Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR81Q1 - 1st Question & Answer Meeting
Brockwood Park, UK - 1 September 1981
Public Question & Answer 1



1:03 Krishnamurti: 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’m 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 will understand if we do not answer all the questions that have been sent in.
1:44 I wonder why one asks questions – not that one should not – but why? Of whom are you asking that question, and from whom do you expect an answer? A question is a challenge, not only to the speaker but also to the person putting 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 this. That is, you put a question to the speaker, it is a challenge. He responds to it, either partially or wholly, or you who have put the question are challenging yourself. The very enquiry into the question begins to unravel the answer. I hope this is clear.
3:39 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 the content of the mind of the questioner one has to understand why the question has been put. It’s 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 and the question, deeply concerned with the understanding of the problem. I hope that is clear.
6:02 First Question: You have often said that no-one can show the way to truth. Yet your schools are said to help their members understand themselves. Is this not a contradiction? Does it not create an elite atmosphere?
6:26 You have often said that no-one can show the way to truth. Yet your schools are said to help their members understand themselves. Is this not a contradiction? Does it not create an elite atmosphere?
6:45 My gosh! 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’s what the speaker has said. The speaker with the help of others, has founded several schools in India, here and so on. And the questioner says, are you not contradicting yourself when the teachers and 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, the whole psyche of those people in the schools. One doesn’t quite see the contradiction.
8:15 Schools, from the ancient Greek to 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 don’t have leisure. That is, time to yourself, time to listen to others, time to enquire. A school is such a place. Modern schools all over the world are merely cultivating one part of the brain which is the acquisition of knowledge, technologically, scientifically, biologically, archaeologically and so on. They’re 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, as far as one can see, they’re only cultivating knowledge. That knowledge can be used skilfully, to earn a livelihood, or unskilfully, depending on the person. 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? Questioner: Yes.
10:29 K: Not very much, but all right!
10:36 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, enquire into the whole psychological structure of human beings. Students come already conditioned, so there begins the difficulty. Not only must one help each other 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 does not create an elite.
12:00 What is wrong with being an elite? What is wrong with it? Do you want everybody, everything, pulled down to the common denominator? That’s one of the troubles of so-called democracy. It has been a problem in India – I won’t go into all that, doesn’t matter.
12:38 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. Each one of us, is responsible for himself, not depending on anybody. In all these schools in India, here and so on, we are trying 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, the present civilisation, whatever that civilisation is, one 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. Here, we are trying to do that. We may succeed. We hope we do, but we may not. But we are doing something that is not done in other schools. It doesn’t mean we are the only school, but we are trying to do it. There’s no contradiction. Is that all right? Have I answered the question?
15:15 Second Question: What is it in the human mind that wants to follow a leader, a guru, a system, a belief, be obedient to something?
15:29 What is it in the human mind that wants to follow a leader, a guru, a system, a belief, and be obedient to something?
15:47 Right? Otherwise, you wouldn’t be here – nor would I. The questioner is asking, why is it that human beings from time immemorial, from the most ancient Hindus and the Egyptians and afterwards other civilisations, 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, sorrow, my anxiety and so on, so on’. 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’s accurate because so many people believe in that kind of stuff and I follow. That’s one thing.
18:24 Also, the leader, political, religious – like the gurus and so on, they have assumed certain authority, whether it’s 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 Sanskrit, in India. This is an old game played by all the priests in the world, the leaders. So, that is the question. The question is why do human beings follow another? Let’s enquire into it.
19:32 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’m 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’m impressed – by the dress, by the people, the whole setup. And you assure me, ‘Surrender yourself to me and I will save you’. Right? Give yourself over to me because I know, you don’t, so I will help you. And I’m only too willing and gullible because I want comfort, I want some security, I want some hope somewhere, someone on whom I can depend, in whom I have trust, in whom, I know, or perhaps I think I know that you will guide me, help me, and he is only too willing to help me. It begins very gently, there is the inner circle, the outer circle, and 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 politicians, all over the world. I don’t know if you have even enquired into it. We have elected them, or they have assumed power in totalitarian states, they put their thumb on you and for the rest of your life, you’re 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... The game we play! Every seven years or five years, this goes on. The same thing happens 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 at many times. The funniest one of them was... He had been in that particular country for many years and he came to see me with all the robes, beads and all the rest of it. And he said... He saluted 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’ve talked all over different parts of this country. I’ve a large number of followers but I have run out of ideas. So, I have come to you, please give me some ideas’. We are not joking, this was an actual fact.
