Krishnamurti Subtitles
|
OJ49T3 - If we had no belief what would happen to us?
|
| 0:00 This is J. Krishnamurti’s third public talk in Ojai, California, 1949. |
| 0:11 Krishnamurti: We were discussing last Sunday and Saturday the importance of self-knowledge. Because as I explained, I do not see how we have any foundation for right thinking without self-knowledge; how any action, however inclusive, however collective or individual they might… it might be, there is no possibility of a harmonious and true action without knowing fully oneself. Without knowing oneself, there is no possibility of really searching out what is true, what is significant, what are the right values in life. Without self-knowledge we cannot go beyond the self-projected illusions of the mind. 1:31 Without self-knowledge, as we explained, in which is implied not only the action of relationship between the individual and another individual but also the action of relationship with society cannot bring about a complete, harmonious society without this knowledge. And so it is really very important and significant that one should know oneself as completely and as fully as possible. And is this knowledge possible? Can one know oneself integrally, not partially, the total process of oneself? |
| 2:39 Because, as I said, without knowing one has no basis for thinking; one gets caught in illusions, political, religious, social illusions; they are limitless, endless. And is it possible to know oneself? And how is it possible to know? What are the means, what are the ways, what are the processes? I think to find out what are the ways, one must find out first, mustn’t one, what are the impediments. And by studying what we take as important in life, which we have accepted: the values, the standards, the beliefs, the innumerable things that we have accepted and do accept, and by examining them, perhaps we shall find out the ways of our own thinking and thereby know ourselves. That is, by understanding the things that we accept and revaluing them, 4:03 questioning them, going into them, in that very process we shall know the ways of our own thinking, our own responses, our reactions. And through them we shall know ourselves as we are. Surely, that’s the only way we can find out the way of our thinking, the responses; only by studying, going into fully, into the values, into the standards, into the beliefs that we have accepted for generations. And seeing behind these values, we shall know how we respond, what are our reactions to them, and thereby perhaps we shall be able to uncover the ways of our own thinking. 5:06 In other words, to know oneself, surely, is to study the responses, the reactions that one has in relation to something. One cannot know oneself through isolation. That’s an obvious fact. And it’s only in relationship that one can know oneself as one is. |
| 5:36 So perhaps by studying the things that we have accepted, by going into them fully, not superficially, then perhaps we shall be able to understand ourselves. |
| 5:57 Now, one of the things that seems to me that most of us so eagerly accept and take for granted is the question of belief. I’m not attacking beliefs. What we are trying to do this evening is to find out why the mind, why we accept beliefs. And by perhaps understanding the motives, the causation of acceptance, then we may be able to not only understand why we do it but also be free of them. Because one can see obviously how political beliefs and religious beliefs, national, and various types of beliefs, do separate people, do… does create conflict, confusion, and antagonism, which is an obvious fact, and yet we are unwilling to give them up. There are the Hindu beliefs, the Christian beliefs 7:10 and the Buddhist and innumerable sectarian, national beliefs, various political ideologies, all contending with each other, trying to convert each other. And obviously one can see that belief is separating people, creating intolerance. And is it possible to live without belief? One can only find that out if one can study oneself in relationship to a belief. Is it possible to live in this world without a belief? Not change beliefs, not substitute one belief for another, but to be entirely free from all beliefs so that you meet life anew each minute, which is, after all, the truth, to have the capacity of meeting everything anew, without the past conditioning reaction, from moment to moment, so that there is not the cumulative effect which acts as a barrier between oneself and that which is. |
| 9:04 Obviously, most of us accept or take on beliefs because, first, there is fear; because we feel that without a belief we should be lost. Then we use belief as a means of conduct, as a pattern according to which we direct our lives. And also we think that through belief there can be a collective action. |
| 9:55 So in other words, for action we think belief is necessary. And is that so? Is belief necessary for action? That is, is belief, being an idea, is ideation necessary for action? Which comes first, an idea or an action? |
| 10:50 Surely, action then either is pleasurable or painful, and according to that we build up various theories and then from that proceed to act. Therefore action comes first, surely, does it not, or invariably. And when there is fear, when there is the desire to collect many in order to act, then the ideation comes in. Now, if one considers this, you will see that the desire to accept a belief, as I said, one of the reasons is fear. Because if we had no belief, what would happen to us? 11:58 Wouldn’t we be very frightened of what is going to happen? If we had no pattern of action based on a belief, either in God, or in communism, or in socialism, or in imperialism, or in some kind of religious formula, dogma, in which we are conditioned, we’d feel utterly lost, wouldn’t we? |
