OJ49T8 - Experiencing the state of immortality without ideation
Ojai, California - 7 August 1949
Public Talk 8
0:01 | This is J. Krishnamurti’s 8th public talk in Ojai, California, 1949. |
0:09 | Krishnamurti: I’m sure many of you believe in immortality, the soul or the atman and so on, and perhaps some of you have had a passing experience of these things, but I would like, if I may this morning, to approach it from a different point of view. |
0:40 | And before I do that, to understand it, please do not brush it aside. |
0:50 | Let us go into it very seriously and earnestly and discover the truth of it, not according to any particular pattern of belief or religious dogma, or your own personal experience, however vast and however beautiful and romantic it may be. |
1:17 | So please examine what we are going to discuss intelligently, without any prejudice, with the intention to find out rather than to reject it or to defend, because it’s quite a difficult problem to discuss. |
1:46 | The implications are many, and if one can think of it anew, perhaps we shall have a different approach to action and to life. |
2:12 | We seem to think that ideas are very important. |
2:19 | Our minds are filled with ideas. |
2:27 | Our mind is idea. There is no mind without idea, without thought, without verbalization. And ideas play an extraordinarily important part in our lives - what we think, what we feel, the beliefs and ideas in which we are conditioned. |
2:56 | And ideas have an extraordinary significance with most of us, ideas which seem coherent, intelligent and logical, and also ideas that are romantic, stupid, without much significance. |
3:27 | We are crowded - our whole structure is on ideas. |
3:40 | And these ideas come into being, obviously, through outside, external influences, environmental conditioning as well as inward demands. |
4:03 | And we can see very well how ideas come into being, because ideas are sensations. |
4:16 | There is no idea without sensation. |
4:24 | As most of us are sentient beings, our whole structure is based on sensation; and being limited or seeking expansion through sensation, ideas become very important - ideas in God, ideas in morality, ideas in various forms of social organization and so on and so on. |
5:04 | So ideas shape our experience, which is an obvious fact, which means ideas condition our action. |
5:22 | Not that action creates ideas, but ideas create action: first we think it out and then act, and the action based on ideas. |
5:40 | So experience is the outcome of idea. |
5:52 | And experience is different from experiencing. |
6:03 | In the state of experiencing, if you have noticed at all, there is no ideation at all. |
6:15 | There is merely an experiencing, acting; later on comes the ideation derived from that experience of like and dislike, to have that experience continued or not continued, to go back to the experience in memory, which is, this demand for sensation of that experience, not experiencing anew. |
6:48 | Surely there is a difference between experiencing and experience, and that should be made fairly clear. |
7:07 | Experiencing is in which there is no experiencer and the experience; there is only a state of experiencing. |
7:23 | And after experiencing, the sensations of that experiencing is demanded, is longed for, and out of that desire arises idea. |
7:37 | Say, for example, you have had an experience, pleasurable, and it’s over, and you’re longing for it, which is, you are longing for the sensation, not the state of experiencing. |
8:07 | And sensation creates ideas, based on pleasure and pain, avoidance and acceptance, denial or continuum. |
8:24 | Now, if ideas are not basically important, because one sees ideas have continuum - you may die, but the ideas that you have had, the bundle of ideas which you are, they have a continuance, either partially or wholly, either fully manifested or little, but they have a form of continuance, obviously. |
9:17 | So if ideas are the result of sensation - which they are - of which our mind is filled, of which the mind is, then there is a continuance of the mind as a bundle of ideas. |
9:50 | But that surely is not immortality, because ideas are merely the result of sensations of pleasure and not-pleasure, and immortality must be something which is beyond ideas, upon which the mind cannot possibly speculate, because it can only speculate in terms of pleasure and pain, avoidance or acceptance. |
10:30 | As it can only think in those terms, however extensively, however deeply, it is still based on idea. |
10:41 | And though idea has continuance, and that which continues is obviously not immortality. |
11:02 | So to know or to experience immortality, or the experiencing of that state, there must be no ideation. |
11:21 | One cannot think about immortality. |
11:28 | And if one can be free of ideation, that is, if we do not think in terms of ideas, which means, live in the state of experiencing only, then one goes… then there is a state in which ideation has stopped altogether. |
