1981

Brockwood Park 1981

Brockwood Park 1st Public Question & Answer Meeting 1st September 1981

This is a question and answer meeting. Over a hundred questions have been sent in, more perhaps, and we cannot possibly answer all those questions. It would take a couple of months and I am quite sure you wouldn't sit here and I wouldn't be here too. So we have chosen some of the questions, and I hope you understand that we do not answer all the questions that have been sent in.

I wonder why one asks questions - not that one should not - but why? Whom are you asking that question, and from whom do you expect the answer? A question is a challenge, not only to the speaker but also to the person that puts the question. It is a challenge. Either one responds to it totally, that is, comprehending the whole content of that question, not trying to find an answer but rather enquiring deeply into the question itself, and that enquiry in itself is the answer. I hope we understand that. That is, you put a question to the speaker, it is a challenge. He responds to it, either partially or wholly, or you yourself who have put the question you are challenging yourself. And in the enquiry into the question, the very enquiry begins to unravel the answer. I hope this is clear.

So really there is only the questioner who is challenging himself and in that challenge responding. Whether he is responding accurately, precisely to the content of the question, or he merely wanders off. So here you are putting the question to the speaker but the speaker is throwing it back to you, and together we are enquiring into the question. Not that the speaker is going to answer the question and you wait for it, disagreeing or agreeing with it but together we are enquiring into the question, not into the answer, because the answer is fairly simple, but the question itself indicates the whole content of the mind of the questioner. To enquire into that content of the questioner of his mind, one has to understand why the question has been put. It is not an impudent response to ask why such a question has been put. Is it casual? Is it just insulting? Is it just a superficial curiosity? Or is the questioner, now I am the questioner, deeply concerned with the understanding of the problem. I hope that is clear.

1st QUESTION: You have often said that no one can show the way to truth. Yet your schools are said to help their members to understand themselves. Is this not a contradiction? Does it not create an elite atmosphere?

The speaker has said that there is no path to truth, that no one can lead another to it. He has repeated this very often for the last sixty years. That is what the speaker has said. And the speaker with the help of others have founded schools in India and here and so on. And the questioner says: are you not contradicting yourself when the teachers and the students in all these schools are trying to understand their own conditioning, educating themselves not only academically as well as possible, but also educating themselves to understand their whole conditioning, their whole nature and the whole psyche of those people in the schools. One doesn't quite see the contradiction.

Schools, from the ancient Greek and ancient India and so on, are places where you learn, learn where there is leisure. Please go with me a little bit. One cannot learn if you have not leisure. That is, time to yourself, time to listen to others, time to enquire. Such a place is a school. The modern schools all over the world are merely cultivating one part of the brain which is the acquisition of knowledge, technologically, scientifically, biologically or theology and so on. They are only concerned with the cultivation of a particular part of the brain which acquires a great deal of knowledge, outer knowledge - astrophysics, theoretical physics, architecture, engineering and so on, surgery, medicine, so they are cultivating only as far as one can see knowledge. That knowledge can be used skilfully to earn a livelihood, or unskilfully, depending on the person. The schools, such schools have existed for thousands of years. Here in these schools we are trying something entirely different. You don't mind my telling you all this. Are you interested in this? Not very much, but all right! (Laughter)

Here we are trying not only to educate academically, 'A' levels and 'O' levels and all the rest of it, but also to cultivate, to understand, to educate, to enquire into the whole psychological structure of human beings. Students come already conditioned, so there begins the difficulty. One has not only to help generally to uncondition but also to enquire much more deeply. This is what these schools with which we are connected are trying to do. They may not succeed - probably they won't - or probably they will. But as it is a difficult task one must attempt it, not always follow the easiest path. This is a difficult subject to go into but it doesn't create an elite?

What is wrong with being an elite? What is wrong with it? Do you want everybody, and everything, to be pulled down to the common denominator? That is one of the troubles of so-called democracy. It has been a problem in India - I won't go into all that.

So there is no contradiction as far as one can see. Contradiction exists only when you assert something and contradict it at another time. But here we are saying that no one can lead you to truth, to illumination, to the right kind of meditation, to right behaviour, no one because you, each one of us, is responsible for himself, not depending at all on anybody. And we are trying in all these schools in India, here and so on to cultivate a mind, a brain that is holistic, not just knowledge per se for action in the world, but not to neglect the psychological nature of man because that is far more important than the academic career. One must have in the present world, in the present civilization, whatever that civilization is, they must have the capacity to earn a livelihood, and apparently a certain kind of education is necessary, and most schools in the West and in the East are neglecting the other side which is far deeper and greater. And here we are trying to do that. We may succeed. We hope we do but we may also not. But we are doing something that is not done in other schools, it doesn't mean that we are the only school but we are trying to do it. There is no contradiction. Is that all right? I have answered the question.

