Public Talk 5, Madras, 19 January 1952

V Talk by Sri J. Krishnamurthy at Vasantha Vihar, Madras on 19.1.’52

We have been discussing the last few times that we have met the importance of understanding the ways of the self because after all the most thoughtful people must be aware of that the self, the ‘me’, the ‘I’ is really the cause of all our mischief and all our misery. I think the most thoughtful people are aware of it and one can see that most religious organisations theorise and vag6uely insist upon it. How essential it is that the ‘me’, the self should be completely abandoned. We had read in the books about the abandonment of the self. If we are at all religiously inclined we have various phrases about it all; we may repeat mantras and all the rest of it. But in spite of all this, our own perception and vague comprehensions about the self still continue in a very subtle way or in the grossest manner and I think if it were at all easy we must be sure and must understand the various expressions of it and see if we cannot completely eradicate it because I feel without understanding the whole complexity of the self we can’t proceed further whether the self is divided into the high and the low which is irrelevant and which is only a matter of the mind which eventually divides it as a means of its own security. Unless we understand the whole complex process there is no possibility of peace in the world. We know this; we are aware of this fact consciously or unconsciously but yet in our everyday life it does not have any part. We do not bring it into reality and what we have been discussing is this: how are we to recognise the various activities of the self and its subtle forms behind which the mind takes shelter. We see the self, its activity and its action based on an idea. Action based on an idea is a form of the self because it gives continuity to that action, a purpose to that action. So, idea in action becomes the means of continuing the self. If the idea was not there, action has a different meaning altogether which is not borne of the self. That is what we are saying. The search for power, position, authority, ambition and all the rest take the form of the self in all its different ways. But what is important is to understand the self and I am sure you and I are convinced of it. If I may add here, let us be earnest about this matter because I feel if you and I as individuals, not as a group of people belonging to certain classes, certain societies, certain climatic divisions, can understand this and act upon this then I think there will be real revolution because the moment it becomes universal and better organised, the self takes shelter in that whereas if you and I as individuals can love, can carry this out actually in action in everyday life then the revolution that is so essential will come into being not because you organised it through by the coming together of various groups but because individually there is revolution taking place all the time. I would like to discuss this evening how experience strengthens the self. Now we want to go into this problem of love. We know those extraordinary moments when the self is not there; You know what I mean by the self? By that I mean the idea, the memory, the conclusions, the experience, the various forms, nameable and unnameable intentions, the conscious endeavour to be or not to be and the accumulated memory of the unconscious, the racial, the group, the individual, the clan and the whole of it all whether it is projected outwardly in action or projected spiritually as virtue. The striving after all this is the self. In it is included the competition, the desire to be. The whole process of that is the self and we know actually when we are faced with it, that it is evil thing. I am using the word ‘evil’ intentionally because the self is dividing. It is self-enclosing; its activities, however noble, are separated and isolated. We know all this and we also know that extraordinary are the moments when the self is not there in which there is no sense of endeavour, of effort. It seems to me that it is important to understand how experience strengthens the self and if we are earnest we should go into that. We should understand this problem of experience. Now what do we mean by experience? What is experience? We have experiences all the time, impressions, and we translate those impressions and we are reacting to that or acting according to those impressions; we are calculated, cunning and so on. There is the constant interplay between what is seen objectively and