London 1st Public Dialogue 22nd April 1965
How shall we proceed with a gathering like this? Shall we discuss? Or would you like to ask questions? Or would you like me to talk a little while, and then discuss?
I really feel, after having been practically all over the world, that a tremendous inward revolution in every human being must take place, and not just an ideological revolution, or a mere intellectual change of concepts and formulas. I feel we are coming to an impasse, intellectually, emotionally, sentimentally. There is no future in that direction at all. Intellectually one sees the utter hopelessness of the useless life that one leads, a life that has no meaning whatsoever; and sentimentally, emotionally, it is very shallow. There is no significance at all in becoming sentimental, devotional, or in accepting religious concepts, gods and images, worship and ritual - all this has utterly no meaning.
So what is one to do? Most thoughtful people have put aside religious beliefs, dogmas, gods, rituals - all the circus that goes on in the name of religion. And when one does put aside those things, one feels tremendously empty, lonely and in despair. One is ready to commit suicide, or join some mystical association on or create something within oneself. If one does deny literally everything, as one must - one's own concepts, formulas, projections, ideas, fears, hopes, and all the rest of those things which we hang on to in our daily life - and if it is possible to reject all that intelligently not as a reaction, and not commit oneself to any particular political or religious party, or idea, or action, then where is one? I don't know if you feel that way at all. And if you do, if one does, without throwing oneself into the lake, is there anything more? After all, that is what we are trying to find out, isn't it? Not accepting any authority, any personal salvation and all that - that is too immature.
When one does arrive at that position, is there anything more which is not self-projected, which is not an imagination, a vision, a heightened sensitivity? All of these are fairly simple to explain, to understand, and to bring about. If one is at all serious, how does one proceed further? That I would like to discuss. I don't know if you want to discuss that.
The fairly obvious things, I think, one can grapple with - like wars, the terrible starvation in the East, poverty, the enormous technological revolution that's going on, the electronic brain and automation, giving enormous leisure to man. Not immediately, but perhaps in 50 years, or 20 years, man is going to have a great deal of leisure. He is going to be freed from labour, from incessant toil. And what is going to happen then ?
If one is at all serious, what does one do? I mean by that word, not a determined seriousness which is brought about by will, but a seriousness that comes naturally. When one observes all the superficial tendencies of man, what's going on in the world and in ourselves, one inevitably comes, I think, to a certain quality of seriousness. And if one is serious in that sense - and one must be after all these years of discussion, talking, listening, struggling with life - one must naturally, I think, have come to certain rejections, certain denials of the things which have been imposed on man by his own ambition, greed and so on, and by the society which he has created. When one rejects all that, one does become rather; serious. By seriousness I do not mean going to various groups of meditation and schools of yoga, all that stuff.
If one is at all serious, what actually takes place? I think it would perhaps be worthwhile to discuss, to go into that in these six meetings. Because we can go on ploughing everlastingly, and never sowing; and most of us, I'm afraid, do that: keep on ploughing, not knowing how to sow, not having the capacity to proceed intelligently after ploughing.
Questioner: Krishnamurti, you talk about preparing and sowing. The point is, we don't know what to sow. We get to the point where we don't know what to do.
Krishnamurti: The lady says we don't know what to do. We think we have ploughed, but after that we don't know how to sow, or what to do.
Questioner: It is very easy to do things, but it is not so easy just to be able to be.
Krishnamurti: The lady says it is a matter of being, not ploughing or sowing; but we don't know how to be.
Questioner: What do you mean by "sowing", Krishnaji?
Krishnamurti: That's only a simile, sir. Don't run the simile to death. To me, sowing, ploughing is really like going within oneself. And the very ploughing, if one goes within oneself very deeply, is the sowing. It is not that they are two different things. So we can't carry on with that simile.
