Public Talk 6, Ojai, California, 17 August 1952

Ojai, Oak Grove Talk VI

Sunday, August 17, 1952

10:30 a.m.

We are so accustomed, I think, to the idea that struggle is inevitable, and that through struggle we shall come to understanding, and we shall have peace, we shall have the realization of something beyond the mere problems which evoke conflict. It seems to me it is important to understand this question of struggle, the conflict within and without; and to find out whether it is necessary, whether it is necessary to creative understanding and to the release of human happiness. Though we accept it as an integral part of our daily existence, our social contacts, our inward, psychological problems, we think this struggle is essential, and without struggle, conflict, we shall stagnate. There is the fear of stagnation, of being nothing, destroying ourselves if there was not effort, if there was not struggle towards an object, towards a goal, towards an end; and there is the fear that, if we do not struggle, if we have no inward strain, stresses, the ultimate happiness is not attainable. So we accept struggle as part of life, and through struggle we think we can bring about a radical change in ourselves psychologically. Let’s find out if we can, this morning, if struggle is necessary, contributes to understanding and enlightenment and human happiness.

We see struggle is necessary in certain directions, at certain levels: struggle with the earth, struggle in resolving certain problems. At certain levels of thought, of existence, struggle seems to be necessary; and we carry on that struggle to the psychological realm; and it is there we have to find out whether this acquisitive survival of the “me” contributes to the human welfare, to one’s own happiness and to the creation of a peaceful society. It’s a complex problem, isn’t it? This question of struggle in relationship. And because we have accepted it for centuries as inevitable, it is very difficult to put it aside and examine it, and to go into it deeply, and to see the validity, the depth or the significance of it fully. If we can, let us try this morning and see how far it is valid, and where struggle must end, this conflict to understand the further reaches of the human heart.

Why do we struggle — psychologically I’m talking about, inwardly? Why do we struggle? Either to conform, or to express certain feelings, or having a problem which through struggle we hope to resolve. We struggle in order to conform to a pattern of action; we struggle in order to achieve a continuity in action, a continuity of the “me” as an entity to survive, to be. Now, this struggle, this conflict to conform expresses itself, does it not? in belief, in the ideal. We project the ideal, and strive to conform to that ideal, to adjust ourselves toward that ideal; and thereby we hope, through struggle, through conflict, through adjustment to that ideal and belief, that we shall be improved, that we shall be more happy, more kind, and so on. So, we create a pattern of action through the desire to achieve a certain result, and thereby we establish the habit of constant struggle inwardly, psychologically, between the various layers of one’s consciousness. And we struggle with problems, personal or the collective. We have problems, we struggle with them, examine them, analyze them, go into this as fully, as widely as possible, and thereby we hope to resolve that problem. And we struggle with the trivialities of our mind in order to banish them, to put aside and to go beyond. So our lives is a series of struggles, never ending, always inquiring, always struggling to find out. We start out to find, and gradually establish the habit of mere continuity of a particular pattern of action. So, that is our life, and with that we are quite familiar. We may not go into it in more detail, but we know the familiar pattern of our daily existence; and, if we are deeply more alert, we think through struggle we shall be creative, that we must go through this process of struggle in order to have a certain peace of mind.

I want to find out if such struggle is necessary, and if that struggle does produce a radical change which is so essential. So, why do we struggle, essentially, deeply, why? To solve a problem? Can a problem be solved through struggle, through conflict? Only you struggle with a problem when you want a particular result, when you want a particular answer to that problem. But if you are resolved to understand and go beyond the problem, surely the conflict with the problem will not help you, will it? It is only when we are capable of looking at it without any condemnation, justification, without any desire to find an answer to outside of it — which means a mind that is not in a state of struggle, which is not conforming to a particular pattern which it has projected which it seeks out of the problem — then only there is a struggle with the problem. And the more you struggle with the problem, the more complex it becomes. So we see, in one direction, that to understand a problem profoundly, there must be no effort made to find the requisite answer which the mind seeks out of the problem.

That is, I have a problem, and am I not always seeking a particular answer for that problem? Not the understanding of the problem, but an answer to that problem. So, there is a conflict established. Whereas, if I would really understand the problem, I must be aware of the whole content of the problem, which is only possible when I’m not identifying myself with a particular answer, when I’m not judging, when I’m not condemning it. So that the mind, being fully aware, is quiet. Then only is the problem resolved, not through the struggle to resolve the problem. But that requires an insight to the problem; which means the understanding of the whole consciousness, of the whole study of oneself. Because, at one level we want an answer, and at another level we do not. We want a particular answer, and yet we know, deeply, the search for a particular answer of a problem involves conflict within oneself, and therefore increases the problem in another direction.

So, we see a struggle in the resolution of a problem does not bring about the freedom from that problem. On the contrary. You can think this out for yourself. And we think survival is only possible through struggle, through contention, through conflict, through war; and we see where there is conflict, between peoples or between individuals, or between groups, there is no possibility of survival at all; war is inevitable. So, as long as we are psychologically struggling for security, there must be outward conflict, which results in war. So, we struggle in order to be psychologically secure, survive acquisitively, to be the more; and as long as I am struggling to be the more, acquisitively, either in this world or in the psychological realm, there must be conflict, there must be incessant battle within and without.