reacting to it and the interplay between the unconscious and the memories of the unconscious. Do not please summarise all this. Watch, if I may suggest, watch your own minds and activities taking place as I am talking and you will see I have not memorised all this. I am just talking as it is happening. According to my memories I react to whatever I see, to whatever I feel. In this process of reacting to what I see, what I feel, what I know, what I believe, experience is taking place. Is it not? Reaction to the response of something seen is experience. When I see you I react; the reaction is experience. The naming of that reaction is experience. If I do not name that reaction it is not an experience. Please do watch it. Watch your own responses and what is taking place about you. There is no experience unless there is a naming process going on at the same time. If I do not recognise you how can I have experience? It sounds simple and right. Is it not a fact? That is, if I do not react to you according to my memories, according to my condition, according to my prejudices, how can I know that I have had an experience? That is one type of it. Is it not? Then there is the projection of various desires. I desire to be protected, to have security inwardly or I desire to have a master, a guru, a teacher, a God and I experience that which I have projected. That is I have projected a desire which has taken a form, to which I have given a name. To that I react. It is my projection. It is my naming. That desire which gives me an experience makes me say: ‘I have got’, ‘I have experienced’, ‘I have met the master’ or ‘I have not met the master’. You know the whole process of naming an experience. Desire is what you call experience. Is it not? When I desire silence of the mind what is taking place? What happens? I see the importance of having a silent mind, a quiet mind, for various reasons because Upanishads have said so, religious scriptures have said so, saints have said it and also occasionally I myself feel how good it is to be quiet because my mind is so much chatty all the day. I at times feel how nice, how pleasurable it is to have a peaceful mind, a silent mind. The desire to have a silent mind is to experience silence. I want to have a silent mind and so I ask you ‘How to get it?’ I know this book or that books says: ‘Meditation and the various forms of discipline’. I want a silent mind through discipline and I experience silence. The self, the ‘me’ has established itself in the experience of silence. Am I making myself clear? I want to understand what is truth. That is my desire, my longing and what happens? My longing, my desire, projection of what I consider to be the truth, because I have read lots about it; I have heard many people talk about it; religious scriptures have described it. I want all that. The very want, the very desire is projected and I experience that projection because I recognise that state. If I do not recognise that state, that act, that truth, I would not call it truth. I recognise it and I experience it. That experience gives the strength to the self, to the ‘me’ Does it not? So, the self becomes entrenched in experience. Then you say ‘I know’, ‘the master exists’, ‘there is God’, or ‘there is no God’; you say that you want a particular political system to come because that is right and all others are not. So experience is always strengthening the ‘me’. The more you are strengthened the more entrenched in your experience you are with the result that you have a certain strength of character; strength of knowledge, of belief, which you put over across to other people because you know they are not so clever as you are and you have a gift of the pen and you are cunning. But the self is still acting and therefore your belief, your masters, your caste or economic systems are a process of isolation. They therefore bring contention and we must, if you we are at all serious or earnest in this, dissolve this completely and not justify it. That is why we must understand the process of experience. Is it possible for the mind, for the self not to project, not to desire, not to experience, because we see all experiences of the self are a negation, a destruction and yet we call it a positive action. Do not we? That is what we call positive way of life. To undo this whole process is what you call negation. Are you right in that? Therefore you are seeing, completely destroying. There is nothing positive and can we, you and I as individuals go to the root of it and understand the process of the self? Now that