After all these years of struggle, sorrow, searching, joining this group and that group, seeking the Masters, seeking something mysterious, trying to find something permanent, some hope, something called the eternal, the out of time, and so on and so on, we must find out whether we can throw them aside. We have played with all these things, searched for them, struggled for them, gone after them, joined the Communist party, the Socialist party, or led a very, very simple life, as they do in India with a loincloth and one meal a day, thinking that is the religious life, and sitting on a river-bank, meditating endlessly. We have played with all this. You may not have directly done these things, but you have observed them; and if one has observed them intelligently, without reaction, one rejects them. There are the various schools where they teach you how to be aware, to practise; And you see through that too. You see where Communism has led. And if one is at all aware of all this, one wants peace, one wants a certain quality of mind, without deceiving oneself endlessly. I am sure you have done all this. If not, one has to start all over again from the beginning, about unconditioning the mind, how to uncondition the mind, whether it is possible to uncondition the mind, whether it is at all possible to be free from fear, despair, anxiety, greed, envy, the seeking of power, position, prestige - all those things.
Questioner: There are many young people today who have travelled throughout the world and who feel they have reached something. They have not settled in any society. What about them?
Krishnamurti: Leave the others alone. If one has done all this oneself: joined the Communist party gone out of it; become a religious person, gone out of it; gone to a monastery for a month or two and seen the whole business of it, left it; read all the clever books, and so on and so on and so on; if one has done some of that, or at least felt one's way through all that, not necessarily joined them, then what? Do we look to another to tell us what to do? Obviously not. Obviously, if you have gone through all this, you throw all authority aside, authority in the sense of law. Then what do you have to do? You can't look to another; you can't put your faith in another; you have no trust in another. You have yourself - yourself in relation to society. Or rather, you are society, because you are a human being - a human being who has lived for two million years, creating this appalling world. You are that, you are society, which you have created. Realizing that, what is one to do? There is no authority outside oneself to tell one what to do Any hope, any despair is part of oneself. Either one creates in hope great things, great images and Utopias and gods, and all the rest of it; or, being in despair, joins some footling little society, or jumps in the lake. If one does not do any of those things, it is very difficult, perhaps one has not reached a point where one has completely rejected everything, without cynicism, without bitterness, without despair. That may be the real crux with all of us, the real issue. It may not be possible to reach such a point, without any distortion, without any reaction. That demands tremendous discipline in oneself, tremendous attention, alertness, and one may not want all that.
So, if one has come to that point where there is no distortion, if it is at all possible, where the mind can function very clearly, not in departments but as a whole - if one can come to that with energy, with vitality, with freedom, is there anything more? And is it possible to come to that point? Knowing what society is, the influence of society, one's own background, tradition, influences and conditioning, and how cunning and subtle the mind is to slip through, is it humanly possible?
Questioner: Most of us have to function within society simply to earn our daily bread.
Krishnamurti: That's what I mean. Living in society, and being out of it in another sense, can one come to that point? Because living is action. Living is relationship. Living is a movement - not business and living. Taking the thing as a whole, is it possible to live in this world and come to that point - not escaping into monasteries, and all that stuff, which has no meaning, or identifying oneself with a particular nation or group, working for Communism or some other Cause? Can one, living in this world, come to that point? If one can't, then one must make the best of this world, and therefore there is no significance in this appalling boredom and monotony of life. Going to an office for 40 years to earn a livelihood, and that's the end of it. Seeing that, one revolts; one becomes a beatnik and all the rest of it, or one becomes extraordinarily superficial, wanting to be entertained endlessly.
You must also have seen and read and heard or been told, as I have, that automation and the computer are going to give man tremendous leisure. What is he going to do with that leisure? They are already talking about a 20-hour week.
Questioner: You just have a reach that point, and then remain there.
Krishnamurti: That's what I mean.
Questioner: And find out what it is for yourself.
Krishnamurti: Yes. How do we come to that point? You follow, sir? Most of us are groping in the dark. We read so much. So many religious people, all the clever writers, the existentialists and all the others have said so many things.
Questioner: From what you're saying, then, there is no answer in words.
Krishnamurti: Let's think about it; don't let us come to any finality, any decision yet. I feel it is very important how we come to that point.
Questioner: Do we come to it, or is it that we are never really out of it?
Krishnamurti: We are always in it. Questioner: We are not aware of it.
Krishnamurti: Ah, that's right, sir. We are always in it, but we are not aware of it. But we are aware of our misery, of our despair, of our endless conflict with ourselves, and when we are free of these, perhaps we are that, whatever that may be.