2nd QUESTION: What is it in the human mind that wants to follow a leader, a guru, a system, a belief, be obedient to something?

Right? Otherwise you wouldn't be here, nor I. The questioner is asking: why is it that human beings from time immemorial, from the most ancient Hindus and Egyptians and afterwards other civilizations, why through all these periods of time why has man followed somebody - a political leader, a general, a high priest, a psychologist, a philosopher, why? What is it in the mind of the human being that says, "He knows, I don't"? Because he knows he will help me to live a different kind of life, help me to get over my pain, my sorrow, my anxiety and so on and so on." So one being confused, the other is not, at least I think he is not, most gurus are but we attribute to them all kinds of fanciful romantic nonsense. So there is this first point: I don't know but you know - at least I think you know. You have the reputation, there are lots of other idiots like me following and the greater the following the more I feel it is accurate because so many people believe in that kind of stuff and I follow. That's one thing.

Also the leader, political, religious, as the gurus and so on, they have assumed certain authority, whether it is logical, reasonable, sane or illusory, they have assumed a sense of authority. They have received from the guru, a superior guru, the rest of it: apostolic succession and also the similar thing in the Sanskrit in India. It is an old game played by all the priests in the world, the leaders. So there is the question. The question is why human beings follow another. Let's enquire into it.

Is it because we are not clear, we are confused? Suppose I am confused and I choose you as my leader. I choose out of my confusion, not out of my clarity. Please see the sanity of it first, the logic of it, and then you can throw it out if you disagree. I am confused. My brain is in a state of contradiction, I am frightened, I have no psychological security, I come to you because you have a certain authority, a certain dress, certain paraphernalia around you and I come. I am impressed by the dress, by the people, by you know, the whole set-up. And you assure me that surrendering yourself to me and I will save you. Give yourself over to me because I know, you don't, so I will help you. And I am only too willing and gullible because I want comfort, I want some security, I want some hope, someone on whom I can depend, in whom I have trust, in whom I know, or perhaps I think I know that he will guide me, help me, and he is only too willing to help me me. It begins very gently, there is the inner circle and the outer circle, and the outer and outer circles, and gradually that help becomes dependence, and I depend on my guru, on my priest, on my leader - the political leader of all the various countries. I don't know why we are slaves to the politicians all over the world. I don't know if you have ever enquired into it. We have elected them, or they have assumed power in the Totalitarian States and they put their thumb on you and for the rest of your life you are stuck. Or in the Democratic world it is every five or seven years you change. But it is the same. You elect them out of your confusion and there they are. They are confused and every seven or five years this goes on. And it is exactly the same thing with the gurus. "I don't like that guru but I like the other one. He is more indulgent, he allows me to do what I like" - You know many gurus have come to see the speaker many times. The funniest one of them all (laughter), he had been in that particular country for many years and he came to see me with all the robes and beads and all the rest of it. And he said to me most respectfully because he assumed I was the guru of gurus, and he said, "Sir, I have been in this country for many years. I have talked all over the different parts of this country. I have a large number of followers but I have run out of ideas." (Laughter) "So I have come to you and so please give me some ideas." (Laughter). I am not - we are not joking but this was an actual fact.

You see when we have really understood why we follow, why a guru assumes authority, why he demands so many things, or allows another follower to throw off his inhibitions, doing what they like, sex, you know the whole performance, the ugliness of all that. I naturally feel there is somebody who will help me, so why do I ask help of another? That is the real point. Apart from joking about all this, this is a very serious problem because they are multiplying these gurus, with enormous wealth. Think of a religious man having enormous wealth and property, millions and millions of dollars, thousands of acres, hundreds and thousands of followers, what is wrong to allow such a thing to happen in a world that is already so utterly destructive, so degenerated, to allow the so-called religious people, who are really not religious, to acquire such wealth, such power. And because they have enormous amount of money they bribe - you follow? - they skip through all the regulations and rules.