12:07 | You can experiment with this yourself and not accept what I’m saying, because there is a great deal involved in this; which means the mind must be entirely quiet, neither a movement backward or forward, or delving in or soaring, which means, ideation must entirely cease. |
12:41 | And that’s extremely difficult. And that’s why we cling to words like the soul, immortality, continuance, God - they’ve all neurological effects, and which are sensations, and on these sensations the mind feeds. |
13:06 | And deprive the mind of these things, it’s lost, so it holds on with greater strength to experiences which are sensation, to past experiences which have now become sensation. |
13:34 | And is it possible for the mind to be so quiet, not partially but in its totality, to have direct experience of that which is not thinkable, which cannot be put into words? |
14:53 | Because for that which continues is obviously within the limits of time, and through time the timeless is not possible, and therefore God, or what you will, cannot be thought of. |
15:25 | If you think of it, then it’s merely an idea, a sensation, therefore it’s no longer truth, therefore it’s merely an idea which has a continuance, which is inherited or conditioned. |
15:42 | And such an idea is not eternal, immortal, timeless. If we can really feel this, see the truth of it as we discuss it, not say, ‘This is so’, or ‘This is not so; I believe in immortality and you don’t; I’m agnostic and you are godly.’ All such expressions are immature, thoughtless, they have no significance. |
16:12 | Because what we are dealing with something which is not merely an opinion of like or dislike, of prejudice, because we’re trying to find out what is immortality; not as religious people or belong to some particular cult and all that rubbish, but to know that thing, to be aware of it, because in that is creation. |
17:00 | And when once there is the experiencing of that, then the whole problem of life undergoes a significant change; there is a revolutionary change. |
17:14 | And without that all these squabbles and petty opinions have really no significance at all. |
17:25 | So if one is aware of this total process, of how ideas come into being, how action springs from ideas, and how ideas control action, and therefore limit action, depending on sensation - ideas; it doesn’t matter whose they are, from the left or from the extreme right, as long as we cling to ideas, then we are merely in a state in which there can be no experiencing at all, then we’re only living in the field of time as the past which gives further sensation, or the future, which is another form of sensation. |
18:37 | It is only when the mind is free from idea there can be experiencing. |
18:47 | Just think it out; merely listen to this without resistance. |
18:56 | Don’t reject it or accept it; listen to it as you would listen to the wind in the tree. |
19:04 | You don’t object to the wind in the tree - it’s pleasant. |
19:11 | Or if you dislike it, go away. Do the same thing - don’t resist it; just find out. |
19:26 | Because this question of immortality, so many people have expressed their opinions - the great religious teachers and every other preacher on the corner; so many saints, so many writers either deny or assert that there is no immortality, that man is merely the outcome of environmental influences and so on and so on - so many opinions. |
20:06 | Opinions are not truth; and truth is something that must be experienced directly from moment to moment, not an experience which you want, which then is merely sensation. |
20:31 | And it is only when the bundle of ideas which is the me, which is the mind, which has a partial or a complete continuance, it’s only when one can go beyond that - that means, when thought is completely silent - then only is there a state of experiencing, then one shall know what truth is. |
21:18 | 1ST QUESTION: How is one to know, recognize, or feel unmistakably the reality, the exact and immutable significance of an experience which is true? |
21:40 | Whenever I feel I have a realization, I feel that to be it, but someone to whom I communicate it would tell me I’m merely self-deluded. |
21:55 | Whenever I think I have understood, someone is there to tell me I’m in illusion. |
22:02 | Is there a way of knowing what is the truth about myself, without illusionment, self-deception? How is one to know, recognize, or feel unmistakably the reality, the exact and immutable significance of an experience which is true? |
22:22 | Whenever I feel I have a realization, I feel that to be it, but someone to whom I communicate it would tell me I’m merely self-deluded. |
22:35 | Whenever I think I have understood, someone is there to tell me I’m in illusion. |
22:43 | Is there a way of knowing what is the truth about myself, without illusionment, self-deception? |
22:52 | Any form of identification must lead to illusion. |
22:59 | There is the psychiatric illusion and the psychological illusion. |