25:21 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, 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 degenerating, 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 slip through all the regulations and rules.
27:32 So, why do we allow all this? Why do we allow terrorism, for example? Which is spreading. 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 have seen all this. Look sirs, I’m 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 accumulated, private planes, private – oh! – and they are all religious people. So, the world has gone mad and we are helping these people to go still madder.
29:16 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 a specialist, he puts me on a table, or kills me, or the end of it. But psychologically, we are also diseased. Psychologically, inwardly, we are wounded people. And we hope others will cure us. You understand? This has been the story of mankind, from ancient civilisations, the Sumerians and so on, till now, we are still doing the same. We are psychologically unhealthy, depending on another to cure us. And we have not been cured. That’s the first thing to realise. You can go from guru to guru to guru, as so many are doing, so thoughtlessly, and we are still unhealthy, psychologically, at the end of it. If we realise or are aware, first, that we’re inwardly unhealthy – I’m using that word without any further meaning than that – wounded people, disappointed people, lonely, full of pain, anxiety, sorrow. That’s 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, the Hindus with their – and so on – none of them have succeeded, will ever succeed in bringing about psychological sanity, rationality. If I realise that – logically, sanely, if you observe all this, 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.
33:32 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, leads to fanciful images and all kinds 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 – that’s what we’re doing – I won’t go into it. The speaker generally talks about meditation at the end of the talks. He has done this purposely. All that he has said previously is to bring about order in the house. A man who is frightened, pursuing pleasure, he can meditate till 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’ll still be what he is, perhaps a little modified, but, basically, he is still a frightened entity. We are saying begin the other way around, then meditation is a marvellous thing, which we’ll talk about next Sunday. That’s not an enticement!
36:08 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. Right? 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, I have realised, 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. 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 realise, deeply, I cannot depend. I depend on the postman, the milkman, but inwardly, there is no dependence because I realise, also, that attachment, which is to give oneself over to the guru, 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. I realise all that. So, what am I to do? Can I be a light to myself? I’m not a light to myself, now, I am a confused entity. Personally, I’m not, we’re talking about it, together. I’m a confused entity and you tell me, ‘Be a light to yourself’. I understand that, very well, logically, intellectually but I am not a light to myself, because 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. I refuse that book, because what you write is myself. You are writing out of your confusion, like most psychiatrists – sorry, I hope there aren’t any. 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. No hardware store is going to supply that mirror, no shop, no guru. 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’m extraordinarily beautiful. But the mirror shows me I’m not.
43:20 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’s the beauty of that mirror. That mirror shows me exactly what I am. I may turn away from it, escape from it, which we generally do. But if I say to myself nobody can help me, then I’m 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’. Again, I depend. So, I’m aware all the time 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. You understand? 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. That ‘what I see’ is me, I am not different from what is shown there. I don’t know if you follow all 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? The battle begins, the struggle, 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’s a tremendous realisation 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? I hope you’re following. Right? Am I making this complicated?
47:43 Q: No.

K: Thank God!
47:49 So, one of our difficulties is then, the observer says, ‘I am different from that which is observed’ – because traditionally, through millennia, I have been educated in the separative action, ‘what is’ is different from me. You understand? To make it very simple, look at it. When there is anger, there is only that state. Later on, that reaction and I say, ‘I have been angry. I shouldn’t be angry’. Or I rationalise why I’m 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 realise 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? Therefore, conflict comes to an end. Are we following? We are altogether eliminating conflict, because it’s conflict that wastes away our energy. The intellectual, the emotional, the energy that is needed to remain with ‘what is’ – you understand? – because we are refusing to stay with ‘what is’. We are moving away from it, all the time, saying ‘That is anger, that’s greed, that’s violence’. These are all verbal descriptions of ‘what is’. The word is not that. I wonder if you follow all this. Right? The tent – the word ‘tent’ is not the actuality. 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 therefore the 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’ve been wasting by separating myself from that and fighting over it. You understand? Are we wasting our energy, now?