Questioner: I think we are trying to come to this position, but we always see that it is a reaction; we are not coming to it spontaneously or freely. It is always an attempt through reacting to something else.
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir. Here is one: 30 years, or 40 years, or 80 years, one has lived. Where is one? Still in the same cage? Or, as a reaction, gone out of it, created another cage; or, not finding an answer to life, just drifting? So would it be right to ask oneself where one is, not as a reaction, just as a challenge? It would be very interesting to find out one's response to that challenge.
Questioner: You don't mean the place where one is, you mean the state of mind.
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir. Not at Wimbledon! (Laughter).
Questioner: Sir, the whole problem is, one arrives at a point where on; suddenly feels: "I am here, out of everything", and suddenly one is afraid of this void. This void naturally remains a concept; one doesn't get a chance to analyse it. Before it actually comes upon you, you think it is going to swallow you up, and then you set off another reaction all over again, which creates fear, and off you go all over again.
Krishnamurti: So, if you asked yourself, that would be your response.
Questioner: One probably can't remain continuously in that state.
Krishnamurti: No Sir no. It is not continuously remaining in a certain state.
Questioner: You see, one comes to it; one doesn't give it a chance. One comes to something unknown, and just as one is going to approach it, one thinks: "Let me look back".
Krishnamurti: I understand. Quite.
Questioner: The thing that one thinks one wants with one hand, the other hand is fighting against.
Krishnamurti: All that implies conflict, doesn't it?
Krishnamurti: And conflict is contradiction - contradiction, conflict and effort. That's our circle.
Questioner: It's important to have this concept about an ideal.
Krishnamurti: No, no, no concept at all. Sir, look; we live with love and hate, with anger and pleasure, don't we? The conflict goes on in us, always, endlessly. And that is contradiction, which breeds effort; and effort is a reaction. You know all this.
Questioner: You asked the question whether it is possible.
Krishnamurti: Let's leave that question aside. Let's put the question differently. I've lived for 40 years, let's say. Where am I? I'm married, with a child, sex, anger, jealousy, ambition, a house, a family, the quarrels, the mistakes, the failures. I'm all that; wanting more, fighting for more. And I say, "Now where am I at the end of 40 years, or 80 years, where am I? In the same old grind?"
Questioner: Not quite the same, but almost.
Questioner: Sir, isn't the problem that one's mind is like a tape-recorder? One records everything for so many years, the same thing.
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir, yes!
Questioner: One comes to oneself, and one says, "It is all rubbish." The answer is to rip it out. So what is one to do? At the moment of ripping it out, it records a bit more on it, with a little bit more variety, perhaps, so you go shooting off on the thing, undecided whether to rip it up, or not rip it up.
Krishnamurti: So one says to oneself, "I am a machine that's endlessly repeating - repeating modified, not always the same gramophone, the same sound. It's modified, changed, but it's , in the same pattern. Then what is one to do? If one realizes that, what is one to do? Break it? And how to break it without creating another pattern?
Questioner: One doesn't have to break it if one realizes and says to oneself. "I am a machine repeating this, that or the other". The minute one has that realization, because one is looking at it, one simply stops going on being it.
Krishnamurti: So, how do you look at it? How do you become aware that you are a machine, and not let the recorder create another pattern of machine, another recorder, and so on and so on, the endless repetition modified? How is one to be so aware of one's own mechanical ways of thinking, that one will be completely free and not set another mechanism going? I don't know if I'm making myself clear.
Questioner: What one has to do, it seems to me, is to become more aware of any environment in which one is living at any given time, because by doing that, one is more in the present.
Krishnamurti: All right. Then what do you mean by "aware", being aware? I am aware of the environment I live in - the society, the family, the friends, the business.
Questioner: No, I didn't mean just the immediate environment, but the whole.
Krishnamurti: Let's just begin slowly, shall we? When we talk about being aware, what do we mean by that word?
Krishnamurti: Looking. How do you look?
Questioner: In order to look, there must be no looker.
