Krishnamurti - Does self-knowledge come through searching?

OJ49T1 - Does self-knowledge come through searching?
Ojai, California - 16 July 1949
Public Talk 1

0:00 This is J. Krishnamurti’s first public talk in Ojai, California, 1949.

0:09 Krishnamurti: I think it is very important that most of us should be earnest. Those who come to these gatherings and people who go to different meetings of this kind think they are very earnest and serious. But I’d like to find out what we mean by earnest, by being serious. Is it earnestness, does it show seriousness if we go from one lecturer or a talker to another, from one leader to another, from one teacher to another; going from different groups, passing through different series of organizations, in search of something?

1:24 So before we begin to find out what it is to be earnest, surely we must find out what it is that we are seeking. What is it that most of us are seeking? What is it each one of us wants? Especially in this restless world, where everybody is trying to find some kind of peace, some kind of happiness, a refuge, surely it is important to find out, isn’t it, what it is that we are trying to seek, what it is that we are trying to discover. Probably most of us are seeking some kind of happiness, some kind of peace. In a world that is ridden with turmoil, wars, contention, strife, we want some kind of refuge, where we can… there can be some kind of peace.

2:55 I think that is what most of us want. And so we pursue, go from one leader to another, from one religious organization to another, from one teacher to another. Now, is it that we are seeking happiness, or is it that we are seeking gratification of some kind, from which we hope to derive happiness? Surely there is a difference between happiness and gratification. Can you seek happiness? Perhaps you can find gratification; but, surely, you cannot find happiness. 3:47 Happiness is derivative, surely; it is a byproduct of something else. So before we give our minds and hearts to something which demands a great deal of earnestness, attention, thought, care, we will have to find out, mustn’t we, what it is that we are seeking, and if it is happiness or gratification. I’m afraid most of us are seeking gratification; we want to be gratified; we want to find a sense of fullness at the end of our search.

4:59 Now, can you seek anything? Why do we go to these meetings? Why are you all sitting here and listening to me? It would be really very interesting to find out why you are listening, why you take the trouble to come from long distance on a hot day and listen. And to what are you listening? Are you trying to find a solution for your troubles, and therefore you go from one lecturer to another, from one… all religious organizations, and pick up books, and so on and so on? Or are you trying to find out what is the cause of all this trouble, of all this misery, contention, strife, which surely does not demand that you should read a great deal, that you should attend innumerable meetings or search out teachers.

6:39 What it demands is clarity of intention, doesn’t it? After all, if you are seeking peace, one can find it very easily. One can devote oneself blindly to some kind of cause, to an idea and take shelter there. Surely that does not solve the problem. Mere isolation in an enclosing idea is not a release from conflict.

7:38 So we have to find, mustn’t we, what it is, inwardly as well as outwardly, that each one of us want. If we are clear on that matter, then we don’t have to go anywhere, to any teacher, to any church, to any organization. And so our difficulty is, is it not, to be clear in ourselves of our intention. So can we be clear? And does that clarity come through searching, through trying to find out what others say, from the highest teacher to the ordinary preacher in a church round the corner? Have you got to go to somebody to find out? 9:08 And yet that’s what we are doing, aren’t we? We read innumerable books, attend many meetings, discuss, read, belong to various organizations, trying to find out an answer to the conflicts, to the miseries of our life. Or if we don’t do that, we think we have found. That is, we say that this particular organization, this particular teacher, this particular book, satisfies me; I have found everything I want in it. And so we remain in there, crystallized and enclosed.

10:22 So we have to come to the point when we have to ask ourselves really earnestly and profoundly if the peace, the happiness, the reality or God, what you will, can be given to you by somebody else. Can this incessant search, longing, give you that extraordinary sense of reality, that creative being that comes when you really understand yourself?

11:18 So does self-knowledge come through any search, through following anybody else, through belonging to any particular organization, through reading books, and so on? After all, that is the main issue, is it not, that as long as I do not understand myself, I have no basis for thought; all my search will be in vain. I can escape into illusions; I can run away from contention, strife, struggle; I can worship another; I can look for my salvation through somebody else, but as long as I’m ignorant of myself, as long as I’m unaware of the total process of myself, I have no basis for thought, for affection, for action. And that is the last thing we want: to know ourselves.

13:17 Surely that is the foundation on which you can build. But before we can build, before we can transform, before we can condemn or destroy, we must know the thing that which we are. So to go out seeking, changing teachers, gurus, practicing yoga, breathing, performing rituals, following masters, and all the rest of it, is utterly useless, is it not? It has no meaning, even though the very people whom you follow say, ‘Study yourself’.