51:37 Q: No.

K: I’m sure – don’t say…
51:45 So, I realise – we realise together, now, that we are not dependent on anybody. That means no saviours, no symbols, nothing. We are dealing with only ‘what is’, which is my whole wounded psyche. That wounded psyche cannot be helped or cured by another. When I realise that in the depth of my being, then the mirror becomes all important – relationship. Then relationship has an extraordinary vitality.
52:51 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’s only for 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!
53:32 Sir, 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’s only when we realise the truth of all this that it has got tremendous vitality. I don’t know if you have noticed, as we grow older, we are losing our capacity to think clearly – if we ever thought clearly, even in childhood. As we grow older, our brain is not receiving enough blood, because the arteries are beginning to thicken – too much drink, too much everything, not enough proper exercise – please don’t go off into yoga and all that kind of stuff. So, our brain is gradually deteriorating. Senility may begin at the age of thirty, when we are constantly repeating – I am a Christian, I am a Hindu, a Democrat, a Socialist, I am this, I believe in God, I follow that man – you follow? – those are all indications of senility. Please don’t laugh it away. It’s a fact. When we are caught in a routine, psychologically – think of a man or a woman – spending fifty years going to the office, every morning. Think it out.
55:43 So, at the end of the question and after investigating the whole psychological structure of obedience, obeying another, if you realise that, you put it all aside. Any intelligent man does it. Only then do you become a light to yourself and perhaps in that light various other things can take place.
56:44 Third 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, becomes an abstraction and the pain continues. How can I penetrate the problem, without it becoming theoretical?
57:18 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?
57:54 Right? The questioner is you and I. The questioner which is you and I, says ‘I am in pain’ – not merely physical pain but psychological pain which I’ve endured for many, many years. I have tried to analyse it, I’ve tried to understand it, I have tried to go to the very root of it, which is the totality. At the end of my long, strenuous enquiry, I’ve 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, my investigating has made that an abstraction. You follow this? Right? Are you tired?
59:33 I have pain. Psychological pain, 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 gradually becomes 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 of it, a theory of it. You follow? That is, I have pain, I’m wounded – we’ll use that word – I am wounded, hurt, it’s pain. And gradually it has become an idea – you follow? So, now I have a different problem, the idea opposing the fact. I wonder if you see all this. Right? Can we go on with this?
1:01:27 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’m hurt. Then I have an idea, which is I must not be hurt. 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. That becomes the 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, Greek, 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. Always the avoidance of the fact by escaping to the theory, to the idea, to the ideal.
1:03:56 If that is clear, then the question is, I am hurt. I have been wounded from childhood. From my parents, from other boys, because I am a little sensitive. My parents have scolded me, beaten me, harsh words, ‘Do, don’t do’, and the other boys, too. Right through life, school, college, university, if I’m lucky enough, I’m being hurt all along, being compared with somebody much better, much more clever, giving greater marks – you follow? This whole educational movement is a process of getting hurt – compare, compare, compare, you’re not important, the other fellow is important. This is actual, I’m not exaggerating. So, I am hurt, that is a fact. I am hurt... 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?
1:06:00 The pain is, being wounded, hurt, being criticised, being scolded, all that is the pain. Or the pain that I have induced by wanting something more than I’m 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. I have analysed it and analysis hasn’t solved the problem. I do not know if you want to go into the whole meaning of analysis, – perhaps not, now – the analyser is not different from the analysed. It’s a waste of energy to analyse.
1:07:14 Q: (Inaudible).
1:07:19 K: I don’t understand what the gentleman is saying. What, sir?