Krishnamurti: That's right, sir. Are we exchanging words, or facts? You follow, sir, what I mean?
Questioner: I think that to be aware implies the establishment of a relationship.
Krishnamurti: No, sir, just a minute, sir. I'm first of all asking the meaning of those words, to be aware. I am aware that I am sitting in front of this microphone. And I say, what do I mean by being aware of that? I see it, and I know it's a microphone; and that's very simple. There is nothing to it. But I am aware of you sitting there and of me sitting here. Is there any relationship between you and me? That's part of awareness, isn't it? Do I look at you with my peculiarities, idiosyncrasies, tendencies, prejudices? Or do I look at you without all that? If I look at you with all the content of my mind, then I'm not looking at you; I'm not aware of you. I see; is it verbal or factual? I have an intellectual concept that I'm not aware of you when my mind is crowded. Is that just a concept? Or is it a fact, a realization that I'm not aware of you when I am full of my own fears, hopes, problems, and all the rest of it? There can only be a contact, an awareness, a communion between you and me when you and I both, at the same time, at the same level, with the same intensity, are free of your background and of my background. Then we can communicate. And after all, that is love. All that is awareness, surely. Not only am I aware of the colours of the walls, and the people, the colour of dresses, and so on and so on, but also of my inward reaction to all that, my reaction based on my conditioning, and whether it is possible to be free of that conditioning. Verbally you can go on endlessly talking about this; but to actually be aware of my conditioning, stepping out of it, as it were, if it is possible, and seeing what the relationship is then, that is the movement of life - not my prejudices meeting your prejudices, which stops everything.
So, can I take stock of myself without any "kick", without pleasure or pain? just to take stock of myself as I ann, first superficially, that is, consciously, at the conscious level, and then at the deeper level. And, in taking stock of myself, am I the observer taking stock? As long as there is an observer taking stock, he becomes the censor. And is it possible to take stock without the censor? I don't know if you are following. All this demands tremendous vitality, energy and attention. And if one can't do it, one is not serious. Then one can go on playing around. That is why I suggested finding out where we are. Am I still caught in my own problems: sex, financial, oh, a dozen problems, conscious or unconscious? If I have conscious problems, perhaps I have not the capacity to deal with them. And if I have the capacity and haven't dealt with them, and pushed them aside, then there are also the unconscious problems - problems which are deeply seated, problems which are so in the recesses of one's mind, so secret, that one has never looked at or exposed them, or one is frightened to look at them. Can one bring all these out, recognize them as they are, not as one wishes them to be? And can one deal with them not bit by bit but totally?
It seems to me that is the major issue, with most of us, that we don't seem to be to meet life as a whole, or ourselves as a whole. We are life, we are society, we are the human being who has lived for a million years and more, perhaps two million years. We must take this whole entity, not the intellectual entity, the emotional entity, the physical entity, but the total thing. Each reacts on the other, each is related to the other in a most intricate manner. We must take the whole thing, and be with it as a whole.
Questioner: Am I right in saying that fundamentally there is only one thing? It may be in a thousand forms, but the only thing in the world is primeval fear. everything else, even love, is just some aspect of it.
Krishnamurti: Yes, partly, yes. That's right,fear.
Questioner: Negative fears.
Krishnamurti: The animal is afraid, and we are part of that animal, because we are born with all these fears and anxieties. Take fear as a whole - not just I'm afraid of my wife or husband, or my boss - deal with it as a whole, and be rid of it so completely inwardly that it never touches one. Is it possible ?
Questioner: There is fear of making mistakes.
Krishnamurti: I don't mind making mistakes; that's a very small affair. That's part of our fear: making mistakes, not always being right.
Questioner: Then we must be rid of fear inwardly and outwardly
Krishnamurti: Yes, that's what we said; we must look out, and then from that outward place approach within. It is not just to keep looking out, it is a movement, surely. It is a tide that goes out and comes in, not two different things. It is an endless process, to begin with the outer, come in, and from the inner, go out.
Questioner: You mean, sir, there is no distinction really between the inside, which is the mind, and the outside.
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir, yes, sir. Inside the skin, and outside the skin.
Questioner: There is very little distinction.
