Krishnamurti - Is it possible to radically change ‘what is’?

OJ66T6 - Is it possible to radically change ‘what is’?
Ojai, California - 13 November 1966
Public Talk 6

0:00 This is J. Krishnamurti’s sixth public talk in Ojai, California, 1966.

0:08 Krishnamurti: I believe this is the last talk, and tomorrow afternoon at three o’ clock there’ll be a discussion, if it doesn’t rain.

0:39 It’s a lovely morning. The sunlight is clear on the mountains and the new grass is coming up and you see very clearly the beauty of the land. And when one looks at all this extraordinary beauty and colour and light, there is a joy, there is a sense of freedom. And naturally one asks what is beauty. Is it something that is the outcome of some stimulation, an appreciation of an object, of a movement of light among the leaves? And does it depend on one’s mood, on one’s education, on... or on one’s state of mind. I’ll wait till that noise is over. Is beauty awakened by an object, or is beauty something entirely different? 2:47 Is there a state of mind which is awakened to beauty without the object? For without that sense of beauty, not only physical but much more deeply psychological, inward – not the appreciation of a man-made thing or of nature – but is there beauty without object? Without these mountains, without the light, without that clarity which exists especially in California, is there beauty beyond all that? For without that sense of beauty, which can only come when the mind is completely at rest, quiet, undisturbed and is not provoked or induced by circumstances, by social environment and education.

4:28 And is that beauty personal? Is not beauty something that comes when there is freedom, total freedom? And without freedom obviously there is no peace.

5:06 Peace is not something that you buy or that state between two conflicts, outward and inward, but that comes when the mind is no longer harassed, no longer driven by any impulse, is not concerned with its own peculiar self-centred activity.

5:44 Then there is that freedom. And that freedom is very difficult to come by. And unless that freedom exists there is everlasting searching, asking questions, gathering information and knowledge and experience, piling up memory endlessly. And this search that one indulges in – searching for truth, searching for love, searching for companionship, searching for happiness, searching for something beyond all this, surely exists only when the mind is seeking, out of its immense dissatisfaction, satisfaction.

6:57 As we said, during these talks please listen not to the words – I hope you don’t mind (takes off coat) – not to the words or to the phrases or to the cunning thought cleverly developed, but rather listen to discover for yourself a state of mind that is no longer seeking, hunted, driven, perpetually after something. Unless one discovers that – a state where there is no longer search but intense aliveness, intense alertness, intense penetration of clarity – unless one discovers that, one is caught, not only in this deep discontent but also in this ever time-binding quality of seeking. 8:32 And as most of us right through the world are very, very disturbed and discontent. In the East it takes one form: first food, clothing and shelter, for there is immense poverty and overpopulation. In the West it takes the form of having been well-fed from womb to tomb, secure, greatly at ease with leisure, prosperity and being dissatisfied, wanting more prosperity, more things, more books, more amusement, but there is deeper discontent which is not satisfied by the external acquisitiveness.

9:48 Then one haunts, one pursues the inward acquisition, the inward mind that is demanding complete satisfaction from this endless discontent. And so we seek something that is enduring, satisfying, calling it by different names: God, truth, bliss, happiness – you know? – the things that one invents, the symbols that one has, the pictures, the paintings, the music, the museums, the endless forms of outward expression which will be satisfactory sexually, psychologically, intellectually. 10:52 That’s what most of us are seeking. And the search brought about by man through his deep inward discontent, dissatisfaction, frustration, despair, he’s always seeking and the very seeking brings about its own conclusion. We seek and find something in a sect, in a group, in a community, in social welfare, in politics, or in innumerable sects of religion: the Catholic, the Protestant – and I don’t how many there are in this little village.

12:14 The earth is broken up not only geographically, nationally, but also it’s broken up in the name of God, in the name of peace, in the name of love by various religions, by various sects with all their vested interest, exploiting people, and so on. And few find satisfaction in these manmade things: in books, going to concert after concert, talking endlessly about them, comparing who is the best musician, which is the best painter, and so on and on and on and on. Behind all this intellectual, literary, artistic, or going to the office endlessly for over thirty, forty years, the utter boredom of it all, and through all that everyone wants something to find that will be utterly, completely, wholly satisfactory and gratifying.

13:59 And religions throughout the world have offered this. They have offered gods, beliefs, dogmas, rituals, and in these there is great pleasure, there is great gratification. And having found that gratification we stay there, and we don’t want to be disturbed, we don’t want to be questioned. We have built a house which we hope will be permanent, lasting, and we are afraid of any storm, of any movement of life that’ll be disturbing, that’ll be destructive, that’ll be revolutionary. And this we call seeking reality, God, happiness, and so on.