is the element that dissolves it? What brings about dissolution of the self? We have said that religious and other groups have explained it by identification. Have they not? Identify yourself with a larger and the self disappears. That is what they say. We say here that identification is still the process of self; the larger is simply the projection of the ‘me’ which I experience and which therefore strengthens the ‘me’. I wonder if you are following me. Various forms of discipline, beliefs and knowledge only strengthen the self. Can we find an element which will dissolve the self? Or, is that a wrong question? That is what we want basically. I want to find something which will dissolve the ‘me’. Is it not? There are various forms of finding that. Identification, belief, all of them are at the same level. One is not superior to the other because all of them are equally powerful in strengthening the self, ‘the me’. I see the ‘me’ wherever it functions and I see its destructive forces and energy. Whatever name you may give to it, it is an isolating force, it is a destructive force and I want to find a way of dissolving it. You must have asked this yourself. I see the ‘I’ functioning all the time and always bringing anxiety, fear, frustration, despair, misery, not only to myself, to all around me. Is it possible for that self to be dissolved not partially but completely? Can we go to the root of it and destroy it. That is the only way of functioning. Is it not? I do not want to be partially intelligent but want to be office work and people are intelligent in different ways; but we are not integrally intelligent. To be integrally intelligent means to be without the self. Is it possible? If I pursue that action what is your response? This is not a discussion and therefore please do not answer but be aware of that action. The implications which I have tried to point out must produce a reaction in you. What is your response? Is it possible for the self now to be completely absent? You know it is possible. Now, how is it possible? What are the necessary ingredients, requirements? What is the element that brings it about? Can I find it? Are you following me, sirs? When I put that question ‘Can I find it?’ surely I am convinced that it is possible. I have already created an experience in which the self is going to be strengthened. Is it not? Understanding of the self requires a great deal of intelligence, great deal of watchfulness, alertness, watching ceaselessly so that it does not slip away. I, who am very earnest, want to dissolve the self. When I say that I know it is possible to dissolve the self. Please be patient because the moment I say I want to dissolve this, in the very dissolution of that is the experiencing of the self and so the self is strengthened. Are you following? So, how is it possible for the self not to experience? One can see all creation is not the experience of the self. Creation is when the self is not there, because creation is not intellectual, is not of the mind, is not self-projected, is something beyond all experiencing, as we know. Is it possible for the mind to be so still, not in a state of non-recognition which is non-experiencing, in which creation can take place, which means the self is not there, is absent. Am I making myself clear or not? Look, sirs, the problem is this. Is it not? Any movement of the mind, positive or negative, is an experience which actually strengthens the ‘me’. That is clear. Is that not? Is it possible for the mind not to recognise? That can only take place when there is complete silence, not the silence which is an experience of the self and therefore strengthens the self. Is there an entity apart from the self which looks at the self and dissolves the self? Are you following all this? Is there a spiritual entity which supersedes the self and destroys it, puts it aside? We think there is. Don’t we? Most religious people think there is such an element. The materialist says it is impossible for the self to be destroyed; it can only be conditioned and restrained, politically, economically and socially; we can hold it firmly within a certain pattern and we can break it and therefore it will lead a high life, moral life and not interfere with everything but will follow the social pattern and the functions merely as a machine. That we know. There are other people, the so-called religious ones and they are not really religious though we call them so. These people say fundamentally there is such an element. If we can get into touch with it, it will dissolve the self.