So, why do we allow all this? Why do we allow terrorism, for example? Which is spreading. And is it because we are slack, indulgent, what does it matter, indifference? Or do we really want to find somebody to help us? Some honest man, not a guru, they merely repeat over and over again, you follow you have seen all this. Look sirs, I am not attacking anybody personally, please I wouldn't do that. But for over sixty years I have watched this, one cult after another, one guru after another, more and more wealth accumulating, private planes, and they are all religious people. So the world has gone mad and we are helping these people to go still madder.

So we come back to this question: why do I want help from another? If I am physically sick I go to a doctor. If I have cancer I consult specialists, he puts me on a table, or kills me, it is the end of it. But psychologically we are also diseased. Psychologically, inwardly, we are wounded people. And we hope others will cure us. And this has been the story of mankind, from the ancient civilizations, from the Sumerians and so on, until now, we are still doing the same. We are psychologically unhealthy, and we are depending on another to cure us. And we have not been cured. That is the first thing to realize. You can go from guru to guru, from guru to guru, as so many are doing, it is so thoughtless, and you are still unhealthy psychologically at the end of it. So if we realize first be aware that we are inwardly unhealthy - I am using that word without any further meaning than that - wounded people, disappointed people, lonely people, full of pain, anxiety, sorrow. It is all an indication of lack of health. Now can anybody cure you of it? You understand? Historically from the very ancient of times man has always looked to somebody else. And up to now they are still doing the same, which all indicates that nobody outside can cure you. Nobody. Your saviours, the Buddhists with their Buddha, and the Hindus with their - and so on - none of them have succeeded, or will ever succeed in bringing about psychological sanity, rationality. So if I realize that - right? - logically, sanely, if you have observed all that then what am I to do? That is the real question. What am I to do when I have discovered that nobody can help me - prayers, meditation - wait a minute, I must be careful here.

Meditation is very important in life. But that meditation must come after putting the house in order, your house, inside, otherwise it merely becomes an illusion, it leads to illusion, fanciful images and all things of silly experiences, they have no value at all. Meditation has got immense significance when the house is in complete order. But we have turned it the other way round: we meditate hoping to put the house in order. Or meditate hoping some kind of miracle will take place that will put the house in order, the house being oneself. The other way round - you follow? The speaker generally talks about meditation at the end of the talks. He has done this purposefully because all that he has said previously is to bring about order in the house. A man who is frightened, is pursuing pleasure, he can meditate until he is blue in the face, stand on his head, cross legged, do all kinds of things that have been prescribed by the innumerable gurus, he will still be what he is, perhaps a little modified, but basically he is still a frightened entity. So we are saying begin the other way round, then meditation is a marvellous thing which we will talk about next Sunday. That is not an enticement! (Laughter)

So if I cannot depend on anybody to heal my wounds, my state of psychological health, I have to look to myself. I cannot depend on anybody when I say that am I frightened. Please enquire with me into this question: When I say to myself I must stand alone, nobody can help me, because I have realized I have been through various gurus, studied, prayed, meditated, at the end of it all I am what I have been when I started. So logically, sanely, I observe that nobody can help me. It is not that I become cynical, it is a fact. And am I willing to stand alone? I need companionship, I need to talk to somebody, but they are not going to become my gurus, they will be my friends, but I will talk about it but I realize deeply I cannot depend. I depend on the postman, the milkman, and so on but inwardly there is no dependence because I realize also that attachment, which is to give oneself over to the guru, that very attachment leads to corruption - right? I don't know if you have noticed this: any form of attachment, to any person, to any belief, to any ideas, to any country, and so on must inevitably breed corruption. So I realize all that. So what am I to do? Can I be a light to myself? I am not a light to myself now, I am a confused entity. Personally I am not, we are talking about it together. I am a confused entity and you tell me to be a light to yourself. I understand that very well, logically, intellectually but I am not a light to myself. I am terribly confused, deeply wounded, unhealthy psychologically, I am unbalanced, neurotic, romantic, sentimental, so I take all that in. I am all that. So what am I to do? To study myself I must have a book about myself, and you are willing to give me that book. And I refuse that book, what you write is myself. You are writing out of your confusion, like most psychiatrists - sorry about that! So I have to have a mirror in which I can see myself. I hope you are following all this. We are talking together. We are investigating the question. I have to have a mirror in which I can see exactly what is going on. And no hardware store is going to supply that mirror, no shop, no guru. You follow? I have pushed aside all that. So I must have a mirror in which I see myself accurately, without any distortion. What is that mirror? We are enquiring, please, I am not telling you, we are enquiring. That mirror is relationship, relationship with my neighbour, or with my wife. That is the only relationship I have. In that relationship, which is the mirror, I see myself as I am, jealous, anxious, frightened, possessive, attached, hurt, anxious. The more I am anxious the more I am attached. My family becomes all important. So in that whole relationship I begin to see myself accurately as I am - my sexual demands, my arrogance, my vanity, the ugliness of what I am. Or assume that I am extraordinarily beautiful. But the mirror shows me that I am not.