15:24 So first one must understand this discontent. There is the obvious discontent of wanting a better car, a better house, and so on. We… that’s… we won’t even go into that. We’ll go into this question psychologically, which is much more vital, much more real, more penetrating. Why are we psychologically discontent? Because without finding out this discontent and ending it or giving it such vitality so that it is not dissatisfied in any way, a flame that burns without motive, without a purpose, but alive. 16:48 For without understanding discontent, the search has no meaning. And most of us, I presume, have come here this morning or go to church or anything because our life is so monotonous, so lonely, so utterly meaningless and we want to find something that’ll be deeply gratifying, deeply… that will bring about deep content. So it is important, it seems to me, to find out why we seek at all and what we are seeking and from what depth does this search come into being.

18:22 First of all, seeking is so utterly false, because the psychological process of it is very simple. I seek because I am dissatisfied, I’m confused and out of my confusion, out of my misery, out of my endless agony and suffering I’m seeking, seeking, seeking. What I’m seeking, really, is already predestined, is already established, is already found because I have projected what I want already, and therefore it’s no longer seeking. It is really a movement of escape from ‘what is’. And this movement towards what is already known is called seeking. Do please listen to this a little bit. This movement from ‘what is’ to ‘what should be’ or this movement of seeking is a movement which is essentially static. It’s not a movement at all. And yet we are caught in this. I join this and I don’t find satisfaction, discard it, and I go from one trap to another, to one teacher to another, one book, one system, one philosophy, one… psychologists, analysts, bishop – you know? – move, move, move, move, and this movement is what we call seeking. And if you look at that movement very closely, you haven’t moved at all. You are where you were and you’re always going to be there, only one deceives oneself, one hypnotises oneself by thinking that this movement of so-called seeking gives a certain vitality, certain inquiry, certain movement from ‘what is’ to what you want to discover, which is already fixed. So it is not a movement at all; it is static. What is a movement is ‘what is’. That you don’t have to seek. Am I making myself clear?

22:33 Q: Yes.

22:33 K: Good. Please do observe yourself. These words are merely a mirror to see what is actually… to see in that mirror what is actually taking place in yourself, otherwise what you hear will have little value. Otherwise it becomes merely an idea. Then you will interpret that idea and ask how it should be put into action. Whereas if one discovers the fact, ‘what is’ and the movement away from that which is what we call seeking is static, has no vitality, whereas if one is aware of ‘what is’, there is no seeking at all. Then the movement of ‘what is’ is entirely different. 24:01 Then the seeking comes to a complete end. Then you have the energy to look ‘what is’. Right?

24:25 So being discontent, being dissatisfied, unhappy, miserable, deeply wounded, deeply anxious, deeply driven by some personal anguish, which is a fact, which is ‘what is’, and being discontented with that, we go through all these processes of experiencing, of seeking, learning, putting it aside.

25:14 So why are we discontented and with what? Please answer that question to yourselves. I will… the speaker will go into it but you have to answer it for yourself. 25:47 We are discontented through comparison. We are discontented to bring about a change in ‘what is’. And we are discontented because we don’t know what to do with ‘what is’, and being discontented with ‘what is’, we develop the idea of ‘what should be’, the ideal, the utopia, the gods, the heaven, and so on and on and on.

26:58 So our action then is based on an idea and the approximation to that idea is action. Isn’t it? I am discontented with ‘what is’ and I want to be something different from ‘what is’, the idea, the idea being rational or irrational, thought put together as an idea or an ideal and I have that ideal and that… according to that ideal I live, which is called action. And there is conflict between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’, and in that conflict we are caught, and all our questions, demands, searching is that, between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’. 28:45 And the greater the tension between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’, the greater the neurosis, and also greater, if one has the capacity, to express that conflict verbally in the theatre, in music, in art, in so many ways, literature, and so on. And being discontent with ‘what is’, we invent gods, which becomes our religion. That is the escape we have from ‘what is’.

29:46 And is it possible to radically change ‘what is’? That is the real search, not the other. The other is no search at all. Is it possible to totally bring about a mutation in ‘what is’? And to bring… to go into that, to go into this question of bringing about a total revolution in ‘what is’, one must have an extraordinary sense of awareness – you know? – to be aware, what it means: to be aware of the trees, of the blue sky through the trees, of those hills beyond, of that noise of a motor, of the colours that are there in front... 31:17 first to be aware. And to be aware so choicelessly, you know very well that you can’t change it. You can’t change the mountains except with a bulldozer. You can’t change the beauty of that sky. But when we are aware of ‘what is’ we want to transform it, we want… we are endlessly active about it.