[This section ends here in the original typescript and is continued on the next page. WS-07]

Is there such an element? We see what we are doing. We are merely forcing the self into a corner. I hope you are following all this. If you allow yourself to be forced into the corner you will see what is going to happen. We would like that there should be an element which is timed, which is not of the self, which we hope will come and intercede and destroy which we call true God. Now is there such a thing which the mind can conceive? There may be or there may not be, that is not the point. When the mind seeks a timeless spiritual state which will go into action in order to destroy the self, is that not another form of experience which is strengthening the me? When you believe, is that not what is actually taking place? When you believe that there is true God, timeless state, immortality, when you believe that, is that not what the process is going on? That thing which you have, feel, believe, will come and destroy the self. So having projected this idea in a timeless state as spiritual entity you are going to experience, and experience will strengthen the self and therefore what have you done? You have not really destroyed the self, but only given it a different name, different quality. Still the self is there because you have experienced it. So our action from the beginning to the end is the same action. Only we think it is evolving, growing, becoming more and more beautiful, but if you observe inwardly, it is the same action going on, the same me functioning at different levels with different labels, with different names. But it is the same me.

So what happens? Please follow this slowly. You will see what happens. When you see the whole process, cunning, extraordinary inventions, intelligence of the self, how it covers itself up through identification, through virtue, through experience, through belief, through knowledge, you are moving in a circle in a cage of its own make, that is what happens. When you are aware of it, fully cognisant of it, then is not your mind very quiet, not through compulsion, not through any reward, not through any fear, is not your mind extraordinarily quiet? Because you recognise every movement as merely a form of strengthening the self, not only recognise it, but observe it, see it, in action completely to be aware of it; when you come to that point, not ideologically, verbally, not through experiencing but are actually in that state, then you will see that the mind being utterly still has now power of creating. Whatever the mind creates is in a circle within the field of the self. When the mind is non-creating that is creation, which is not a recognisable process. The crux or truth is not to be recognised. So belief, knowledge, experiencing, virtue, pursuit of virtue, which is different from being virtuous, all this must go, must they not? Because the virtuous, who is conscious of pursuing the virtue can never find reality. He may be a very decent person; that is entirely different from the man of truth, from the man who understands; to him truth has come into being. A virtuous man is a righteous man, and a righteous man can never understand what is truth, because virtue to him is covering of the self, strengthening of the self, because he is pursuing virtue. When he says ‘I must be without greed’, the state in which he is non-greedy, which he experiences strengthens the self. That is why it is so important to be poor, not experiencing many things of the world, poor in belief and in knowledge. Therefore, a rich man, with worldly riches or a rich man in knowledge and belief, will never know anything but darkness and will be the centre of all mischief and misery. But if you as an individual and I can see this whole working of the self, then we shall know what love is. And I assure you that is the only reformation that can possibly change the world. And love is not the self. Self cannot recognise love. You may say I love but then the very saying of it in the very experiencing of it, love is not, but when you know love self is not. When there is love self is not.

Q: What is simplicity. Does it imply seeing very clearly the essentials and discarding everything else?

A: Let us see what simplicity is not. Don’t say that is negation. You do not say anything positive; that is immature, thoughtless expression. Those people who say it are exploiters. Because they have something to give you which you want, through which to exploit you. We are doing nothing of that kind. We are trying to find out the truth of simplicity. Therefore you must discard, observe, put things aside. The man who has much is afraid of revolution inwardly and outwardly. So let us find out what is not simplicity. A complicated mind is not simple, is it? A clever mind is not simple; a mind that has an end in view for which it is working as reward, as punishment, is not a simple mind, is it? So don’t agree with me. It is not question of agreement. It is your life. A mind that is burdened with knowledge is not a simple mind; a mind that is crippled with beliefs is not a simple mind, is it? A mind that has identified itself with something greater, and is striving to keep that identity is not a simple mind, is it? But we think it is a simple life we have a loin cloth, one or two; we want outward show of simplicity, and we are easily deceived by that. That is why a man who is very rich worships the man who has renounced. So what is simplicity? Can simplicity be discarding of non-essentials and pursuing of essentials, which means choice, does it not? Please follow this.

Does not it mean choice, choosing? I choose essentials and discard non-essentials. What is this process of choosing? Think deeply. What is the entity that chooses, — mind is not it, though it does not matter what you call it. You say ‘I will choose this essential’. How do you know that is the essential? Either you have a pattern of what other people have said or your own experience says that is the essential. Can you rely on your experience, because when you choose, your choice is based on desire. So when you choose is that essential? What you call essential is that which gives you satisfaction. So you are back again in the same process, are you not? Can a confused mind choose? If it does, the choice must be confused.

Therefore choice between essential and non-essential is not simplicity. It is a conflict. A mind in conflict, in confusion can never be simple. So when you discard, when you see all the false things of the tricks of the mind, observe it, look at it, be aware of it, then you will know what simplicity is. So a mind which is bound by belief is never a simple mind. A mind that is crippled with knowledge is not simple. A mind that is distracted by God, by women, by music is not a simple mind. A mind caught in the routine of the office, of the rituals, of the mantras, such a mind is not simple. That is why what is simplicity is action without idea. But that is a very rare thing. That means creation and as long as there is not creation we are centres of mischief and misery and destruction. And simplicity is not a thing which you pursue and experience. Simplicity comes as a flower opens at the right moment when each one understands the whole process of existence and relationship. And because we have not thought about it, observed it, be aware of it, we taken on the forms of

….we take all forms of simplicity, shaving our heads, clothing or unclothing in a certain way. Those are not simplicity. Simplicity is not to be found; simplicity does not lie between essential and non-essential. It comes into being when the self is not, when the self is not caught in speculations, in conclusions, in beliefs, in ideations. Such a mind can only find truth. Such a mind alone can receive that which is immeasurable, which is unnameable and that is simplicity.