So, we struggle to be secure, to be certain; for the mind dislikes, is afraid to be uncertain, to be in a state in which there is constant inquiry, constant understanding, constant discovery. And there can be discovery, understanding only when there is deeply the state of uncertainty. But a mind dislikes to be uncertain; so, it proceeds from memory to memory in order to be secure, and its change is from memory to memory in order to be secure; and so it builds for itself various virtues, qualities, attributes, habits, patterns of action in which it can function. So, unconsciously, as well as consciously, most of us are seeking this survival, psychological survival, which denies a survival in this world. And we know as long as the “me”, the self, the “I” is cultivated, given nourishment, strength, there must be everlasting conflict.

So, that is our state; and if we want to change radically, the mind which has built the walls around itself as virtue, as a belief, as ideas, as the desire for its own immortality — all those must be broken down, so that the mind is capable of being completely free so as to discover what is real.

So, what is necessary is, is it not?, first to perceive for ourselves without much persuasion, argumentation, to see how we move or try to change from one memory to another memory, from one series of knowledge to another series of knowledge; and this change from memory to memory we consider a revolution. Tradition, environment, education, conditioning can be modified — which each revolution, outward revolution tries to do: the capitalist, the communist, fascist — they are all trying to change the environment, change the conditioning, change the tradition. Of course it can be done; but it does not release, does it?, the human suffering — and it is that we are considering: how to free the mind from sorrow, and whether sorrow can ever be resolved through struggle. Or, whether the struggle itself does not strengthen the cause of sorrow, which is the “me”, the self-centred activities of the “me”. When I struggle to be virtuous, is that virtue? Though we have been brought up to think to achieve a virtuous state through struggle, through conflict, through discipline, through influence, through education — does it not strengthen the “me”, which is the very cause of that misery? When I am trying to discipline myself to be more generous, am I not strengthening the “me”, which is the cause of suffering? The more I struggle to be humble, without pride, do I not strengthen the basis of self-centred activity?

So, seeing all this, which is a very complex problem; it cannot be dealt with casually, at one level. Seeing this complex problem, and being aware that the root of suffering is the “me”, the “I”, the self, the ego — what name you will, is of no importance — how can that foundation, how can that basis be broken, be destroyed? How can this self, the “me”, be put aside without struggle? That is the real problem; because [there]{.underline} must be the revolution, the change, the transformation. And is the transformation brought about through conflict? Do I resolve the “me” by trying to impose upon it various regulations, compulsions? Or, does its resolution lie in being aware of this whole complex problem — being aware of it, the mind becomes non-active. Because, it is, after all, the mind that is the centre of the “me”, is it not? Perhaps most of you have not thought about this problem: that as long as the self exists, there must be conflict, misery. As long as the self exists, there can be no creative being. But most of us accept the self and cultivate it in various ways. But if we realize the nature of the self, and are aware of it extensively, its complex problems, is it not possible for the mind to be non-active, so that not to contribute to the me? To give it nourishment?

I am concerned with the dissolution of the “me”, of the “I”, the abnegation, the negation of the “me”. How is it to be achieved? Not as an end, but I see that as long as my mind is occupied with the “me”, with its activities, consciously or unconsciously, pain, suffering is inevitable — frustration, and so on. Now, how is that to be resolved? Will the identification of myself with the nation, with an idea, with a belief, with what one calls God, resolve it? And is not that identification with the nation, with the group, with the idea, with a belief, an activity of the “me”, is it not? Because, that’s only an extension of the “me”; that’s an escape from the “me” of trivialities to what I call the immense, the universal — which is still part of my petty mind.

So, identification does not resolve the “me”, does not break down the walls of the “me”; nor discipline, nor the practice of a particular pattern of action, which only strengthens the “me”, which gives continuity to the “me”; the “me” being the memories, the experiences, the various struggles, pains, sufferings. So, I see identification will not resolve it; nor discipline; nor the constant demand to resolve it: prayer, supplication — [nothing]{.underline} will resolve it as long as the mind is active in its resolution, it is incapable to break down the barriers, the walls that the mind has created.

So, I see its resolution is only possible when the mind, being aware of this whole complex structure of the “me” as the past acting through the present to the future — when I am fully aware of all that, inwardly as well as outwardly, psychologically, hidden as well as the open — when I am fully aware of all that, then only is it possible for the mind to be extraordinarily quiet. Because, then the mind is no longer active; for it is the mind that creates barriers in its desire to be secure, to be permanent, to have its continuity.