23:10 | The psychiatric illusion we know what to do with: when one thinks one is Napoleon, or a great saint, you know what to do. |
23:30 | But the psychological identification and illusion is quite different. |
23:39 | The political, religious person identifies himself with the country or with God. |
23:47 | He is the country, and if he has a talent, then he is a nightmare to the rest of the world, either pacifically or violently. |
24:10 | Then there are the various forms of identification: identification with authority, with the country, with an idea; identification with a belief which makes one do all kinds of things; with an ideology for which you are willing to sacrifice everybody, and yourself and your country, and everything in order to achieve what you want; the identification with a utopia which makes you force others to a particular pattern. |
24:57 | And then there is the identification of the actor, playing different roles, and as most of us are in that position of acting, posing - deliberately, or consciously, or unconsciously. |
25:26 | Our difficulty is not to identify with the country, with the politician, with the propaganda, with the belief, with the idea, with an ideology, with the leader - that’s one kind of identification. |
25:45 | Then there is the identification with our own experiences. I have had an experience, a thrilling thing, and the more I dwell on it, the more intense, the more romantic, the more sentimental, the more blurred it becomes. |
26:10 | And to which I give the name of God and - you know? - the innumerable ways of self-deception. |
26:17 | Surely illusion arises when I cling to something. |
26:30 | If I have an experience - and because it is over, it’s finished - and if I go back to it, I’m in illusion. |
26:44 | If I want something repeated and hold to that repetition of an experience, it’s bound to lead me to an illusion. |
26:55 | So the basis of illusion is identification, either of the politician, of the religious person, to an image, or to a God, to a voice; or like a lot of us who have experiences to which we cling ardently. |
27:16 | It is not to the experience we cling but to the sensation of that experience which we had at the moment of experiencing. |
27:41 | And a man who has built around himself various methods of identification and with which he is identified, he is living in illusion. |
27:54 | A man who believes, because it is a sensation, it is an idea, and clings to that, he is bound to be in illusion, in self-deception, therefore any experience about oneself to which you go back, or reject it, is bound to lead to illusion. |
28:27 | Whereas if you experience and understand it and not hold to it. |
28:36 | This desire to possess is the basis of illusion, self-deception - to think oneself to be something. |
29:02 | And this desire to be something must be understood in order to understand the process of illusion, self-deception. |
29:14 | And then if I think I shall be the great teacher, great master, the Buddha, X, Y, Z, next life or I am that now and hold on to that, surely I must be in illusion, because I live on a sensation which is an idea. |
29:36 | And my mind feeds on ideas, whether false or true. |
29:43 | And how is one to know oneself at the given moment if it is true? |
29:53 | That’s part of the question. Why do you want to know if it is true? |
30:05 | A fact is a fact, it’s not true or false. |
30:13 | It’s only that I want to translate that fact according to my sensation, to my ideation, then I enter into delusion. |
30:26 | When I am angry, it’s a fact, there is no question of self-deception. |
30:34 | When I am lustful, when I am greedy, when I am irritated, it’s a fact. |
30:45 | Only when I begin to justify it, find explanations for it - which is translated according to my prejudice, in my favour, or avoid it - then I have to find out, then I have to say, ‘What is true?’ That is, the moment we approach a fact emotionally, sentimentally, with ideation, then we enter into the world of illusion and self-deceit. |
31:22 | But to look at a fact requires an extraordinary watchfulness, to be free of all this, to look at something. |
31:29 | Therefore it’s more important to find out for oneself, not if one is in illusion or self-deception but to be free from the desire to identify, from the desire to have a sensation which you call experience repeated, from possessing or reverting to an experience. |
32:03 | After all, from moment to moment you can know yourself as you are, factually, not through the screen of ideation, which is sensation. |
32:21 | To know oneself there is no necessity to know the truth or not the truth. |
32:29 | To look at yourself in the mirror and say that one is ugly or beautiful, factually, not romantically, does not demand truth. |
32:39 | But the difficulty with most of us is what we see, the image or the feeling or the expression, we want to do something about it, we want to alter it, give it a different name; we want to identify with it. |