Q: Can I who am religious inclined, and desirous of acting wholly and integrally, can I express myself through politics, for to me it appears that a radical change is necessary in the political field?

A: That is, seeking wholly, that is what the questioner means, seeking religiously the whole, entire, complete, can I politicall function, that is, act partially, because he says politics is obviously the path. He does say so, sorry, I am saying. To seek that which is not the path, try to understand that which is not the whole, complete, can that entity function in fields which are partial, fragmentary, that is the question, is that not? What is your answer, not your cunning answer, or immediate response, can I seeing the whole thing of life which means can I love? Let us take love. I have compassion. I feel, not merely feel, but tremendously and the whole, can I politically act for power, for a particular power. Or am I misunderstanding the question? Can I seeking the whole, be a Hindu or a Brahmin. Can I having love in my heart identify myself with a path, with a particular country, with a particular system, economic, or religious, I want to improve the particular, I want to bring about a radical change in the particular, in the country in which I live, but the moment

I identify myself with that particular, have I not shut out the whole? Please do not answer me. This is your problem just as mine. We think about it together. You are not listening me. Your opinions and ideas when we are trying to find an answer are not solution. What we are trying to find is, can a truly religious man, not a phoney one that consults others, but a really sacred person seeking the whole, can he identify himself with a radical movement for a particular country? And is revolution — don’t be afraid of that word –, is revolution of one country, of one people, of one state, if I am seeking the whole, if I am trying to find understand that which is not within the scope of the mind, can I using my mind act politically, because I see there must be political action; I see there must be real change, radical change in our relationship in our economic system, in the distribution of land and son. I see there must be revolution and yet at the same time I am pursuing, I am trying to understand the whole. What is my action there? Is not that your problem sirs? Can you act politically that is, partially, because, politics and economics are partial. They are not the whole, integrated part of life. They are partial, necessary, essential, and can I abandon the whole or leave the whole society, and tinker with the particular. Obviously I cannot. But I can act upon it, not through it.

See this. We want to bring a certain change. We have certain ideas about it. And we pursue so many groups and so on. We use means to achieve the result. And is the understanding of the whole contrary to that. Am I confusing you? Because it is not a simple question, yes or no. I am only telling you what I think and do not accept it, but think it out for yourself and see.

For me political action, economic action is of secondary importance. They are essential, there must be radical change, but radical change will have no depths if I do not pursue the other. If the other is not primary, if the other is secondary then my action towards the secondary will have tremendous significance. But if I see certain path and act politically then I am putting that question wrongly, because to you political action is important. But political action, religious action, economic action, will come rightly, deeply, fundamental when I am pursuing the other. If I do not pursue the other but merely confine myself to the radical change, politically, economically and socially, then I create more misery. So it all depends on what you lay emphasis, but laying emphasis on the right thing which is the whole, will produce its own action with regard to politics and so on. It all depends on you. In pursuing that whole thing, to say I am going to act politically or socially, you will act in the pursuit of that which will bring fundamental alterations politically, religiously and economically. What is important in this question is what is that you are seeking. What is the primary issue in your life, though really there is not division between primary and secondary, but yet in seeking, you will find when you begin to understand the whole, that is not secondary or primary, find the whole is the path, alter that path without understanding the whole, then the path becomes the whole. If there is love, which is a tremendous revolution in itself, then the problem of power is of very little importance. It does not enter one state. With what we are trying to act politically, economically, think deep, revolution will alter the whole thing. Obviously it will not. It is shown historically, it is not. But to know, to be aware of the whole process of self, dissolve it and love will then bring about fundamental revolution in India.