Krishnamurti - How is one to be aware?

OJ49T5 - How is one to be aware?
Ojai, California - 30 July 1949
Public Talk 5

0:01 This is J. Krishnamurti’s fifth public talk in Ojai, California, 1949.

0:09 Krishnamurti: The last four talks or discussions we’ve been considering the question of self-knowledge because, as we said, without being aware of one’s own process of thought and feeling, it’s obviously not possible to act rightly or think rightly. So the essential purpose of these gatherings, or discussions or meetings, is really to see if one can for oneself directly experience the process of one’s own thinking and be aware of them integrally. Because most of us are aware superficially; 1:18 perhaps on the upper level or the superficial level of the mind but not as a total process. It is this total process that gives freedom, that gives comprehension, that gives understanding; not the partial process. Because some of us may know ourselves partially; at least we think we know ourselves a little, but that little is not sufficient, because if one knows oneself slightly, it acts as rather a hindrance than a help. 2:06 And it’s only in knowing oneself as a total process, psychologically and physiologically, the hidden process as well as the open; the unconscious, the deeper layers as well as the superficial layers. It’s only when we know the total process, then we can be able to deal with the problems that arise inevitably, as a whole, not as partially.

2:45 Now, this capacity of dealing with the total process is what I would like to discuss this evening. How to… whether it’s a question of the cultivation of a faculty or a capacity, which all implies a certain kind of specialization. Does understanding happiness, or the realization of the otherness, something beyond the mere physical centres and their sensation, does it lie through any specialization? Because capacity implies a specialization; and especially in a world as this, there are more and more specialists. 3:49 And we people depend on the specialists – if anything goes wrong with the car, we turn to the mechanic; physically we go to a doctor; if anything goes wrong, maladjustment, we turn, run – if you can, if you have the money and the means – to a psychologist, or the priest, and so on. That is, we look to the specialists as a means of helping ourselves from our frustrations, failures, and miseries.

4:23 Now, does this understanding of ourselves demand a specialization? Because specialization implies, doesn’t it, a narrowing-down process. The specialist knows only his particular field, at whatever level. And does the knowledge of ourselves demand specialization? I do not think so; on the contrary, specialization implies, doesn’t it, a narrowing-down of the whole total process of our being to a particular point, and specializing on that point. 5:35 Since we have to understand ourselves as a total process, you cannot specialize. And a specialization implies, obviously, exclusion, whereas to know ourselves does not demand any kind of exclusion. On the contrary, it demands a complete awareness of ourselves as an integral process, and for that, specialization is a hindrance.

6:15 After all, what is it that we have to have the capacity for? To know ourselves, which means, to know our relationship with the world, surely; not only with the world of ideas and people but also with nature, with things which we possess. That is our life – life being relationship to the whole. And does that, the understanding of that relationship, does it demand specialization? Obviously not. What it demands is a capacity, 7:04 the awareness of meeting it as a whole. How is one to have that awareness? So that is our problem. How is one to have the capacity – if I can use that word without it meaning specialization – how is one capable of meeting life as a whole, which means, not only personal relationship but social: your relationship with your neighbour, with nature, with the things that you possess, not only ideas but the things that the mind makes; ideas as well as the thing that mind manufactures as illusion, as desire, and so on? 8:14 To be aware of this whole process of relationship – surely that’s our life, isn’t it? There is no life without relationship. And to understand this relationship does not mean isolation, as I’ve been insisting, constantly explaining. On the contrary, it demands a full recognition or awareness of the total process of relationship.

9:03 Now, how is one to be aware? How are we aware of anything? How are you aware of your relationship to a person? How are you aware of these trees, the calling of that cow? How are you aware of your reactions when you read a newspaper, if you read a newspaper? And are we aware of the superficial responses of the mind, as well as the inner responses? How are we aware of anything? Surely we are aware, isn’t it, first as a response to a stimuli, which is an obvious fact: I see the tree and there is a response. Sensation, contact, identification, and desire: that’s the ordinary process, isn’t it? We can observe this without studying any books, what actually takes place.

10:30 Then, through identification, you have pleasure and pain. So our capacity depends on the intensity of pleasure and the avoidance of pain, doesn’t it? If you are interested in something, if it gives pleasure, there is capacity immediately; there is an awareness of that fact immediately. And if it is painful, the capacity is developed to avoid it. So as long as we are looking for capacity to understand ourselves, I think we shall fail because the understanding of ourselves does not depend on capacity. It isn’t a technique that you develop, cultivate, and increase through time, through constantly sharpening. This awareness of oneself can be tested out, surely, in action of relationship, which can be tested out the way we talk, the way we behave. 12:22 You watch yourselves after the meeting is over, you watch yourselves at table. Just observe without any identification, without any comparison, without any condemnation, just watch, and you see an extraordinary thing take place. You not only put an end to an activity which is unconscious – because most of our activities are unconscious, unaware – you not only bring that to an end but further you are aware of the motives of that action, without inquiry, without digging into it.