Krishnamurti: Sir, I am coming to that. Look, can we deal with life as a whole, which is the inner as well as the outer - not the intellectual concept, and another concept, not dividing consciousness into the intellect, the emotions, and so on, but the whole thing, the conscious as well as the unconscious. Because if we don't take it as a whole, but break it up, and then try to solve the problems which each broken part or fragment creates, there is no end to it. We live in fragments. I am one thing at the office, I am another thing in the family, and I am totally another thing when I am by myself, or in the bus, or walking in the woods.
Questioner: Is not the whole problem in that?
Krishnamurti: That's what I'm saying. That's the whole problem. Consciously I am one thing, unconsciously I am another. Now, is it possible to look at this whole as a whole, not as fragments, dealing with each other separately?
Questioner: Is it not very difficult, sir, to look at it as a whole?
Krishnamurti: I would not call it difficult. We are so conditioned, we are so used to dealing with life in fragments. What I want to get at is whether it is possible for a human being to take life as a whole and look at it as a whole.
Questioner: We mustn't have the idea that it is difficult. That is what prevents us from doing it.
Krishnamurti: I don t know yet. I don't know whether it is difficult or easy. All that I know is that we have dealt with life in fragments. We don't know what it means to look at life as a whole. We can't call it difficult or easy. All we know is that our life is fragmentary.
Questioner; If we were to remove the idea of difficulty, perhaps we could see it.
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir. But you see, we are not concerned that our life is fragmentary. During working hours I am a scientist, a professor, a biologist, a business man, a technician, and I am something else the rest of the time. We live that way, in compartments. First I have to realize that. First I have to realize the way I live, not whether or not it is difficult to look at life as a whole. Now, how do I realize it? Do I realize it because you tell me that I live fragmentarily? And because you have told me, do I then realize it? Or do I realize it without your telling me? You don't have to tell me that I'm hungry. I know it when I'm hungry. So, how does one realize it? Does someone tell you, or is it through your own direct experience, your own, not someone else's?
Questioner: No, it is a fact, isn't it?, for yourself.
Krishnamurti: Ah, wait, sir. It's terribly difficult. Don't be too quick at this. It is terribly difficult for me to realize that I'm a liar. I can find out that I'm a liar because of circumstances, pressures, fears, and all the rest of it, That's still a reaction, not a realization. I must first find out or learn as a thing for myself, an original thing, and realize my fragmentary way of life.
Questioner: Why do you say it's the central problem? The most important, the core?
Krishnamurti: Because I am trying to solve problems fragmentarily, and hence increasing my problems. When I look at life as a whole and deal with it as a whole, then my whole way of living, thinking, feeling, is totally different. Then I'm terribly honest. Do you follow?
Questioner: It's a principal barrier that keeps us from realizing.
Krishnamurti: And all the rest of it. That's one of the major issues. So, how does one realize anything? How do I realize that I am living a fragmentary life, which brings about innumerable problems, and hence contradictions, and hence conflict and effort? The cycle goes on and on and on.
Questioner: As ordinary thought is limited, it must necessarily bring a fragmentary life. We can only think in small parts.
Krishnamurti: At present, yes; but perhaps there is a different way of thinking, or not thinking, which will solve this fragmentary problem.
Questioner: You said that to look at life totally. one has to be aware of oneself totally, and that,for me, is the question.
Krishnamurti: No, no, sir. I am aware that I live a fragmentary life. Now, how am I aware of it? That's very important for me to find out.
Questioner: If I watch myself I see that I am awake, and then I sleep, and then I go deeper and I don't sleep, I don't dream, and then I find myself.
Krishnamurti: No, madam, let us stick to this one thing for a minute, if you don't mind. I realize, I see my way of life. The way of my life is fragmentary: office, house, family. Now, how do I realize it? How do I know it? Is it an intellectual concept, or a reality?
Questioner: It creates conflict, the fragments get in conflict with one another. That creates a disturbance, and I recognize that there are these fragments.
Questioner: The fragments are a chronic situation of which we are always aware.