14:22 Because what you are, the world is. If you are petty, jealous, vain, greedy, that you create about you, that is the society in which we live. So it seems to me, before we set out on a journey to find reality, to find God, before we can act, before we can have any relationship with another, which is society, surely it is essential that we should begin to understand ourselves first. And I consider an earnest person is he who is completely concerned with that first, and not how to arrive at a particular goal. Because if you and I do not understand ourselves, how can we, in action, bring about a transformation in society, in relationship, in anything that we do?

16:08 And it does not mean, obviously, that self-knowledge is opposed or isolated from relationship. It does not mean, obviously, emphasis on the individual, the me, as opposed to the mass, as opposed to another. I do not know if any of you have seriously undertaken to study yourselves, watching every word and its responses, watching every movement of thought and feeling, just watching it, being conscious of your bodily responses, whether you act from your physical centres or whether you act from an idea, how you respond to the world condition. I do not know if you have ever seriously gone into this question at all. Perhaps some of you have, sporadically, as a last resort, when everything has failed, or are bored, you try this.

18:22 Now, to really go into this question of knowing yourself, because I think that is fairly obvious that without knowing yourself, without knowing your own way of thinking, how can you think about anything else? Knowing why you think certain things; knowing the background of your conditioning; knowing why you have certain beliefs about art, about religion, about country, about your neighbour, about yourself. Without knowing your background, without knowing the substance of your thought, from where it comes, surely your search is utterly futile, your action has no meaning, has it? 19:43 Whether you are an American, or a Hindu, or whatever religion you belong to, it has no meaning. So before we can find out what is the end purpose of life, what it all means, this conflict, these wars, these national antagonisms, this whole mess, surely we must begin with ourselves, mustn’t we? It sounds so simple but it is extremely difficult. Because to follow oneself, to see how a thought operates, one has to be extraordinarily alert so that as one begins to be aware more and more of the intricacies of one’s own thinking and responses and feelings, one begins to have a greater awareness, not only of oneself but of another in whose relationship you are. 21:20 To know oneself is to study oneself in action, which is relationship.

21:54 But the difficulty is that we are so impatient, we want to get on, we want to reach an end, and so we have not the time or the occasion, or give ourselves the opportunity to study, to observe; or we have committed ourselves so much to various activities: earning a livelihood, rearing children; given… taken certain responsibilities with regard to organizations; committed ourselves in various ways so that we’ve hardly any time for self-reflection, to observe, to study, to know.

23:19 So really the responsibility of any action depends on ourselves, not on another. And to pursue, as in America and all the world over they are doing, changing their gurus, their organizations, reading the latest books on psychology, and so on, seems to me so utterly empty, so utterly futile, for you may wander all over the earth, but you have to come back to yourself.

24:21 And as most of us are totally unaware of ourselves, it is extremely difficult to begin to see clearly the process of our thinking and feeling and acting. And during the weeks that are to follow, in which I am to talk, that is the thing I’m going to deal with.

25:06 Because the more you know yourself, the more clarity there is; because self-knowledge has no end – you don’t come to an achievement, you don’t come to a conclusion. It’s an endless river, and as one studies it, as one goes into it more and more and more, one finds peace. And only when the mind is tranquil, through self-knowledge, not through imposed self-discipline, only then, in that tranquillity, in that silence, can reality come into being. It’s only then there can be bliss, there can be creative action. 26:27 And it seems to me that without that understanding, without that experience, merely to read books about it, to attend talks, to do propaganda, at least seems to me so infantile, just an activity without much meaning. But whereas if one is able to understand oneself and thereby bring about that creative happiness, that experiencing of something that is not of the mind, then perhaps each one of us can bring about a transformation in the immediate relationship about us, that is, the world in which we live.

28:04 1ST QUESTION: Do I have to be at any special level of consciousness to understand you?

28:22 K: To understand anything, what is required, not only what I’m saying, to understand anything? To understand yourself, to understand your husband, your wife; to understand a picture, to understand the scenery, the trees, what is required? Right attention, isn’t it? That is, to understand something you must give your whole being to it, mustn’t you? Your undivided, full, deep attention, mustn’t you? And how can there be deep, full attention when you are distracted, when, for example, when I’m talking, taking down notes? 29:39 You catch a good phrase, probably, and you say, ‘By Jove, I’m going to take that down and I’m going to use it in my talk’. How can there be full attention when you’re merely concerned with words? That is, you are concentrated on the verbal level, and are incapable of going beyond the verbal level. Words are only a means of communication. But if you are not capable of communicating and merely sticking at words, obviously there cannot be full attention and therefore there is no right understanding.