13:22 In other words, when you are aware, you see the whole process of your thinking and action. That is, it can only happen when there is no condemnation. That is, when I condemn something I do not understand, and it’s very… it’s one way of avoiding any kind of understanding; and I think most of us purposely do that – we condemn immediately and we think we have understood it. But if we do not condemn, but regard it, be aware of it, then it begins to open up the immense… the great content of that action. 14:15 You experiment with this and you’ll see it for yourself. Just be aware without any sense of justification, which is not… which may rather appear negative but it is not negative. On the contrary, it has the quality of passivity which is direct action. You will find that if you’ll experiment with it.

14:59 After all, if you want to understand something, you have to be in a passive mood, haven’t you? You can’t keep on thinking about it, speculating about it, or questioning it; you have to be sensitive enough to receive the content of what it has. It’s like being a sensitive photographic plate. If I want to understand you, I have to be passively aware, and you begin to tell me all your story. Surely that is not a question of capacity or specialization, because through that… in that process we begin to understand ourselves, not only the superficial layers of our consciousness but the deeper, which is much more important, because there all our motives, our intentions, our hidden pursuits, demands, anxieties, fears, appetites. 16:19 Outwardly you may have them all under control, but inwardly there they are boiling. Until those have been completely understood through awareness, obviously there cannot be freedom, there cannot be happiness, there is no intelligence.

16:48 So is intelligence a matter of specialization? Intelligence being the total awareness of our process. And is that intelligence to be cultivated through any form of specialization? Because that is what’s happening, isn’t it? You are listening to me, thinking that I am a specialist – probably; I hope not. The priest, the doctor, the engineer, the industrialist, the business man, the professor: we have that mentality of all that specialization. 18:01 And we think to realize the highest form of intelligence – which is truth, which is God, which cannot be described – to realize that, we think we have to make ourselves specialists: we study, we grope, we search out. And with that mentality of the specialist, or looking for the specialist, we approach ourselves. We study ourselves in order to develop a capacity which will help us to unravel our conflicts, our miseries.

19:00 So our problem is, if we are at all aware, whether the conflicts and the miseries and the sorrows of our daily existence can be solved by any other, by another? And if they cannot, how is it possible for us to tackle them? To understand a problem obviously requires certain intelligence, and that intelligence cannot be derived or cultivated through specialization. But that intelligence comes into being when we are passively aware of the whole process of ourselves. To be aware of ourselves without choice, without choosing what is right and what is wrong in the total awareness, because when one is passively aware, you will see out of that passivity – which is not idleness, which is not sleep but extreme alertness – you will see when one is extremely alert, passively aware, the problem has quite a different significance, which means there is no longer identification with the problem and therefore there is no judgment of the problem, and hence the problem begins to reveal its contents. 21:26 And if you are able to do that constantly, continually, every problem can then be solved fundamentally, not superficially. And that is the difficulty, because most of us are incapable of being passively aware, to let the problem tell the story without your interpreting the problem, to look at the problem dispassionately, if you like to use that word. But unfortunately we are not capable of doing that because we want a result from that problem, we want an answer, we are looking to an end, or we try to translate that problem according to our pleasure or pain, or we have an answer already how to deal with that problem. 22:41 Therefore we approach a problem which is always new with the old pattern. The challenge is always new, but our response is always the old.

23:02 And our difficulty is to meet the challenge adequately, that is, fully. And one can meet the challenge, the problem, fully, which is the problem of relationship. There is no other problem. To meet the problem of relationship with its constantly varying demands; to meet it rightly, to meet it adequately, one has to be aware passively. And this passivity is not a question of determination, of will, of discipline, but to be aware that we are not passive. And that is the beginning – 24:14 to be aware that we want a particular answer for a particular problem. Surely that’s the beginning: to know ourselves in relationship to the problem, how we deal with the problem. Then as we begin to know ourselves in relationship to the problem, how we respond, what are our various prejudices, demands, pursuits, in meeting that problem; to be aware of it will reveal the process of our own thinking, of our own inward nature, and from that there is a release.