Krishnamurti: Sir, we are trying to establish, if it is possible, what we mean by realizing. Questioner: One looks to see them as one wishes to see them, instead of seeing them as they are. And it is that wishing to see that is really the conditioning factor. One must get rid of that conditioning.
Krishnamurti: Not "get rid".
Questioner: I think one must realize the conditioning.
Krishnamurti: You know, there is a difference between when somebody tells me that I am in conflict because of a fragmentary way of living, and when I, without being told, realize it. Then it is not an intellectual thing; I know my life is fragmentary.
Questioner: How do I know if I am realizing this directly?
Krishnamurti: Please, let's keep it simple at first; it becomes complicated a little later. Let's begin slowly. You see, we are secondhand human beings. Our experience, except perhaps for hunger and sex is secondhand. And is realization that I am fragmentary secondhand or original? If it is original, then it has quite a different vitality. It brings a tremendous energy.
Questioner: It is just that point, that to realize, more must take part in it, and my thought, it isn't a thought
Krishnamurti: So, what is it? No, sir,just a minute. What is the "more" that takes part?
Questioner: My feeling.
Krishnamurti: Your feeling, your nerves?
Questioner: My whole body.
Krishnamurti: Your whole body. That means what?
Questioner: The totality of it.
Krishnamurti: Go on, sir, go on a little more. Proceed. Do we look at anything with all our being - with our mind, with our heart, with our body, with our nerves, with our eyes, with our smell - with everything? Does it ever happen?
Questioner: It is a paradox, because we actually are content with what is. We realize that we are fragmentary, because while we are doing one thing, a part of thought is doing something else, like you are looking, but you may be thinking in another direction. Your hands are doing a job, and you are thinking of something else. You realize this because of the intrusion of something which is not a part of the problem. When you are whole, there is not a realization of the part. You are the whole; there is no part to realize.
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir. But how do I come to that? How does the mind come to that state where there is no intrusion? Everything is part of the whole. I don't know if I am conveying anything.
Questioner: When you are doing something, if you are totally interested in doing it....
Krishnamurti: No, you re not. That, the total interest, is merely a concentration. Look, I am afraid we must go very, very slowly, step by step; otherwise we can't understand, we are jumping,
Questioner: In a moment of crisis.
Krishnamurti: But life is a crisis. Not a moment of crisis. Everything in life is terrible.
Questioner: All the time there is an evaluation going on, and that has to stop.
Krishnamurti: Sir, will you give me two minutes, let me talk a bit, a little bit? One knows that one lives a fragmentary life, and one also knows in a sense, intellectually, verbally, that these fragments create the opposites and hence contradiction, conflict and effort. One knows that, verbally, intellectually. To know it completely, not through intellect, not through mere words, demands quite a different approach, surely. What does it mean to know somebody? I know you because we are friends, we have met sometimes before. I have certain memories, certain reactions; and according to those memories, reactions, prejudices and experiences, I say I know you. I really don't know you. I only know the past of which I am aware. I only know you when the past doesn't interfere. So, in the same way, I lead a fragmentary life; and any effort on my part to integrate the fragments creates another fragment. There is no integration of fragments. So I must look at it in a totally different way; I must approach this problem entirely differently. Now, how am I to do it? No action of will at any level is going to bring the fragments to an end, but all my life I have exercised will. Now, to suddenly deny that will is almost impossible. It is this will that has created : the fragments: I will, and I will not. I have to look at it quite differently. I have to understand the nature of will, so that will doesn't interfere.
What is will? Don't define it to find out what will is, because we are coming to something, which is to live a life without will. When do you say, "I will" or "I must", with determination, a drive, a resistance? When does this will come into operation, when you desire something very strongly or when you don't desire? Surely it is when you desire strongly, which is based on pleasure or displeasure; when you want something, that will comes into operation. When there is the urgency of desire, when that desire meets resistance and there is no easy way out, then there is that will. This is fairly simple and clear.
Now, what is desire? Without understanding desire, which breeds will, which separates life into fragments, I shall not be able to solve this whole fragmentary issue. So I must learn about desire and become completely familiar with it, not destroy it, not resist it, not say to myself: "I must be without desire", which is too silly. I must be completely am fait with it, I must know all the movements of it: the physical desires, the emotional reactions which we call desires, and the intellectual concepts, the goals, the objectives, that create desire. I must know the whole of it, not just one fragment of desire.