32:57 | If it is pleasurable, the more identification; if it is painful we avoid it. In this process lies surely self-deception, with which you are somewhat familiar. |
33:19 | The politicians do that; when the priests talk of God in the name of religion; when we ourselves are caught up in the sensation of ideas and hold to them, that this is true, this is false, the masters exist or don’t exist, which is all so absurd and immature and childish. |
33:50 | But to find out what is factual one needs an extraordinary alertness, an awareness in which there is neither condemnation nor justification. |
34:11 | So one can say that one deceives oneself, and there is illusionment when there is identification with the country, with a belief, with an idea, with a person and so on. |
34:39 | When there is the desire to repeat an experience, which is the sensation of the experience - when one goes back to childhood and wants the repetition of that experience of childhood, the delight, the nearness, the sensitivity; or when one wants to be something, it is extremely difficult not to be deceived, either through oneself or deceived by another. |
35:24 | And deception ceases only when there is no desire to be something. |
35:34 | Then the mind is capable of looking at things as they are, taking significance of what is. |
35:53 | Then there is no battle between the false and the true; then there is no search for truth apart from the false. |
36:04 | So the important thing is to understand the process of the mind. |
36:17 | And without understanding that which is factual, not theoretical, not sentimental, romantic, going into dark rooms and thinking it all out, having images, visions - all that has nothing to do with reality. |
36:39 | And as most of us are sentimental, romantic, seeking sensation, we are caught by ideas. |
36:53 | And ideas are not what is. So the mind that is free of ideas, which are sensations, such a mind is free from illusion. |
37:10 | 2ND QUESTION: Experience shows that understanding arises only when argumentation and conflict cease and a kind of tranquillity or intellectual sympathy is realized. |
37:31 | This is true even in the understanding of mathematical or technical problems. However, this tranquillity has only been experienced after every effort, analysis, examination, experimentation and so on has been made. |
37:49 | Does this mean that this effort is a necessary, though not sufficient, preliminary to the tranquillity? |
38:03 | Experience shows that understanding arises only when argumentation and conflict cease and a kind of tranquillity or intellectual sympathy is realized. |
38:12 | This is true even in the understanding of mathematical or technical problems. However, this tranquillity has only been experienced after every effort, analysis, examination, experimentation and so on has been made. |
38:28 | Does this mean that this effort is a necessary, though not sufficient, preliminary to the tranquillity? |
38:39 | K: I hope you have understood the question. |
38:48 | The questioner, to put it briefly, says, ‘Is not effort, digging in, analyzing, examining, necessary before the tranquillity of the mind? |
39:04 | Before the mind can understand, is not effort necessary?’ That is, is not technique necessary before creativeness? |
39:32 | If I have a problem, must I not go into it, think it out fully, search it out, analyze it, dissect it, worry over it, and be free from it? |
39:55 | Then when the mind is quiet, then the answer is found. This is the process we go through. We have a problem, we think about it, we question it, we talk it over, and then the mind becoming weary of it, is quiet. |
40:17 | Then the answer is found, unknowingly. With that process we are familiar. And the questioner says, is that not necessary first? |
40:48 | Why do I go through that process? Don’t let us put this question wrongly, whether it is necessary or not, but why do I go through that process? |
41:02 | I go through that process, obviously, in order to find an answer. My anxiety is to find an answer, isn’t it? |
41:16 | That fear of not finding an answer makes me do all these things, and then after going through this process I’m exhausted and say, ‘I can’t answer it,’ then the mind becomes quiet; then there is an answer, sometimes, or always. |
41:30 | So the question is not ‘Is the preliminary process necessary?’ but ‘Why do I go through that process?’ Obviously because I’m seeking an answer. |
41:51 | I am not interested in the problem but how to get away from the problem. |
42:00 | I am not seeking the understanding of the problem but the answer to the problem. |
42:10 | Surely there is a difference, isn’t there, because the answer is in the problem, not away from the problem. |
42:27 | I go through this searching, analyzing, dissecting process in order to escape from the problem. |
42:35 | But if I do not escape from the problem, and try to look at the problem without any fear or anxiety, and not look to an answer -mathematical or any other, political or religious - merely look at the problem, then the problem will begin to tell you. |