| 12:33 And is not this acceptance of a belief the covering up of that fear, the fear to be really nothing, to be empty? After all, a cup is only useful when it’s empty. And a mind that is filled with beliefs, with dogmas, with assertions, with quotations, is really uncreative mind; it’s merely a repetitive mind. And to escape from that fear, that fear of emptiness, that fear of loneliness, that fear of stagnation, not arriving, not succeeding, not achieving, not being something, not becoming something, is surely one of the reasons, is it not, why we accept so eagerly and greedily beliefs. 13:47 And through acceptance of beliefs do we understand ourselves? On the contrary, a belief, religious or political, obviously hinders the understanding of ourselves. Then it acts as a screen through which you are looking at yourself. |
| 14:20 And can we look at ourselves without beliefs? If you remove those beliefs, the many beliefs that one has, is there anything to look at? And if you have no beliefs with which the mind has not identified itself, and therefore the mind without identification is capable of looking at itself as it is, then there surely is the beginning of understanding of oneself. And if one is afraid, if there is fear which is covered over by a belief, and in understanding beliefs one comes face to face with fear without the screen of belief, is it not possible to be free from that reaction of fear? That is, to know one is afraid and staying there without any escape. |
| 15:56 To be with ‘what is’ is surely much more significant, much more worthwhile than to escape from ‘what is’ through a belief. So one begins to see that there are various forms of escape from oneself, from one’s own emptiness, from one’s own poverty of being, such as knowledge, such as amusement, various forms of addictions and distractions, learned and stupid, clever and not worthwhile; and we are surrounded by these; we are them. And if the mind can see the significance of the thing to which it has held, then perhaps we shall be face to face with what we are, as we are, whatever it is. And I think moment we are capable of doing that then there is a real transformation. |
| 17:31 Because then there is no question of fear, because fear only exists in relationship to something, when there is you and something else to which you are related. And when you dislike that thing to which you are related and try to avoid it, then there is fear. But when you are that very thing, then there is no question of avoidance. A fact gives only fear when you bring an emotional reaction to it; but a fact, when faced as it is, there is no fear. And when what we call ‘fear’ is no longer named but only looked at, without giving it a term, then again, surely, there takes place a revolution: there is no longer that sense of avoidance or acceptance. |
| 18:58 So in understanding belief – not superficially – but why the mind attaches itself to various forms of beliefs, why beliefs have become so significant in our lives: belief about death, about life, what happens after, if there is God, if there is no God, if there is reality, if there is no reality, various political beliefs – are they not all indicative of our own sense of inward poverty? And do they not reveal a process of escaping or act as a defence? And in studying our beliefs do we not begin to know ourselves as we are, not only at the upper levels of our minds, of our consciousness, but deeper down? And so the more one studies oneself 20:44 in relationship to something else as belief, the more the mind becomes quiet, without this false regimentation, without compulsion. The more it knows itself, the more quiet it is, obviously. The more you know something, the more you are familiar with it, and the more the mind becomes quiet. And it is only when the mind is really quiet, not made quiet, there is… surely there is a vast difference between a mind that is made quiet and a mind that is quiet. You can compel a mind by circumstances, by various disciplines, tricks and so on, to make it quiet, but that’s not quiet, that’s not peaceful. That’s death. 21:50 But a mind that is quiet because it understands the various forms of fears and because it understands itself, such a mind is creative, such a mind is renewing itself constantly. It’s only the mind that’s self-enclosed by its own fears and beliefs that stagnates. But a mind that understands its relationship to the values about it, not imposing a standard of value but understanding it, surely such a mind becomes quiet, is quiet. |
| 22:40 It’s not a question of becoming. It’s only then, surely, that it’s capable of perceiving what is real from moment to moment. Reality is, surely, not something at the end, an end result of accumulative action. Reality is to be perceived only from moment to moment, and it can be perceived only when there is not the accumulative effect of the past on the moment. |
| 23:26 QUESTION: ‘Our mind knows only the known. What is it in us that drives us to find the unknown, reality, or God?’ |
| 23:55 K: Does your mind urge for the unknown? Is there an urge in us for the unknown, for reality, for God? Please, seriously think about it. This is not a rhetorical question, but actually let’s find out. Are you really… is there an inward urge in each one of us to find the unknown? Is there? How can you find the unknown? If you do not know it, how can you find it? Please, I’m not being clever. Don’t brush it off that way. 25:04 How can I, if there is an urge for reality, know what reality is, even if it is there right in front of my nose? So is there an urge, or is there only a desire for the known expanded? Do you understand what I mean? I have known many things; they haven’t given me happiness, satisfaction, a joy, so I want something else that will give me greater joy, greater happiness, greater hope, greater vitality, what you will. |