31:55 And there begins sorrow, because with the ending of sorrow is the beginning of wisdom. And the ending of sorrow is the understanding of ‘what is’. And the understanding of ‘what is’ can only come when you observe, when you are aware, when you… when the mind is incapable of wanting to change ‘what is’. Which doesn’t mean it is satisfied with ‘what is’. So one has freed the mind... or the mind has freed itself from this everlasting search. That’s finished. And that means a tremendous burden off of one’s shoulder. Then, being free, you can look. And to look you need great energy. 33:41 And that energy comes only when there is this awareness without conflict, this awareness in which there is no conflict of any kind, just observation. And there will be conflict only as long as there is the observer and the observed, which is ‘what is’. But ‘what is’ is the observer. Please don’t learn phrases, but see the actual fact. Then you will find that where there is the observer, the centre, the censor, the experiencer, the entity that is always creating the division between the observed and the observer, and as long as there is an observer there is no freedom.

35:25 You know, every object, like this microphone, creates a space round itself and is in space. Isn’t it? The object. And not only outwardly but an object inwardly as the me, as the experiencer, as the I, as the thinker, that centre creates a space in consciousness. This space in consciousness is always limited because there is always the centre. Right? One may expand this space from the centre, and however much you may expand, it will always have a border, a frontier, and therefore that space is always psychologically limited, and therefore there is no freedom in that space.

37:09 And that centre, that observer, is obviously memory, memory of what has been, whether of yesterday or a thousand years. That centre is the tradition, is the conditioned state which has been put together by time, both chronologically and psychologically. That centre is the accumulation of knowledge, experience. It’s always… that centre is always the past – you understand? – therefore that centre is not a living thing; it is a dead memory of what has been. 38:27 And when it creates a space, whether it’s very, very, very small around itself as most of us do, concerned with itself endlessly, its activities, its propositions, its ideas, it’s a shabby little thing round itself. And that can expand, but however much it may expand through various tricks of thought, of compulsion, of drugs, it is always within the space which the centre has created and therefore there is no freedom and therefore there is no peace at all.

39:26 And, when one observes, that only when there is space there is freedom. And that space cannot possibly exist psychologically as long as there is an observer. Right? And one must have space as one must have beauty, beauty which is not manmade or nature, which is not stimulated, which is not the product of thought, as love. And without that space and having no freedom man is everlastingly seeking, searching, wanting, hoping, and thereby living in endless sorrow and misery. This is a fact. You can observe it psychologically if you watch, see yourself in a mirror as in a psychological mirror, if you observe very, very, very closely, this is what’s going on.

41:25 And so one asks oneself: is it possible to end that centre? Not through time – you understand? – not through gradually getting rid of it, which is, through time, chipping away little by little by little till there is no... that involves time. When there is time there is no space. Time is between the observer and that thing which he observes, that interval is time and that interval is always static. Oh, come on. And is it possible then, if there is no time at all, to end ‘what is’, to end the observer and therefore to look without the interval of time? You understand the question? You know, time is the space between the observer and that tree. The observer is static and the tree is static, psychologically, and so to cover the distance between the observer and the tree takes time, the distance. And the distance, and the… which has been created by the observer and the observed is always static, is always stationary. So when one thinks of using time or allowing time to bring about a change in the observer, you are only being caught in the static state. So when you discover that, then you ask: is it possible to change instantly ‘what is’? You understand my...?

44:44 Q: Yes.

44:44 K: Please, sir, we are using the word ‘understand’, not verbally, not intellectually, but actually see what is taking place step by step.