43:04 | Surely this is what we do. We go through this process and eventually throw it aside because there is no way out of it. |
43:22 | So why can’t we start right from the beginning, which is, not to seek an answer to a problem, which is extremely arduous, isn’t it? |
43:44 | Because the more I understand the problem, the more significance there is in it. |
43:54 | To understand it I must approach it quietly, not impose on the problem my ideas, my feelings of like and dislike, then the problem will reveal its significance. |
44:22 | That is, why is it not possible to have the tranquillity of the mind right from the beginning? |
44:33 | And there will be tranquillity only when I’m not seeking or afraid of the problem. |
44:40 | So our difficulty is the fear involved in the problem. |
44:57 | So when we put the question whether it is necessary or not, one receives a false answer. |
45:06 | But if one can look at it differently, which is, a problem demands attention, not distraction through fear. |
45:27 | And there is no attention when we are seeking an answer, away from the answer, answer that will suit us, that will be preferable, that will give us satisfaction or avoidance. |
45:46 | In other words, if we can approach the problem without any of these then it is possible to understand the problem. |
46:00 | So the importance is not whether we should go through this process of analyzing, examining, dissecting, whether it is necessary in order to have tranquillity. |
46:17 | Tranquillity comes into being when we are not afraid, and because we are afraid of the problem, of the issue of the problem, we are caught in the desires of our own pursuits, pursuits of our own desires. |
46:52 | 3RD QUESTION: I no longer suppress my thoughts, and I am shocked by what sometimes arises. |
47:07 | Can I be as bad as that? (Laughter) I no longer suppress my thoughts, and I am shocked by what sometimes arises. |
47:24 | Can I be as bad as that? |
47:29 | K: It is good to be shocked, isn’t it? |
47:48 | Shock implies sensitivity, doesn’t it? But if you are not shocked, if you merely say, ‘There is a certain thing which I do not like. |
48:06 | I’m going to discipline it, change it,’ then you are shock-proof, are you not? |
48:13 | (Laughter) K: No, please don’t laugh it away, because most of us want to be shock-proof; we do not want to know what we are, and that’s why we have learned to suppress, to discipline, to destroy the neighbour and ourselves, for our country and ourselves. |
48:39 | We don’t want to know everything as we are, as somebody else is. |
48:47 | So to discover oneself as one is is a shocking thing, and it should be. |
48:57 | Because we want it to be different; we like to think ourselves, picture ourselves, as being beautiful or noble, or this or that, which is all a resistance. |
49:15 | Our virtue has become merely resistance, and therefore it’s no longer virtue. But to be sensitive to what one is requires a certain spontaneity, and in that spontaneity one discovers. |
49:37 | But if you have suppressed, disciplined your thoughts, feelings so completely that there is no spontaneity, then there is no possibility of discovering anything. |
49:49 | And I am not at all sure that is not what most of us want: to become inwardly dead; it’s easier to live that way. |
50:03 | To give ourselves to an idea, to a belief, to an organization, to service, and God knows what else, and function automatically. |
50:15 | It’s much easier. But to be sensitive, to be aware inwardly to all the possibilities is much too dangerous, much too painful. |
50:37 | And we use a respectable way of dulling ourselves, an approved way of discipline, of suppression, sublimation, denial - you know? - the various ways which make us dull, insensitive. |
50:58 | Now, when one discovers what one is - which, as the questioner says, bad - what will you do with it? |
51:12 | Before you have suppressed and therefore never discovered; now you no longer suppress and you discover that’s what you are. |
51:20 | Then what is the next response? Surely that’s much more important: how you deal with it, how you approach it. |
51:34 | Then what happens when you discover that’s what you are, so-called bad? |
51:41 | What do you do? Moment you discover, your mind is already at work on it, isn’t it? |
51:57 | Haven’t you noticed it? I discover that I am mean. It’s a shock to me. What do I do? The mind then says, ‘I mustn’t be mean,’ so it cultivates generosity. |
52:21 | Generosity of the hand is one thing, and generosity of the heart is another. |
52:30 | The cultivation of generosity is of the hand, and you cannot cultivate generosity of the heart. |
52:40 | If you do cultivate the generosity of the heart, then you fill the heart with the things of the mind. |
52:57 | So what do we do when we discover certain things, that I’m not generous? Watch yourselves, please, don’t wait for my answer, my explanation. Look at it and experience it as we go along together. |