So what is shown in the mirror is far more important than what I should be. I wonder if you follow all this? The mirror doesn't show me what I should be. That is the beauty of that mirror. That mirror shows me exactly what I am. I may turn away from it. I may escape from it, which we generally do. But if I say to myself nobody can help me, then I am looking at that mirror, and that mirror is showing 'what is', not 'what should be'. And perhaps I don't like 'what is', and the psychologist and others say, "Express yourself as you are, immediately." And again I depend. So I am all the time aware that people are trying to brainwash me according to their own pattern, and I refuse. And I begin then to have a great deal of vitality, naturally. I hope this is clear, is it? I see 'what is', not 'what should be', which is the future. I see exactly the present. The present 'what I am', in that mirror of relationship. But what I see is me, I am not different from what is shown there. I don't know if you follow this carefully. That which is seen is me, I am not different from that. That is clear obviously. But my thought says "No, I am different from that. I won't accept that." That thought says, "I am different, so I must control it, I must shape it." So the battle begins. You understand? I hope you are following. The battle begins, the struggle, the conflict, all the travail that goes on when I refuse to acknowledge actually what is shown in the mirror. What is shown in the mirror is me, I am not different from that. That is a tremendous realization because thought is always saying "You are different. You know more", and so on. So there is a division between that which is seen in the mirror and that which thought has accumulated in the past, which is the observer, the witness, the see-er, you follow? Right? Am I making this complicated? Thank god!

So one of our difficulties is then the observer says, "I am different from that which is observed." - because traditionally through millenia I have been educated in the separative action, that 'what is' is different from me. You understand? That is, to make it very simple, look at it. When there is anger there is only that state. Later on that reaction, later on I say "I have been angry. I shouldn't be angry." Or I rationalize why I am angry. Which is I am different from anger. The moment I said, "I have been angry" I am different from anger. I don't know if you see this. But when you realize that which is shown in the mirror of relationship is 'what is,' and 'what is' you are, the division entirely comes to an end - right? And therefore conflict comes to an end. Are we following? We are eliminating altogether conflict, because it is conflict that wastes away our energy. The intellectual, the emotional, the energy that is needed to remain with 'what is' because we are refusing to stay with 'what is'. We are moving away from it all the time, verbally saying "That is anger, that is greed, that is violence" - these are all verbal descriptions of 'what is'. The word is not that. I wonder if your follow this - right? The tent - the word 'tent' is not the actuality. So can I remain absolutely with 'what is' without the division of "I should be", or "I am different from 'what is" - 'what is ' is me, the observer, and the observed is me. So there is no division and therefore total end of conflict because I remain with 'what is'. I refuse to move out of that state. So I am looking at that state. I am observing it, looking, looking, looking. That needs attention. Attention means energy which I have been wasting by separating myself from that and fighting over it. You understand? Are we wasting our energy now?

So I realize - we realize together now that we are not dependent on anybody. That means no saviours, no symbols, nothing. We are dealing only with 'what is', which is my whole wounded psyche. That wounded psyche cannot be helped or cured by another. When I realize that in the depth of my being then the mirror becomes all important, relationship. Then relationship has an extraordinary vitality.

So if you penetrate into all that then you become entirely a light to yourself. When there is a light to yourself experiences are not necessary. It is only those who are asleep that experience is necessary. But if you depend on experiences to wake you up, you are still asleep. I wonder if you see all this?

We can go on talking like this endlessly. The speaker has been doing it for over sixty years but words have very little meaning. It is only when we realize the truth of all this that it has got tremendous vitality. I do not know if you have not noticed as we grow older we are losing our capacity to think clearly, if we ever saw clearly, even in childhood. As we grow older our brain not only is not receiving enough blood, the arteries are beginning to deteriorate - too much drink, too much everything, not enough exercise, proper exercise, please don't go off into yoga and that kind of stuff. So our brain is gradually deteriorating, senility may begin at the age of thirty, when you are constantly repeating - I am a Christian, I am a Hindu, I am a Democrat, I am a Socialist, I am this, I believe in god, I follow that man - you follow - that is all indications of senility. Please don't laugh it away. It is a fact. When we are caught in routine, psychologically - think of a man spending - or a woman - fifty years every morning going to the office. Think it out.