1:07:33 Q: I’m only talking because I have been waking up to that.
1:07:37 K: Qu’est-ce qu’il dit?
1:07:40 Q: We can think about things a lot. There is infinity of thought, so why spend time thinking about pain, why not spend time thinking about beautiful things. If we talk about it, we lead ourselves into it.
1:07:57 K: I don’t quite follow what you are saying, sir.
1:08:01 Q: It’s very easy. Ultimately, pain is just an illusion and we need to see that. Why would whoever made us want us to suffer?
1:08:12 Q: Pain is just an illusion and by talking about it we lead ourselves into it, so why don’t we talk about beautiful things.
1:08:17 K: Oh, 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’s pain. When you talk about the opposite, you are avoiding the present. Sir, would you mind letting me finish what I am saying?
1:08:58 Q: But I am past, present as well, so I’m able to meet that as well. You mean something, I mean something else.
1:09:05 K: I’m sorry, sir, we are trying to answer the question.
1:09:09 Q: But you’re saying pain is real and I’m saying it’s not.
1:09:13 K: All right, all right. Toothache is not real. Pain – you understand? – is not real, the gentleman says. Perhaps, to him, it’s not real but to most human beings it is a very real thing and that’s why a great many hospitals are crowded with these people who have pain they have not been able to solve, go off into neurotic states and the hospitals are filled with them. So, we are not talking about something unreal, illusory. It’s an actual fact. Please, if you don’t mind, let’s finish the question. If you don’t want to listen, close your eyes, ears.
1:10:18 Q: (Inaudible).

Q: Be quiet!
1:11:05 K: Aren’t most of us hurt? Or we are unaware of that hurt? Or we have totally become used to it, therefore we don’t know we are hurt? It’s like living in a filthy slum and we are used to it. We are talking about actual psychological pain, when you are not loved and you want to be loved, when you love somebody and he turns his back on you, you’re 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 emphasising 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’re 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. 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 tenterhooks, nervous, so gradually, you become neurotic. The consequences of that hurt is not only a withdrawal from other human beings who might hurt one but also, gradual isolation taking place. Through that isolation, all kinds of neurotic habits, attitudes and behaviour.
1:14:13 When one observes this, is the hurt different from you who have an image about yourself? You understand my question? I have an image about myself, I am a great man, or I am this or that. 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, friend or neighbour, I am hurt, which is the image which I have created about myself is hurt. 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’s the image that is hurt, with which I have identified myself as the ‘me’, so I say, ‘I’m hurt’. And the whole society, the social and moral structure, the religious structure is helping me to maintain that image. Obviously. As long as I have that image, I’m going to be hurt. Do what I will, try to suppress it, run away from it, analyse it with an analyst, and all the rest of it, it always will remain, because I have the image about myself.
1:17:12 Now, the question is, is it possible to live without a single image? Ah! That’s the real question. Not how not to be hurt, or how to be free of 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 hurts. 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 – you all have images, haven’t you? Who’s the present minister here? Oh, Mrs Thatcher. You 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, 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.
1:19:27 The question is not how to be rid of the image or what machinery makes the image, which is fairly simple, which is our thinking about ourselves, endlessly. That is not the question. 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, to be completely free of the image? Because the image is inevitably going to be hurt. Inevitably. And if you like being hurt, enjoy being hurt, there are sadistic and neurotic people, who love that kind of thing. A friend of mine, long ago, said to me, ‘How can you say love cannot exist where there is jealousy?’ The friend said, ‘If I am not jealous of my wife, I have no love for her’. You understand? Similarly, I realise as long as I have an image I’ll be hurt. That is a fact. 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 it yourself, if you want to – to live a life without a single image about anything. Only when you realise the nature of that image, how it has been put together, how thought and desire and all the things sustain it, when you see the fact of it, the truth of it, then the image-maker comes to an end. And there you are, a mind that has no image, which means a mind that is totally, completely free. Most people don’t want to be free, it’s too frightening. So, they go back to their pet image.
1:22:38 At the end of this morning talk for an hour and a half, 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. Right.