for: wars, ambitious competition, anaggressive way of life - all the brutal violence of men, insideand outside of his so-called holy places. Is this natural? Willthis bring about any unity? Wouldn't it be better for us toconsider these two facts - the fact of conflict with all itscomplicated struggles, and the fact of the mind demanding order,harmony, peace, beauty, love?

Questioner: I know nothing about harmony. I see it in theheavens, in the seasons, in the mathematical order of theuniverse. But that doesn't give me order in my own heart andmind; the absolute order of mathematics is not my order. I haveno order, I am in deep disorder. I know there are differenttheories of gradual evolution towards the so-called perfectionof political utopias and religious heavens, but this leaves mewhere I actually am. The world may perhaps be perfect in tenthousand years from now, but in the meantime I'm having hell.

Krishnamurti: We see the disorder in ourselves and in society.Both are very complex. There are really no answers. One canexamine all this very carefully, analyse it closely, look forcauses of disorder in oneself and in society, expose them to thelight and perhaps believe that one will free the mind from them.This analytical process is what most people are doing,intelligently or unintelligently, and it doesn't get anybodyvery far. Man has analysed himself for thousands of years, andproduced no result but literature! The many saints haveparalysed themselves in concepts and ideological prisons; theytoo are in conflict. The cause of our conflict is thiseverlasting duality of desire: the endless corridor of theopposites creating envy greed ambition aggression, fear, and allthe rest of it. Now I wonder if there isn't an altogetherdifferent approach to this problem? The acceptance of thisstruggle and all our efforts to get out of it have becometraditional. The whole approach is traditional. In thistraditional approach the mind operates but, as we see, thetraditional approach of the mind creates more disorder. So theproblem is not how to end disorder, but rather whether the mindcan look at it freed from tradition. And then perhaps there maybe no problem at all.

Questioner: I don't follow you at all.

Krishnamurti: There is this fact of disorder. There is no doubtabout it: it is an actual fact. The traditional approach to thisfact is to analyse it, to try to discover the cause of it andovercome the cause, or else to invent its opposite and battletowards that. This is the traditional approach with itsdisciplines, drills, controls, suppressions, sublimations. Manhas done this for thousands upon thousands of years; it has lednowhere. Can we abandon this approach completely and look at theproblem entirely differently - that is, not try to go beyond it,or to resolve it, or to overcome it, or to escape from it? Canthe mind do this.

Questioner: Perhaps....

Krishnamurti: Don't answer so quickly! This is a tremendousthing I am asking you. From the beginning of time man has triedto deal with all his problems, either by going beyond them,resolving them, overcoming them or escaping from them. Please donot think you can push all that aside so lightly, simply with averbal agreement. It makes up the very structure of everybody'smind. Can the mind now, understanding all this non-verbally,actually free itself from the tradition? This traditional way ofdealing with the conflict never solves it, but only adds moreconflict: being violent, which is conflict, I add the additionalconflict of trying to become non-violent. All social moralityand all religious prescriptions are that. Are we together?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Then do you see how far we have come? Having,through understanding, repudiated all these traditionalapproaches, what is the actual state of the mind now? Becausethe state of the mind is far more important than the conflictitself.

Questioner: I really don't know.

Krishnamurti: Why don't you know? Why aren't you aware, if youhave really abandoned the traditional approach, of the state ofyour mind? Why don't you know? Either you have abandoned it oryou haven't. If you have, you would know it. If you have, thenyour mind is made innocent to look at the problem. You can lookat the problem as though for the first time. And if you do this,is there a problem of conflict at all? Because you look at theproblem with the old eyes it is not only strengthened but alsomoves in its well-worn path. So what is important is how youlook at the problem - whether you look at it with new eyes orold eyes. The new eyes are freed from the conditioned responsesto the problem. Even to name the problem through recognition isto approach it in the traditional way. Justification,condemnation, or translation of the problem in terms of pleasureand pain, are all involved in this habitual traditional approachof doing something about it. This is generally called positiveaction with regard to the problem. But when the mind brushes allthat aside as being ineffectual, unintelligent, then it hasbecome highly sensitive, highly ordered, and free.

Questioner: You're asking too much of me, I can't do it. I'mincapable of it. You're asking me to be superhuman!

Krishnamurti: You're making difficulties for yourself, blockingyourself, when you say you must become superhuman. It's nothingof the kind. You keep on looking at things with eyes that wantto interfere, that want to do something about what they see.Stop doing anything about it, for whatever you do belongs to thetraditional approach. That's all. Be simple. This is the miracleof perception - to perceive with a heart and mind that arecompletely cleansed of the past. Negation is the most positiveaction.