45:03 So one asks: is it possible to end the observer who creates a space around himself, and the object and the movement towards that object to change it... whatever it is, is static and therefore utterly useless? And then how does one bring about a revolution in ‘what is’? The centre is violence. I’m taking that as an example. I don’t… it isn’t really example; it’s a fact. One is violent. That’s a fact. And the movement towards non-violence is static movement, is no movement at all. 46:18 And I explained that previously. So our question is then: is it possible to end violence, not through time but immediately? Because if there is no… if there is the observer, he’s always limiting the space and therefore there is no freedom, therefore as long as the observer exists, every form of attempt to transcend it, to go beyond it, is still a waste of time. So our question then is: is it possible to end the observer? Not ‘what is’. When there is no observer, there is no ‘what is’. It is the observer that creates ‘what is’. So how is it possible to end the violence, aggression and all the rest of it, the immense hatred that one has stored up, resentment? How is it possible to end it so that one is completely, totally free of it? Probably one has never asked this question. Either one has said it... one puts up with it, gets used to it and carries on. But when… if one puts that question, either you put it casually or you put it with intention to find out, therefore you become very serious. And when you put that question because you’re serious, because you’re intent, then you’re aware of the whole process of the observer, which means you are totally attentive – you understand? – completely attentive, and in that attention there is no border created by the centre. And when there is complete attention there is no observer.

49:35 Look, when you look at those mountains behind the speaker, their blue, the straight line and the valley, and so on, when you give your complete attention to look, is there an observer? The observer comes into being only when in that look there is inattention, which is distraction. So only total attention brings about the cessation of the observer. And when there is this ending of the observer there is the ending of the thing which he has created as ‘what is’, because, as we said, the observer is the observed. 51:02 Right. Now, we have in this way eliminated all conflict of search. We have eliminated all conflict between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’. We have put away the observer and therefore there is... attention may last a second. That’s good enough. Don’t be greedy to have more. In that greed to have more you’ve already created the centre and then you’re caught. In that attention there is no seeking at all and therefore there is no effort, so the mind becomes extraordinarily alert, active, silent. It is not the silence brought about 52:24 through conformity, suppression, control. That’s not silence at all. It is not a state which is the result of some absorption in something, like a boy… like a child being absorbed by a toy. And then only one can… then only is it… then only can the mind be in a state of no experience.

53:21 And this is important to understand. We all depend on experience. Experience being to go through something. We all depend on experience to keep us awake: a challenge, a question, an external impetus, influence, to keep us awake. Naturally, for the moment, that challenge, that external force keeps awake for a few minutes and one goes back to sleep. So one depends constantly on experience to keep awake. And when one realises that, you reject all outward stimulus, all outward or inward experience. Then one can ask: can the mind 54:34 – I’m making it very quick because I must go through it – can the mind be so intensely alert without experience? And if it is made alert through experience, it is not alert, obviously. If an experience makes me love, then it’s not love; behind it there is a motive. So such a mind is the religious mind, no longer seeking, no longer demanding experiences. It’s not caught in visions. And such a mind has an activity totally different, at a different dimension, which thought can never possibly reach. 56:09 Thought has a place, a very small place. But when one realises that, thought has no place at all. Which doesn’t mean you live on ugly little sentiments, emotions. So, one can function normally, healthily, sanely in this world with a mind that is not cluttered up by thought. And it’s only such a mind, the religious mind, that can know something beyond all the imaginations and structure of man’s hope.

57:26 Do we ask any questions?

57:32 Q: You speak often of beauty in nature. Would you speak a little, please, of beauty in human relationship?

57:37 K: Would you speak of beauty in human relationship – you have often spoken of the beauty of nature, and so on – of beauty in relationship. What is relationship? Relationship is between the two images – I must be quick otherwise... – between the image that I have about you and you have about me. That is what… the images have relationship. You have hurt me, you have wounded me, you have dominated me, I’ve had pleasure, this and that. That is the image and equally you have an image about me and these two images are constantly meeting, and that we call relationship. In that there is no beauty, obviously. And to be free of that image is to be free of the observer, and so on.

58:50 Q: If you become aware of ‘what is’ and beyond that, it would seem that one could also... human emotions even though he was aware of ‘what is’, and... these human emotions should not be avoided.

59:19 K: I don’t know quite what you mean, sir, by saying ‘human emotions’. Human emotions are aggression, which is part of the animal emotion. You mean to say you shouldn’t avoid aggression, violence?

59:44 Q: Yes. As they are a part of an animal or of a child so they are a part of the human being.

59:50 K: Therefore they should not be avoided?

1:00:02 Q: Yes.

1:00:02 K: Yes. You know, sirs, there is no end to talking, to words, to attending meetings and reading. But attending meetings, reading, discussing, has very little value. If attending meetings, discussions and all the rest of it is merely a stimulus then you are dependent, as people are dependent on LSD, on music, on pictures, on doing something. And as long as one is dependent one is in conflict, one is in despair. And one has to come, not through reading, to discover the whole process of knowing oneself. For the knowing of oneself is the beginning and the end of all misery.

🢁