53:15 | Not this is a psychological class, but surely in listening to something like this, we must experience and be free as we go along, not continue day after day in the stupid stuff. |
53:32 | So what do we do? |
53:39 | The instinctive response is either to justify or to deny, which is to make ourselves insensitive. |
53:49 | But to see it as it is, that I am mean, and stop there, not give explanation. |
54:01 | Merely to know that one is mean is an extraordinary thing. |
54:12 | Which means there is no verbalization, no naming even of that feeling which one holds: mean. |
54:20 | If one really stops there, puts a full stop there, then you will see there is an extraordinary transformation, then one is aware extensively of the implications of that feeling; then you don’t have to do a thing with regard to that feeling. |
54:52 | Because when you don’t name a thing, it withers away. You experiment with it and you’ll find out what extraordinary quality of awareness comes into being when you are not naming or justifying but merely looking; silent observation of that fact that you are not generous or that you are mean. |
55:21 | I’m only using that word generous, mean for communication. |
55:30 | The word is not the thing, so don’t be carried away by the word but look at the thing. |
55:41 | Surely it is important to discover what one is, and to be surprised, shocked, to discover what one is, when one thought one was so marvellous. |
56:00 | That’s all romantic and idiotic and stupid to think one is this. |
56:11 | So when one puts all that aside and merely looks at what is, which needs an extraordinary alertness, not courage, no virtue, then when you no longer suppress it, which means, justify it, condemn it, or give a name to it, then you will see there is a transformation. |
56:43 | 4TH QUESTION: What is it that determines the duration between the perception of one’s thought-feeling and the modification or complete permanent disappearance of the condition perceived? |
57:04 | In other words, what is it that certain undesirable conditions in oneself do not vanish as soon as they are observed? |
57:20 | What is it that determines the duration between the perception of one’s thought-feeling and the modification or complete permanent disappearance of the condition perceived? |
57:31 | In other words, what is it that certain undesirable conditions in oneself do not vanish as soon as they are observed? |
57:51 | Surely, that depends on right attention, doesn’t it? |
58:07 | When one perceives an undesirable quality - I’m using these words merely to communicate; I’m not giving it any significance - you perceive it, and there is an interval of time before there is transformation; and the questioner wants to know why. |
58:47 | Surely the interval between perception and change depends on attention. |
58:55 | Is there an attention if I am merely resisting that? |
59:05 | If I am condemning it or justifying it, surely there is no attention; I’m merely avoiding it. |
59:17 | If I am trying to overcome it, discipline it, change it, that is not attention, is it? |
59:28 | There is attention only when I am really fully interested in the thing itself, not how to transform it. |
59:40 | Then I’m merely avoiding, being distracted, running away. |
59:50 | So what is important is not what takes place but to have that capacity of right attention when one discovers an undesirable thing. |
1:00:09 | And there is no right attention if there is any form of identification, of pleasure, or displeasure. |
1:00:25 | Surely that’s very clear. The moment I am distracted by my pleasure, of wanting it or not wanting it, there is no attention. |
1:00:41 | If that is very clear, then the problem is simple. Then there is no interval. But we like the interval; we like to go through all this rigmarole of labyrinthine ways to avoid the thing which we have to tackle. |
1:01:12 | And we have cultivated marvellously and sedulously the escapes. And the escapes have become more important than the thing itself. And to see the escapes - not verbally but actually see that one is doing that - then there is right attention. |
1:01:36 | You don’t have to struggle against the escapes. When you see a poisonous thing, you don’t have to escape. It’s a poisonous thing and you leave it alone. Similarly, this question of right attention becomes important when the problem is really great; when the shock is intense then there is immediate response. |
1:02:08 | But when the shock is not, when the problem is not - and we take care not to make any problem too great - then our minds are made dull, weary. |
1:02:28 | 5TH QUESTION: Is the artist, the musician, engaged in a futile thing? |
1:02:45 | I’m not speaking of one who takes up art or music but of the born artist whose inherent nature is that, as is the true scientist or the man of religion. |
1:03:02 | Sometimes you speak slightingly of the arts, at others you speak of music or painting to illustrate what you are saying. |