The Religious Life

Questioner: I should like to know what a religious life is. Ihave stayed in monasteries for several months, meditated, led adisciplined life, read a great deal. I've been to varioustemples, churches and mosques. I've tried to lead a very simple,harmless life, trying not to hurt people or animals. This surelyisn't all there is to a religious life? I've practised yoga,studied Zen and followed many religious disciples. I am, andhave always been, a vegetarian. As you see, I'm getting old now,and I've lived with some of the saints in different parts of theworld, but somehow I feel that all this is only the outskirts ofthe real thing. So I wonder if we can discuss today what to youis a religious life.

Krishnamurti: A sannyasi came to see me one day and he was sad.He said he had taken a vow of celibacy and left the world tobecome a mendicant, wandering from village to village, but hissexual desires were so imperious that one morning he decided tohave his sexual organs surgically removed. For many months hewas in constant pain, but somehow it healed, and after manyyears he fully realized what he had done. And so he came to seeme and in that little room he asked me what he could do now,having mutilated himself, to become normal again - notphysically, of course, but inwardly. He had done this thingbecause sexual activity was considered contrary to a religiouslife. It was considered mundane, belonging to the world ofpleasure, which a real sannyasi must at all costs avoid. Hesaid, "Here I am, feeling completely lost, deprived of mymanhood. I struggled so hard against my sexual desires, tryingto control them, and ultimately this terrible thing took place.Now what am I to do? I know that what I did was wrong. My energyhas almost gone and I seem to be ending my life in darkness." Heheld my hand, and we sat silently for some time.

Is this a religious life? Is the denial of pleasure or beauty away that leads to a religious life? To deny the beauty of theskies and the hills and the human form, will that lead to areligious life? But that is what most saints and monks believe.They torture themselves in that belief. Can a tortured, twisted,distorted mind ever find what is a religious life? Yet allreligions assert that the only way to reality or to God, orwhatever they call it, is through this torture, this distortion.They all make the distinction between what they call a spiritualor religious life and what they call a worldly life.

A man who lives only for pleasure, with occasional flashes ofsorrow and piety, whose whole life is given to amusement andentertainment is, of course, a worldly man, although he may alsobe very clever, very scholarly, and fill his life with otherpeople's thoughts or his own. And a man who has a gift andexercises it for the benefit of society, or for his ownpleasure, and who achieves fame in the fulfilment of that gift,such a man, surely, is also worldly. But it is also worldly togo to church, or to the temple or the mosque, to pray, steepedin prejudice, bigotry, utterly unaware of the brutality thatthis implies. It is worldly to be patriotic, nationalistic,idealistic. The man who shuts himself up in a monastery -getting up at regular hours with a book in hand, reading andpraying - is surely also worldly. And the man who goes out to dogood works, whether he is a social reformer or a missionary, isjust like the politician in his concern with the world. Thedivision between the religious life and the world is the veryessence of worldliness. The minds of all these people - monks,saints, reformers - are not very different from the minds ofthose who are only concerned with the things that give pleasure.

So it is important not to divide life into the worldly and thenon-worldly. It is important not to make the distinction betweenthe worldly and the so-called religious. Without the world ofmatter, the material world, we wouldn't be here. Without thebeauty of the sky and the single tree on the hill, without thatwoman going by and that man riding the horse, life wouldn't bepossible. We are concerned with the totality of life not aparticular part of it which is considered religious inopposition to the rest. So one begins to see that a religiouslife is concerned with the whole and not with the particular.
Questioner: I understand what you say. We have to deal with thetotality of living; we can't separate the world from theso-called spirit. So the question is: in what way can we actreligiously with regard to all the things in life?

Krishnamurti: What do we mean by acting religiously? Don't youmean a way of life in which there is no division - divisionbetween the worldly and the religious, between what should beand what shouldn't be, between me and you, between like anddislike? This division is conflict. A life of conflict is not areligious life. A religious life is only possible when we deeplyunderstand conflict. This understanding is intelligence. It isthis intelligence that acts rightly. What most people callintelligence is merely deftness in some technical activity, orcunning in business or political chicanery.

Questioner: So my question really means how is one to livewithout conflict, and bring about that feeling of true sanctitywhich is not simply emotional piety conditioned by somereligious cage - no matter how old and venerated that cage is?

Krishnamurti: A man living without too much conflict in avillage, or dreaming in a cave on a "sacred" hillside, is surelynot living the religious life that we are talking about. To endconflict is one of the most complex things. It needsself-observation and the sensitivity of awareness of the outeras well as of the inner. Conflict can only end where there isthe understanding of the contradiction in oneself. Thiscontradiction will always exist if there is no freedom from theknown, which is the past. Freedom from the past means living inthe now which is not of time, in which there is only thismovement of freedom, untouched by the past, by the known.

Questioner: What do you mean by freedom from the past?