25:12 So, as life is a question, is a matter of relationship, and to understand that relationship which is not static, there must be an awareness which is equally pliable, therefore there must be an awareness which is passive, not aggressively positive. And as I said, this capacity for passive awareness is not come through any form of discipline, through any practice, but to be merely aware from moment to moment of our thinking and feeling, which is not only while we are awake, but we will see, as we go into it deeper, we begin to dream. It begins to throw up all kinds of symbols 26:33 which we translate as dreams. So we open the door into the hidden which is already known. But to find the unknown we must go beyond the known. Surely that is our difficulty. Reality is not a thing that is knowable by the mind, because the mind is the result of the known, of the past, therefore the mind must understand itself and its functioning, its process, and only then is it possible for the unknown to be.

27:41 QUESTION: All religions have insisted on some kind of self-discipline to moderate the instincts of the brute in man. Through self-discipline the saints and mystics have asserted that they have attained Godhood. Now, you seem to imply that such disciplines are a hindrance to the realization of God. I am confused. Who is right in this matter?

28:14 All religions have insisted on some kind of self-discipline to moderate the instincts of the brute in man. Through self-discipline the saints and mystics have asserted that they have attained Godhood. Now, you seem to imply that such disciplines are hindrances to the realization of God. I am confused. Who is right in this matter?

28:44 K: Surely it is not a question of who is right in this matter. What is important is to find out the truth of the matter for ourselves, not according to a particular saint, or to a person that comes from India – that’s not important – or from some other place, the more exotic the better. But what is important is to find out for ourselves the truth of this matter.

29:20 So let us examine it together, because it’s your problem, you are caught in this. Someone says, ‘Discipline’, and another says, ‘No discipline’. Generally what happens is you choose what is most convenient for you, what is most gratifying, and personal idiosyncrasies and personal favouritism, or if you like the man, his looks, and all the rest of it. So putting all that aside, let’s examine this question directly and find out the truth of the matter for ourselves, because in this question a great deal is implied, involved, and we have to approach it very cautiously and hesitantly.

30:21 Most of us want someone in authority to tell us what to do. We look for a direction in conduct, because our instinct is to be safe, not to suffer more. Someone has realized happiness, bliss, what you will, and we hope that he will tell us what to do, to arrive there. Because that’s what we want: we want that same happiness, that same inward quietness, joy, whatever you will. And in this mad world of confusion we want someone to tell us what to do. That is really the basic instinct with most of us. 31:38 And according to that instinct we pattern our action. Is God, is that highest thing, unnameable, and not to be measured by words, is that come by discipline, by following a particular pattern of action? If you’re interested, let’s go into it. We want to arrive at a particular goal, particular end, and we think by practice, by disciplining ourselves, suppressing or releasing, sublimating or substituting, we shall be able to find that which we are seeking.

32:37 What is implied in discipline? Why do we discipline ourselves, if we do? I doubt if we do, but why do we do it? No, seriously, why do we do it? Is discipline and intelligence… can they go together? So let us inquire into it fully and see how far go into this matter. Because most people feel that you must, through some kind of discipline, subjugate, control, the brute, the ugly thing in us. And is that brute, the ugly thing, controllable through discipline? 34:11 What do we mean by discipline? A course of action which promises a reward, a… which course of action, if pursued, will give us what we want. It may be positive or negative. A pattern of conduct which will, if practiced diligently, sedulously, very, very ardently, will give me what I want at the end. It may be painful but I’m willing to go through it to get that.

35:12 That is, the self, which is aggressive, selfish, hypocritical, anxious, fearful – you know, the whole of it – that self which is the cause of the brute in us, we want to transform it, give it… subjugate it, destroy it. And how is this to be done? Is it to be done through discipline or through an intelligent understanding of the parts of the self, what the self is, how it comes into being, and so on? That is, shall we destroy the brute in man through compulsion or through intelligence? And is intelligence a matter of discipline? 36:23 Let us for the time being forget what the saints and all the rest of the people have said. And I do not know if they have said it – not that I’m an expert on saints – but let us go into the matter for ourselves, as though you are for the first time looking at this problem. Then we shall have something creative at the end of it, not just quotations of what other people have said, which is so vain and useless.

37:06 We first say that in us there is conflict – the black against the white, anger against peace, and so on, greed against non-greed. I am greedy, which creates pain, and to be rid of that greed I must discipline myself, that is, resist any form of conflict which gives me pain, which I call greed. It is anti-social, it is unethical, it is not saintly, and so on and so on and so on; for various social, religious reasons we want to resist it. Is greed destroyed or put away from us through compulsion? 38:16 First let’s examine the process involved in suppression, in compulsion, in putting it away, resisting. What happens when you do that, when you resist greed? Who is the thing that is resisting greed? Isn’t it? That’s the question, first. Why do you resist greed, and who is the entity that says, ‘I must be free of greed’? The entity that says, ‘I must be free’ is also greed, is he not?