30:41 So it is an art, is it not, to understand something you must give full attention, and that is not possible when there is any kind of distraction: taking notes, when you are sitting uncomfortably, when you are struggling to understand, making an effort. So making an effort to understand is obviously a hindrance to understanding, when your whole attention has gone into the making of the effort. And also there is an art in listening, is there not?

32:16 I do not know if you have ever noticed, that when you are interested in something that another is saying, you’re not making an effort, you’re not building up a wall of resistance against distraction. There are no distractions when you’re interested; you’re completely giving your full attention almost easily, spontaneously, to something that is being said. That is, when there is vital interest, then there is a spontaneous attention. But most of us find such attention very difficult because you may consciously, on the upper level of the mind, want to understand, but inwardly there is a resistance. Or inwardly there might be desire to understand, 33:38 and outwardly, superficially, there might be resistance. So to give full attention to something there must be integration of your whole being. That is, at one level of consciousness you might want to find out, you might want to know, but at another level that very knowing might be destruction because it might make you change your whole life. So there is an inward contention, inward struggle, of which one is unaware. Though you think you’re paying attention, there is really a distraction inwardly going on, or outwardly, and that is the difficulty. 35:06 So to understand anything, one must give complete attention; and that’s why I’ve been suggesting at various meetings that no notes should be taken; that you’re not here to do propaganda, for me or for yourself; that you should listen to understand.

35:47 So our difficulty in understanding is that our mind is never quiet. We never look at anything quietly, in a receptive mood. A lot of rubbish is thrown at us: newspapers, magazines, politics; every preacher on the corner tells us what to do and what not to do. And that is constantly pouring in: radios, magazines, newspapers, tub-thumpers. And naturally there is inward resistance to all this also. And there is no understanding as long as there is a disturbed mind.

37:02 As long as the mind is not very quiet, silent, tranquil, receptive, sensitive, it is not possible to understand. And this sensitivity of the mind is not merely at the upper level of consciousness, on the superficial mind, but there must be tranquillity right through, an integrated tranquillity. You know, when you are seeing something very beautiful, if you are chattering, obviously it has no meaning. But the moment you are quiet, the moment you are sensitive, then its beauty comes to you. 37:58 Similarly, if we want to understand something, not only must we be physically very quiet, but also our mind must be capable of extreme alertness and yet quietness. That alert passivity of the mind does not come about through compulsion. You cannot train the mind to be silent; then it’s merely like a trained monkey, inwardly boiling but outwardly very quiet. So it is an art, and you must give your time, your thought, your being, to something that you want to understand.

39:12 2ND QUESTION: Can I understand easier what you are saying, say, by teaching it to others?

39:41 K: You may learn, by telling it to others, a new way of putting things, a clever way of transmitting what you want to say but surely that is not understanding. If you don’t understand yourself, how in the name of names can you tell it to somebody else? Surely that is propaganda, isn’t it?

40:09 You don’t understand but you tell others about it. And do you think a truth can be repeated? Do you think if you have an experience, you can tell it to others? You may be able to communicate verbally but can you tell others of your experience? That is, the experiencing of a thing. You may tell the experience but not the state of experiencing in which you have had – a state, a certain response. So a truth that is repeated ceases to be a truth. It’s only a lie that can be repeated. But the moment you repeat a truth, it has no meaning. And most of us are concerned in repeating and not in experiencing. A man who is experiencing something is not concerned in the mere repetition, in trying to convert others, in doing propaganda.

41:46 You see, but unfortunately most of us are concerned with propaganda, because through propaganda we not only convince others, we gain a living, we exploit others; it gradually becomes a racket, and that’s as good a way as another.

42:21 So… really are not concerned in the mere verbal communication but are occupied really with experiencing a thing, then you and I are in communion but if you want to do propaganda, and I say it cannot be, truth cannot be propaganised, then there is no relationship between us and I’m afraid that is our difficulty at the present time. You want to tell others without experiencing and in telling, you hope to experience. That’s mere sensation; that’s mere gratification; that has no significance; that has no validity, no reality behind it. But experiencing a reality, when communicated has no bondage; then experiencing is much more important, has greater significance than communicating on the verbal level.