Questioner: It is only when there is opposition that we are conscious of desire.
Krishnamurti: Ah, no, sir; not only when there is opposition. I see a beautiful car, I want it. There is no opposition. I see a beautiful person, and I rejoice in it. If you are very sensual, you say: "I want that person".
Questioner: If fear is fundamental to all life, then living is only a procession of more or less futile effort to escape from fear. Each effort to escape brings a sort of reaction, so life is a series of conflicts.
Krishnamurti: We will come to the understanding of fear through the understanding of desire. You will see the connection I must find out what desire is, how it comes into being, and what gives continuity to desire. Please, I am not against desire. I am not saying one must live a life without desire. All that has no meaning. I must know for myself the origin, the beginning of desire, how it comes into being, how it takes hold, and what gives it a process which as it moves gathers strength. I must then understand the battle to resist it. I must learn about the whole phenomenon. So what is desire? I think it is fairly simple, isn't it? Seeing, contact, sensation, and the feeling from that sensation, either, "I like to have", or "I don't like to have".
Questioner: There is no problem if you've got the money. (Laughter).
Krishnamurti: No, I want to know how desire arises. Of course, if I have the money, or if I have no money, I live with it. But I want to know how it comes into my being, how desire exists, how it flowers, what gives it nourishment. This is fairly simple. I see a beautiful thing, a beautiful house, a beautiful woman, a beautiful car - it doesn't matter what it is, a flower, a lovely garden. Obviously there is sensation - seeing, sensation, contact and desire. This is a fact which you know for yourself. This is so obvious. What is not obvious is, what makes it flower? What gives it strength, endurance, nourishment and vitality, with a tremendous drive behind it? What brings about the flowering of desire?
Questioner: Thinking about it.
Krishnamurti: Right - thinking, thought. I can look at a car, see the desire arise, and if I don't "think", then there is no nourishment, there is no vitality behind it. But wait a minute. A car is something quite objective; but subjectively, inwardly, it is much more. I see, I observe, I perceive, I understand the fact that desire is sustained and nourished by thought.
Questioner: It's not just thought. It's thought in combination with the feeling of myself.
Krishnamurti: Just begin little, sir. Begin with little things and then go into bigger things. I know thought is the giver of nourishment to desire. I know desire can be pleasurable or painful. I know also that I would like to keep the pleasurable desires and throw away the desires that cause pain. If I say, "I'll keep these and throw away those", I'm dealing with fragments. So I have now to find out why thought interferes.
Questioner: Because it isn't necessarily true; it doesn't necessarily relate to the object.
Questioner: Isn't it because we feel insecure?
Krishnamurti: Sir, look. I am asking you a question.
Questioner: And I am trying to answer it. Why shouldn't it interfere?
Krishnamurti: Now, sir, look. I am asking you a question. Or rather, you are asking me a question. I know I can answer. Ten different words wilt come out, but can I listen to you without answering, and try to find out what is the fact? If I answer immediately, I'll answer in the good old way. I'll bring it out from any habit, from my repertoire of words. But if you have asked me and I don't know the answer, I listen and I am silent. I really don't know why thought interferes, or why it should not interfere. I know it interferes, and I say to myself, "why?". Don't I wait to find out? Don't I feel around, make my mind be quiet, not always throwing up words? Don't I just find out for myself why thought interferes? Actually, I've never thought about it. This iq the first time I have asked myself why thought interferes. I am waiting.
Questioner: Is it a matter of time?
Krishnamurti: No. I am not waiting to find the answer. I really don't know. Questioner: Does thought interfere?
Krishnamurti: Yes, sir, it does Interfere. So how do I find out what is the truth of the matter - infallible truth, not opinion; not according to Jung, Freud, the Mahatmas, the gurus? I just want to know why it does interfere. And not knowing, I become silent. My-body, my nerves, my mind, my heart - everything is quiet, because I really don't know the answer.
April 22, 1965
London 1st Public Dialogue 22nd April 1965
Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.