39:05 Because up to now greed has paid him, and now it is painful, therefore he says, ‘I must get rid of it’. The motive to get rid of it is still a process of greed, because he wants to be something which he is not. I don’t know… Because now non-greed is profitable so I’m pursuing non-greed, but the motive, the intention, is still to be something, to be non-greedy, which is still greed, surely; which is again a negative form of the emphasis of the me.

40:14 So being greedy, we find that it is painful, for various reasons which are obvious. As long as we enjoy it, as long as we are… it is paying us to be greedy, then there is no problem. Society encourages us in different ways, so do religions encourage us in different ways. As long as it is profitable, as long as it’s not painful, we pursue it. But the moment it becomes painful we want to resist it. The resistance is what we call discipline against greed. And are we free from greed through resistance, through sublimation, through suppression? Any act on the part of me who wants to be free from greed is still greed. Therefore any action, any response on my part towards greed is obviously not the solution.

41:49 First of all, I can see that there must be a quiet mind, undisturbed mind, to understand anything, especially something which I do not know, something which my mind cannot fathom – as the questioner says, God. To find that, to realize that, to understand that there must be a quiet mind, obviously. To understand anything, any intricate problem, mathematical, or relationship, or any problem, there must be a certain quiet depth to the mind. And is that quiet depth to the mind come through any form of compulsion? I may compel the superficial mind; it may compel itself and make itself quiet but surely such quietness is the quietness of decay, death. It is not capable of adaptability, pliability, sensitivity.

43:20 So resistance is not the way. Now, to see that requires intelligence, doesn’t it? To see that the mind is made dull by compulsion is already the beginning of intelligence, isn’t it? And to see that a discipline which is merely a conformity to a pattern of action through fear – because that is what is implied in disciplining ourselves, because we’re afraid not to get what we want. And so the mind, what happens when you discipline the mind, when you discipline your being? Surely it becomes very hard, doesn’t it, un-pliable, not quick, adjustable. Don’t you know people who have disciplined themselves, if there are such people? The result is obviously a sense of decay, an inward conflict which is put away, hidden away, but it is there burning.

45:13 So our question is then, our problem is seeing that discipline merely creates a habit, and a habit is not intelligence, merely resistance. Such a habit is obviously cannot be productive of intelligence. Habit never is; practice never is. You may be very clever with your fingers by practicing the piano all day, making something with your hands, but intelligence is demanded to direct the hand, and we are now inquiring into that intelligence.

47:14 You see somebody whom you consider happy or realized, and he does certain things, and you wanting that happiness imitate him. This imitation is called discipline, isn’t it? Because we imitate in order to receive what he has; we copy in order to be happy, which you think he has. Is happiness come through discipline? And by practicing certain rules, by practicing certain disciplines, mode of conduct, are you ever free? Surely there must be freedom for discovery, mustn’t there? If you discover anything, you must be free inwardly, which is an obvious fact. Are you free by shaping your mind in a particular action, 48:48 which we call discipline? Obviously you are not. You’re merely a repetitive machine, resisting according to a certain conclusion, according to a certain mode of conduct. So freedom cannot come through discipline. Freedom can only come into being with intelligence, and that intelligence can be awakened, or you have that intelligence the moment you see that any form of compulsion denies freedom, inwardly or outwardly.

49:42 So, the first requirement – not as a discipline – is obviously freedom. And virtue only gives that freedom. Greed is confusion, anger is confusion, bitterness is confusion. When you see that, obviously you are free of them; not that you are going to resist them but you see that only in freedom you can discover. And any form of compulsion is not freedom and therefore no discovery. Surely what virtue does is gives you freedom. The un-virtuous person is confused person. 50:54 And in confusion obviously you can never discover anything. How can you? So to see that, to see that virtue is not the end product of a discipline but that virtue is freedom which cannot come through any action which is not virtuous, which is not true to itself. And our difficulty is most of us have read so much, most of us have followed so many disciplines superficially: getting up every morning certain hour, sitting in certain posture, trying to hold our minds in a certain way – you know? – 51:55 practice, practice, discipline. Because we have been told if you do these things, you’ll get that; do these things for a number of years, you’ll have God at the end of it. I may put it crudely, but that’s what is the basis of our thinking. Surely, God doesn’t come so easily as all that. That’s a mere marketable thing: I do this and you give me that.