44:26 3RD QUESTION: It seems to me the movement of life is experience in relationship to people and to ideas. To detach oneself from such stimulation is to live in a depressing vacuum. I need distraction to feel alive.

45:24 K: Now, in this question is involved the whole problem of detachment and relationship. Now, why do we want to be detached? What is this instinct in most of us that wants to push away, that wants to be detached? It may be that to most of us this idea of detachment has come into being because so many religions have talked about it, that you must be detached in order to find, that you must renounce, that you must give up, and then only will you find reality. And can you be detached in relationship?

46:55 What do we mean by relationship? So we’ll have to go into this question a little carefully. Now, why have we this instinctive response, this constant looking to detachment? The various religious teachers have said you must be detached. Why? First of all, the problem is this is… why are we attached? Not how to be detached but why is it that you are attached? Surely, if you can find the answer to that, then there’s no question of detachment, is there? 48:09 Now, why are we attached either to attractions, to sensations, to things of the mind or of the heart? And if we can find out why we are, then perhaps we’ll find an answer, the right answer, not how to be detached. Why are you attached, and what would happen if you are not attached? If you’re not attached to your particular name, property, position, to your… you know, the whole thing that makes up you – your furniture, your piece of… your car, your characteristics, your idiosyncrasies, your virtues, your beliefs and your ideas, what would happen? 49:14 You would find yourself, would you not, if you’re not attached, as being nothing, wouldn’t you? If you’re not attached to your comforts, to your position, to your vanities, you’d be suddenly lost, wouldn’t you? So the fear of emptiness, the fear of being nothing, makes you attached to something, whether it’s a family, to a husband, wife, to a chair, to a car, it doesn’t matter what it is, to the country. So the fear of being nothing makes one hold to something, and in the process of holding on to something, there is conflict, there is pain, because what you hold soon disintegrates: your car, your position, your property, your husband. 50:40 And through the process of holding, in the process of holding there is pain. And in order to avoid pain, we say we must be detached.

50:59 You look into yourself and you’ll see this is so. Fear of loneliness, fear of being nothing, fear of emptiness, makes us attach ourselves to something: to a country, to an idea, to a God, to some organization, to a master, to a discipline, to what you will. And in the process of attachment there is pain. And to avoid that pain we try to cultivate detachment. And so we keep up this circle, which is always painful, in which there’s always a struggle. So why can’t we be as nothing, not merely on the verbal level, inwardly, be anonymous inwardly? Then there is no problem of attachment or detachment, is there? 52:27 And in that state can there be relationship? That’s the questioner wants to know. Because he says without relationship to people and to ideas, one lives in a depressing vacuum. Is that so? Is relationship a process of attachment? When you are attached to somebody, are you related to that person? When I’m attached to you, hold to you, possess you, am I related to you? You become a necessity to me, because without you I’m lost, I’m made uncomfortable, I feel miserable, I feel lonely.

53:55 So you become a necessity, a useful thing, a thing to fill my emptiness. You are not important; what is important is that you fill my need. And is there any relationship between two people when you only act as a need, as a necessity, like a piece of furniture? And is relationship… can one live – to put it differently – can one live without relationship? And is relationship merely a stimulation? Because without that, which you call distraction, you feel lost, you do not feel alive; that is, you treat relationship as a distraction, which makes you feel alive. That’s what the questioner says. So can one live in the world without relationship? Obviously not. There is nothing that can live in isolation.

55:50 I know most of us would like to live in isolation, but one cannot live in isolation, therefore relationship becomes merely a distraction which makes you feel as though you’re alive: quarrelling, having struggles, contention, and so on, with each other, gives one a sense of aliveness, and so relationship becomes merely a distraction. And then the questioner says, ‘Without distractions I feel I’m dead’. Therefore you use relationship merely as a means of distraction. And distractions, whether drink, whether going to cinemas, whether it is knowledge, any form of distraction obviously dulls the mind and heart, doesn’t it? 57:04 A dull mind and a dull heart, how can it have any relationship with another? It’s only a sensitive mind, a heart that is awakened to affection that can be related to something. So as long as we treat relationship as a distraction, then you are obviously living in a vacuum, because you’re frightened to go out of that state of distraction. And hence you are concerned and are afraid of any kind of detachment, any kind of separation, because relationship then is a distraction which makes you or keeps you alive. Whereas relationship which is not a distraction is really a state in which you are...

🢁