So at the end of the question and after investigating the whole psychological structure of obedience, obeying another, if you realize that you have put aside all that. Any intelligent man does it. Then only you become a light to yourself and perhaps in that light various other things can take place.

3rd QUESTION: I am in pain. However I try to meet it I do not come to the totality of the fact. It invariably remains partial and becomes an abstraction and the pain continues. How can I penetrate the problem without it becoming theoretical?

Right? The questioner is you and I. The questioner which is you and I saying "I am in pain" - not merely physical pain but the psychological pain which I have endured for many, many years. And I have tried to analyse it, I have tried to understand it, I have tried to go to the very root of it, which is the totality. And at the end of my long strenuous enquiry I have still the pain left. And apparently it is becoming an abstraction, a theory which I am grappling with, not with the fact but my appreciation and my investigating has made that an abstraction. You follow this? Right? Are you tired?

I have pain. Pain psychologically he means here, I think. I may have physical pain but I can put up with it or go to a doctor. I can do something about it. But the psychological pain, it is a fact. I know it as a fact because I have pain every day. But in the process of understanding the pain, my understanding is partial and being partial it becomes gradually an abstraction. So I have a problem now: the pain and the abstraction which is born out of the examination, which is not complete, I have made an abstraction, a theory of it. You follow? That is, I have pain, I am wounded - we will use that word - I am wounded, hurt, pain. And gradually it has become an idea - you follow? So I have now a different problem: the idea opposing the fact. I wonder if you see all this? Can we go on with this?

We are divided that way: the idea and the fact. Or the idea about the fact - right? See how we are complicating everything. The fact is there, I am hurt. Then I have an idea, which is I must not be hurt. And how am I then to get out of it, not to be hurt. The idea becomes far more important than the pain itself because my whole endeavour is directed towards moving away from it - right? That becomes the theory, a theory which is opposed to the fact. See, this is our life - the bible, the Upanishads, the Gita and the Koran say something and our life is different. So there is always this battle, conflict - the idea and the fact. The meaning of that word 'idea' originally in the Greek and so on, is to observe. You understand? To observe 'what is', not make an abstraction of it - right? We live in abstractions. I wonder if you see all this? My husband should be that. My wife is not that. You follow? I am brutal, I must not be brutal, and so on and so on. Always the avoidance of the fact by escaping to the theory, to the idea, to the ideal.

If that is clear then the question is: I am hurt, I have been wounded from childhood - right? From my parents, from other boys, because I happen to be a little sensitive. My parents have scolded me, beaten me, harsh words, do, don't do, and the other boys too. So right through life, school, college, university if I am lucky enough, I am being hurt all along, being compared with somebody much better than I am, much more clever, getting greater marks - you follow? This whole educational movement is a process of getting hurt - compare, compare, compare. You are not important, the other fellow is important. This is actual, I am not exaggerating. So I am hurt, that is a fact. m The gentleman probably means in this question: I am in pain. We are taking it for granted that it is not physical pain but psychological pain - we may be wrong. We are talking about psychological pain - right?

So the pain is being wounded, being hurt, being criticized, being scolded, all that is the pain. Or the pain that I have induced by wanting something more than I am capable of, by comparing myself with somebody who is far more intelligent, brighter, nicer looking and all that, and through that comparison I have hurt myself. This is a common factor for all human beings, this goes on. So I am hurt and I have analysed it and analysis has not solved the problem. I do not know if you want to go into the whole meaning of analysis, perhaps not now because the analyser is not different from the analysed. It is a waste of energy to analyse.

I don't understand what the gentleman is saying. What sir? (Inaudible question)

I don't quite follow what you are saying sir. Why don't I talk about beautiful things, why talk about pain, the more you talk about it the more you strengthen it, the gentleman says. Yes sir, I have got it. Now we have talked about beauty. Beauty is not the opposite of ugly. Pain is not the opposite of not having pain. It is pain. When you talk about the opposite you are avoiding the present. Would you mind letting me finish what I am saying? I am sorry sir, we are trying to answer the question. All right. Toothache is not real. Pain, you understand, is not real, the gentleman says. Perhaps to him it is not real but to most human beings it is a very real thing and that is why a great many hospitals are crowded with these people who have pain, not being able to solve it and going off into neurotic states and these hospitals are filled with them. So we are not talking about something unreal, illusory. It is an actual fact. Please sir, if you don't mind let us finish this question. If you don't want to listen close your eyes, ears.