52:46 So since most of us are so conditioned by external influences, by religious doctrines, beliefs, and by our own demand, inward demand, to arrive at something, gain something, it has so conditioned each one of us that it is very difficult for us to think of this problem anew without going… thinking in terms of discipline. So first we must see very clearly the implications of discipline, how it narrows down the mind, limits the mind, compels the mind to a particular action, through our desire, through influence, and all the rest of it. And a conditioned mind, 53:49 however conditioned so-called virtuously, cannot possibly be free and therefore understand reality. And since God, reality, or what you will – the name doesn’t matter – can only come into being when there is freedom, and there is no freedom where there is compulsion, positively or negatively, through fear. There is no freedom if you are seeking an end; you are tied to that end. You may be free from the past but the future holds you, and that’s not freedom. And it is only in that freedom that one can discover anything – 55:05 a new idea, a new feeling, a new sense. And surely any form of discipline which is based on compulsion denies that freedom, whether political or religious. And since discipline – which is a conformity to an action with an end in view – is binding, the mind can never be free. It can only function within that groove, like a gramophone, like a record.

56:03 So through practice, through habit, through cultivation of a pattern the mind only achieves what it has in view, therefore it is not free, therefore it cannot realize that which is immeasurable. So to see, be aware of that whole process why the mind, why you are constantly disciplining yourself to public opinion, to certain saints – you know? – the whole business of conforming to opinion, which is of a saint or of the neighbour, is the same: to conform. To be aware of this whole conformity through practice, through subtle ways of submitting yourself, denying, asserting, suppressing, sublimating, all implying conformity to a pattern, seeing… being aware of that is already the beginning of freedom, from which there is virtue. Virtue, surely, is not the cultivation of a particular idea. 57:33 Non-greed – say, for instance – non-greed, if pursued as an end, is no longer virtue, is it? That is, if you are conscious that you are non-greedy, are you virtuous? And yet that’s what we are doing through discipline.

58:11 So discipline, conformity, practice, only gives emphasis to self-consciousness as being something, positive or negative, and therefore it’s not free from its own consciousness as being non-greedy, therefore it’s no longer non-greedy. It’s merely taken on a new cloak which it calls non-greed. If we see the total process of all this, the motivation, the desire for an end, the conformity to a pattern, the desire to be secure in pursuing a pattern – that is, moving from known to known, always within the limits of its own self-enclosing process – to see all that, to be aware of it is the beginning of intelligence. 59:14 And the intelligence doesn’t have to be virtuous or non-virtuous. It is not capable of being put into a pattern as virtue and not-virtue. Because intelligence brings freedom, not licentiousness, not disorder. And therefore, without this intelligence there can be no virtue. And virtue gives freedom, and in freedom there comes into being reality. If you see this whole process totally, in its entirety, then you will find there is no conflict. It is because we are in conflict and because we want to escape from that conflict, we turn to… resort to various forms of disciplines, denials and adjustments. 1:00:34 But when we see what is the process of conflict, then there is no question of discipline because we are then from moment to moment are understanding the ways of conflict. And that requires great alertness, watching yourself all the time. And the curious part of it is, though you may not be watchful all the time, there is a recording process going on inwardly once the intention is right. The sensitivity, the inner sensitivity is taking picture all the time so that the inner will project that picture at the moment when you are quiet.

1:01:37 So again there is not a question of discipline. Sensitivity can never come into being through compulsion. You try to compel a child to be something, put him in a corner; he will be quiet but inwardly probably seething, looking out of the window, doing something to get away. That’s what we are still doing. So the question of discipline, and who is right and who is wrong can be solved only by yourself because there is much more involved in this than what I’ve answered.

1:02:37 Because also, you see, we are afraid to go wrong because we want to be success. Fear is the bottom of this desire to be disciplined. And the unknown cannot be caught in the net of discipline. On the contrary, the unknown must have freedom, not the pattern of your mind. That’s why the tranquillity of the mind is essential. When a mind is conscious that it is tranquil, it is no longer tranquil. As when the mind is conscious that it is greedy or non-greedy, it’s not quiet. 1:03:51 It recognizes itself in the new robe as non-greed but that’s not tranquillity. That’s why one must understand in this question the problem of the person who controls and that which is controlled. Surely they are not separate phenomena but joint phenomena: the controller and the controlled are one. It’s a deception to think that they are two different processes, which we’ll discuss another time.

🢁