| 26:00 And can the known, which is my mind – because my mind is the known, the result of the known, the result of the past – can that mind seek the unknown? If I do not know reality, the unknown, how can I search for it? Surely it must come; I can’t go after it. If I go after it, I’m going after something which is the known, projected from me. So my problem is not what it is in us that drives us to find the unknown. That is clear enough what it is: our own desire to be more secure, more permanent, more established, more happy, to escape from this turmoil, from this pain, confusion. 27:19 Surely that’s our obvious drive. And when there is that drive, that urge, you will find it; you’ll find a marvellous escape, marvellous refuge: in the Buddha, in the Christ, or in political slogans, and all the rest of it. But, surely, that is not reality; that’s not the unknowable, the unknown, therefore the urge for the unknown must come to an end, which means the search for the unknown must stop; which means there must be the understanding of the cumulative known, which is the mind. The mind must understand itself as the known, because that’s all it knows. You cannot think about something that you do not know. 28:42 You can only think about something that you know. And our difficulty is for the mind not to proceed in the known, and that can only happen when the mind understands itself, how all its movement is from the past, projecting itself through the present to the future. It’s one movement of the known. |
| 29:32 And can that movement come to an end? And it can come to an end only when the mechanism of its own process is understood. When the mind understands itself and its workings, its ways, its purposes, its pursuits, its demands; not only superficial demands but the inward, deep urges and motives, which is quite an arduous task; it isn’t just one meeting, or one lecture, or one book you are going to find out. On the contrary, it needs constant watchfulness, constant awareness, of every movement of thought, not only when you are waking but also when one is asleep. 30:39 It must be a total process, not a sporadic, partial process, and therefore the intention must be right. That is, there must be clarification of the superstition that there is a search for the unknown, that inwardly we all want the unknown. That’s an impossibility that we are all seeking God; we’re not. |
| 31:27 We don’t have to search for light. There will be light when there is no darkness. And through darkness you cannot find the light. All that one can do is to remove those barriers that create darkness. And the removal depends on the intention; if you are removing in order to see light, then you’re not removing it, you’re only substituting the word ‘light’ for ‘darkness’. Even to look beyond the darkness is an escape from darkness. |
| 32:17 So we have to consider not what it is that is driving us, but why there is in us such confusion, such turmoil, such strife and antagonism, all the stupid things of our existence. When that is not, then there is light; you don’t have to look for it. When stupidity is gone, there is intelligence. But the man who is stupid, trying to become intelligent, is still stupid. Surely stupidity can never be made wisdom. When only stupidity ceases, then there is wisdom, intelligence. But the man who is stupid tries to become intelligent, wise, obviously can never be. But to know what is stupidity, to go into it fully, 33:36 not just superficially, completely, deeply, profoundly, and all the different layers of stupidity; and when there is the cessation of that, then there is wisdom. So what is important is not to find out if there is something more, something greater than the known which is urging us to the unknown but to see what it is that is creating in us confusion: the wars, the class differences, the snobbism, the pursuit of the famous, the accumulation of knowledge, the escape through music, through art, through so many multifarious ways that we are doing – and to see them as they are and to come back to ourselves, and to be as we are, to recognize as we are. 35:04 Surely, from then we can proceed. Then the throwing off of the known is comparatively easy. Only when the mind is quiet – which is, when the mind is no longer projecting itself into the future, into the tomorrow, wishing something – only when the mind is really quiet, peaceful, profoundly not superficially, then the unknown comes into being. You don’t have to search for it; you cannot invite it. That which you can invite is only that which you know. You cannot invite an unknown guest; you can only invite one whom you know. But you do not know the unknown, 36:21 God, or reality, or what you will. It must come. It can only come when the field is right, when the soil is tilled, but if we till in order for it to come, then you will not have it. |
| 36:57 So our problem is not to seek the unknowable but to understand the accumulative process of the mind which is ever with the known. And that is arduous task, that demands attention, that demands an awareness that’s constant, in which there is no sense of distraction, of identification or condemnation, but the acceptance, but being with ‘what is’. Then only can the mind be still. No amount of meditation, discipline, can make the mind still – in the real sense of that word. Only when the breezes stop does the lake become quiet. You cannot make the lake quiet. So our job is not to pursue the unknowable but to understand the confusion, the turmoil, the misery, in ourselves. And then that thing darkly comes into being, in which there is joy. |