Krishnamurti: The past is all our accumulated memories. Thesememories act in the present and create our hopes and fears ofthe future. These hopes and fears are the psychological future:without them there is no future. So the present is the action ofthe past, and the mind is this movement of the past. The pastacting in the present creates what we call the future. Thisresponse of the past is involuntary, it is not summoned orinvited, it is upon us before we know it.

Questioner: In that case, how are we going to be free of it?

Krishnamurti: To be aware of this movement without choice -because choice again is more of this same movement of the past -is to observe the past in action: such observation is not amovement of the past. To observe without the image of thought isaction in which the past has ended. To observe the tree withoutthought is action without the past. To observe the action of thepast is again action without the past. The state of seeing ismore important than what is seen. To be aware of the past inthat choiceless observation is not only to act differently, butto be different. In this awareness memory acts withoutimpediment, and efficiently. To be religious is to be sochoicelessly aware that there is freedom from the known evenwhilst the known acts wherever it has to.

Questioner: But the known, the past, still sometimes acts evenwhen it should not; it still acts to cause conflict.

Krishnamurti: To be aware of this is also to be in a state ofinaction with regard to the past which is acting. So freedomfrom the known is truly the religious life. That doesn't mean towipe out the known but to enter a different dimension altogetherfrom which the known is observed. This action of seeingchoicelessly is the action of love. The religious life is thisaction, and all living is this action, and the religious mind isthis action. So religion, and the mind, and life, and love, areone.
Seeing the Whole

Questioner: When I listen to you I seem to understand what youare talking about, not only verbally, but at a much deeperlevel. I am part of it; I fully grasp with my whole being thetruth of what you say. My hearing is sharpened, and the veryseeing of the flowers, the trees, and those mountains with snow,makes me feel I am part of them. In this awareness I have noconflict, no contradiction. it is as though I could do anything,and that whatever I did would be true, would not bring eitherconflict or pain. But unfortunately that state doesn't last.Perhaps it lasts for an hour or two while I'm listening to you.When I leave the talks it all seems to evaporate and I'm backwhere I was. I try to be aware of myself; I keep remembering thestate I was in when I listened to your talks, keep trying toreach it, hold on to it, and this becomes a struggle. You havesaid, "Be aware of your conflict, listen to your conflict, seethe causes of your conflict, your conflict is yourself". I amaware of my conflict, my pain, my sorrow, my confusion, but thisawareness in no way resolves these things. On the contrary,being aware of them seems to give them vitality and duration.You talk of choiceless awareness, which again breeds anotherbattle in me, for I am full of choice, decisions and opinions. Ihave applied this awareness to a particular habit I have, and ithas not gone. When you are aware of some conflict or strain,this same awareness keeps looking to see if it has already gone.And this seems to remind you of it, and you never shake it off.

Krishnamurti: Awareness is not a commitment to something.Awareness is an observation, both outer and inner, in whichdirection has stopped. You are aware, but the thing of which youare aware is not being encouraged or nourished. Awareness is notconcentration on something. It is not an action of the willchoosing what it will be aware of, and analysing it to bringabout a certain result. When awareness is deliberately focusedon a particular object, as a conflict, that is the action ofwill which is concentration. When you concentrate - that is, putall your energy and thought within your chosen frontiers,whether reading a book or watching your anger - then, in thisexclusion, the thing you are concentrating upon is strengthened,nourished. So here we have to understand the nature ofawareness: We have to understand what we are talking about whenwe use the word awareness. Now, you can either be aware of aparticular thing, or be aware of that particular as part of thetotal. The particular by itself has very little meaning, butwhen you see the total, then that particular has a relationshipto the whole. Only in this relationship does the particular haveits right meaning; it doesn't become all-important, it is notexaggerated. So the real question is: does one see the totalprocess of life or is one concentrated on the particular, thusmissing the whole field of life? To be aware of the whole fieldis to see also the particular, but, at the same time, tounderstand its relationship to the whole. If you are angry andare concerned with ending that anger, then you focus yourattention on the anger and the whole escapes you and the angeris strengthened. But anger is interrelated to the whole. So whenwe separate the particular from the whole, the particular breedsits own problems.

Questioner: What do you mean by seeing the whole? What is thistotality you talk about, this extensive awareness in which theparticular is a detail? Is it some mysterious, mysticalexperience? If so then we are lost completely. Or is thisperhaps what you are saying, that there is a whole field ofexistence, of which anger is a part, and that to be concernedwith the part is to block out the extensive perception? But whatis this extensive perception? I can only see the whole throughall its particulars. And what whole do you mean? Are you talkingabout the whole of the mind, or the whole of existence, or thewhole of myself, or the whole of life? What whole do you mean,and how can I see it?

Krishnamurti: The whole field of life: the mind, love,everything which is in life.

Questioner: How can I possibly see all that! I can understandthat everything I see is partial, and that all my awareness isawareness of the particular, and that this strengthens theparticular.