1:03:17 | Would you go into this? Is the artist, the musician, engaged in a futile thing? I’m not speaking of one who takes up art or music but of the born artist whose inherent nature is that, as is the true scientist or the man of religion. |
1:03:42 | Sometimes you speak slightingly of the arts, at others you speak of music or painting to illustrate what you are saying. |
1:03:51 | Would you go into this? It is a very complicated problem, so let’s go into it slowly, as all other problems. |
1:04:11 | As the questioner says, there are two types of people: those who are inherently artists, and those who take up art or music. |
1:04:31 | Those who take up, obviously, either do it for sensation, for upliftment, for various forms of escape, merely take it up as an amusement, as an addiction. |
1:04:52 | You might take that up as one takes up drink, or any other -ism or religious dogmas, and so on; perhaps less harmful because you are by yourself. |
1:05:12 | Then there is the other type which is the artist - if there is such a person. Inherently, for itself, he paints, music, and all the rest of it, as the science. |
1:05:33 | Now, what happens to that person? |
1:05:42 | You must know such people. |
1:05:50 | What is happening to him as an individual, as a social entity also, because there is no such thing as isolation? |
1:06:12 | He is a social entity. What is happening to such a person? The danger, is there not, for all those people who have capacity, gift, is that they think they are superior, first of all; they think they are the salt of the earth; they are people specially chosen and above. |
1:06:48 | And with that feeling of apartness, of chosen, all the evils come: they are anti-social, individualistic, aggressive, extraordinarily self-centred, like all gifted people. |
1:07:12 | So gift and capacity is a danger, is it not? |
1:07:22 | Not that one can avoid the gift or the capacity, but one must be aware of the implications, the dangers of it. |
1:07:34 | And besides, they may come together in the laboratory or gathering of musicians and artists, but they’ve always this barrier between others, have they not? |
1:07:50 | You are the layman and I’m the specialist, the man who knows more and the man who knows less, and all the identification that goes with it. |
1:08:08 | I’m not speaking slightingly of anybody because that would be too stupid, but one must be aware of all these things. |
1:08:25 | To point them out is not to abuse somebody or deride somebody. |
1:08:34 | Few of us are inherently artists, first of all. We like to play with it because it’s profitable or gives a certain éclat, a certain show, certain verbal expressions which we have learnt. |
1:09:05 | It gives us a place, a position. |
1:09:13 | And if we are artists, really, genuinely, is that, surely, the quality of sensitivity, not of isolation. |
1:09:24 | Art does not belong to any particular country or to any particular person, but the artist soon makes his gift into the personal: he painted it; it’s his work, his poem. |
1:09:43 | It puffs him up, like the rest of us, and therefore he becomes anti-social; he is more important. |
1:10:08 | And as most of us are not in that position, fortunately or unfortunately, most of us use music or art as merely sensation. |
1:10:25 | We may have a quick experience when we hear something lovely, but the repetition of that thing over and over and over again soon dulls us. |
1:10:39 | It’s merely the sensation we indulge in. |
1:10:46 | And if we do not indulge in that, then beauty has quite a different significance; then we approach it anew every time. |
1:10:56 | And it is this approach anew every time to something - whether ugly or beautiful - that is important, which is being sensitive. |
1:11:10 | And you cannot be sensitive if you are captured by your own addiction or capacity, by your own delight, by your own sensation. |
1:11:26 | Surely that is the really creative person that comes to things anew, not merely repeats what the radio announcer has told you, or the critic. |
1:11:45 | So the difficulty in this is to keep that sensitivity all the time alert, whether you are an artist or merely playing with art. |
1:12:08 | And that sensitivity is dulled when you give importance to yourself as the artist. |
1:12:15 | You may have vision, and you may have capacity to put that vision into paint, into marble, into words, but the moment you identify yourself with it, you are lost, it is finished. |
1:12:33 | You lose that sensitivity. And the world loves to praise you, what a marvellous artist you are, and you like that, and then you’re lost. |
1:12:49 | And for most of us who are not great artists inherently, our difficulty is not to get lost in sensation, because sensations dull. |
1:13:13 | Through sensations you cannot experience. Experiencing comes only when there is direct relationship with it. And there is no direct relationship when there is the screen of sensation, of desire to be, or to alter it, or to want it to continue. |
1:13:40 | So our problem is to keep alert and sensitive, and that is denied when you are merely seeking sensation and the repetition of sensation. |