Aren't we most of us hurt? Or we are unaware of that hurt? Or we have totally become used to it and therefore we don't know we are hurt? It is like living in a filthy slum and we are used to it. And we are talking about actual psychological pain, when you are not loved and you want to be loved, when you love somebody and that somebody turns his back on you, you are hurt. We know all this as well as we know toothache. So we are talking about this deep psychological hurt, we are not exaggerating it, we are not emphasizing that hurt by talking about it, but we are looking at it together. We are communicating with each other about it, and to communicate with each other we must employ words. If we spoke Italian or French it would be in Italian or French, but as we are speaking in English it must be in English, which is to use English words to communicate about something which is common to all of us, which is, being hurt in different ways. And if one becomes conscious of it, aware of it, and sees the consequences of that hurt, that is, fear, not to get more hurt, so building a wall round oneself, isolating oneself, afraid of others who might hurt you, always seeking companions who will be pleasant and avoiding, always on your tenter hooks - you follow? - nervous, so gradually becoming neurotic. The consequences of that hurt is not only a withdrawal from other human beings who might hurt but also gradual isolation taking place. And through that isolation all kinds of neurotic habits and attitudes and behaviours.

So when one observes this, is the hurt different from you who have an image about yourself? You understand my question? That is, I have an image about myself: I am a great man, or I am this or that. And that image has been created from childhood, you must be somebody - Julius Caesar if possible, or a great saint if possible, or the top executive, or one of those politicians. You must be somebody. And gradually one builds up an image about oneself. Noble or ignoble, insufficient or sufficient, there is that image in most people. And when you say something harsh, being my wife, husband or friend or neighbour, I am hurt, which is, the image is hurt, which I have created about myself. That image is me. And when I say I am hurt, I am saying not only the image which I am, but also the maker of that image. You are following this? So I am not different from the image which I have built about myself, and when there is hurt it is the image that is hurt, with which I have identified myself as the me, so I say I am hurt. And the whole of society, the social structure, the moral, the religious structure is helping me to maintain that image. Obviously. And so as long as I have that image I am going to be hurt. Do what I will, try to suppress it, run away from it, analyse it, go to an analyst, and all the rest of it, it always will remain because I have the image about myself.

Now the question is: is it possible to live without a single image? That is the real question. Not how to be not hurt. Or being hurt how to be free of that hurt. But the real question is: as long as there is an image, that image will retain that memory of that hurt and avoid the future. So the question is: is it possible not to have a single image about your country, about yourself, about anything? Why do we have images about ourselves and about our neighbour, wife, somebody or other, why? About politicians - all images, who is the present minister here, oh, Mrs. Thatcher. You all have images about everybody but the most important image is yourself, why? Is it because it gives one a security, a port of safety, a port which is permanent, which is unshakable, secure and that image sustains you, and that image as long as it exists, however much it may protect you, is going to be hurt. There is always somebody better, more beautiful, more clever, more this, more that.

So the question is not how to be rid of the image or what is the machinery that makes the image, which is fairly simple, which is our thinking about ourselves endlessly. That is not the question. But the question is: is it possible to live a life without a single image, living in this modern world, that demands that you have an image, and be completely free of the image? Because you see the image is inevitably going to be hurt. Inevitably. And if you like being hurt and enjoy being hurt, there are people sadistic and neurotic and all kinds of people love that kind of thing. A friend of mine long ago said, "How can you say love cannot exist where there is jealousy? If I am not jealous of my wife I have no love for her." You understand? So similarly I realize that as long as I have an image I shall be hurt. That is a fact. And my enquiry now is to live without a single image. And it is possible totally - don't accept my word for it but you can enquire into yourself if you want to - to live a life without a single image about anything, only when you realize the nature of that image, how it has been put together, how thought and desire and all the things that sustain it, when you see the fact of it, the truth of it, then the image-maker comes to an end. Then you are a mind that has no image, which means a mind that is totally, completely free. And most people don't want to be free, it is too frightening. So they go back to their pet image.

So at the end of this morning's talk for an hour and a half nearly, where are we? Do we actually see an image is the most destructive way of living? Do we actually see that following another will never cure our illness? The cure, sanity, health lies when one is totally a light to oneself.

1981

Brockwood Park 1981

Brockwood Park 1st Public Question & Answer Meeting 1st September 1981

Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.