Now, you have listened to a statement of that kind. How you listen matters, does it not? Because, after all, what are we trying to do in these talks? We are not trying to impose certain set of ideas over other ideas, substitute one belief by another belief, or, follow one teacher, renouncing another. What we are trying to do is, is it not?, to understand the problem, to talk it over; and in talking it over, we see the implications, and we are open to suggestions, so that you yourself see directly the falseness of this struggle. So that consciously you do not make an effort to change; for the transformation comes in when there is an understanding, and therefore there is a certain spontaneity without any sense of compulsion; and that’s only possible when you are capable of listening very quietly, inwardly, without any barrier. Because, if you change because of argumentation, because logically it is so, because you are influenced, then you are only conditioned in a different direction, which brings again its sorrow. But, whereas, if you understood this whole problem as a totality, the problem of sorrow as a whole, not just superficially, as a mere thing to escape from — if we can understand this whole problem as a whole, then the mind becomes very quiet; then in that quietness there takes place a transformation which is not induced, which is not the result of any form of compulsion, of desire. It is that transformation that is essential; and that transformation is not possible if it is merely the result of some influence, of some knowledge. Because knowledge does not resolve our suffering — knowledge being explanations. It is only when knowledge is suppressed [completely]{.underline}, when we are no longer looking to knowledge as a means of guidance, then only is there a possibility for the mind to experience that which is not nameable, which is the only factor that brings about a radical revolution and transformation.

QUESTION: Great minds have never been able to agree on what is the ultimate reality. What do you say? Does it exist at all?

KRISHNAMURTI: What do [you]{.underline} say? Is that not much more important: what you think. You want to know if there is an ultimate reality. You say that great minds have said there is or there is not. Of what value is that? You want to find out, don’t you? So, how do you find out? You want to know if there is an absolute reality which is not changeable, which is permanent, which has a continuity, which is beyond time. Now, how do you find out? With what instrument are you going to find out? You have only the mind, have you not, to find out — the mind being the result of time, the mind being the residue of memory, of experience. With that mind, you are going to find out if there is an ultimate reality. And since you have read about these matters, since what you have read strengthened your own prejudices or objections, your mind, with that mind you are going to find out. Can you? And is it not really a foolish question to ask. Suppose if I said there is, or there is not, of what significance has it? Actually, what significance in our life has it? It only strengthens your particular belief or your particular experience, your particular knowledge. But the strengthening, the corroboration of your idea is not the ultimate reality, or not.

So, what is important is, is it not?, for you to find out; and to find out, your mind must be in a state of creative experience, mustn’t it? Your mind must be capable of discovering; which means, your mind must be completely free from all knowledge, whether there is an ultimate reality, or only a series of extensive, more significant experiences.

So, what is important is, is it not?, in this question, not whether there is an ultimate reality or not, but how you regard, how you approach the problem of creative being, of creation, of God, or truth, or what name you like to call it. Because, our minds are so crammed with knowledge, with information, with experience, with memories; and with [that]{.underline} he try to find out. Surely, it is only when the mind is creatively empty, then only is there a possibility of finding out if there is an ultimate reality or not. But our minds are never creatively empty; they are always acquiring, it is always gathering, living on the past or in the future, or trying to confine itself to the immediate present. So, it is never in a state of that creativeness in which a new thing can take place. And as our mind is a result of time, it cannot possibly understand that which is timeless, eternal. So, our job is not to inquire if there is an ultimate reality or not, but how to free the mind from time — whether the mind can ever be free from this process of time, which is memory, which is this process of accumulation, the gathering of experiences, living in the past or in the future; which means, can the mind be still? Not made still, not disciplined, not controlled, which is not stillness; but a mind that is still through understanding, through being aware of this whole complex problem, and therefore is still. And it is such mind that can understand if there is an ultimate reality or not.

QUESTION: With what should the mind be occupied?

KRISHNAMURTI: Here is a very good example of how conflict is brought into being: with what it [should]{.underline} be, and with what [is]{.underline}. First we establish what should be, the ideal, and then try to live according to that ideal. So we say the mind should be occupied with noble things, let us say, with unselfishness, with generosity, with kindliness, with love; and there is the pattern, there is the belief; the should, the must. And we try to live according to that; so there is a conflict with the projection of what it [should]{.underline} be, and with the actuality, with what [is]{.underline}. So, we have established a conflict between what should be and with what is; and through that conflict we hope to achieve the should be. And as long as we are struggling with the should be, we feel virtuous, we feel good. But what is important: the should be, or, the what [is]{.underline}? What are our minds occupied with, actually, not ideologically? What are our minds occupied with? With trivialities, are they not? With how one looks, with ambition, with greed, with envy, with gossip, with cruelty. It lives in a world of trivialities, does it not? And a trivial mind creating a noble pattern is still a trivial mind, is it not? And so the problem is not with what it should be occupied. Can the mind free itself from its trivialities? We know our own particular trivialities. If you are at all aware, if you are at all inquiring. Incessant talk, everlasting movement of the mind, chattering, with this or with that, with what people are doing and not doing, trying to achieve a result, groping after its own aggrandizement, and so on — we know it very well. With that we are occupied. And can that be transformed? That is the problem — not with what it [should]{.underline} be occupied, that’s mere immaturity.

So, now, being aware that my mind is trivial, occupied with trivialities, and living in a world of trivialities, can it break down, can it free itself from its trivialities? And, is not the mind, by its very nature, trivial? What is the mind but memory, the result of memory? Memory of what? Of how to survive at one level, physically; and psychologically to survive through memory, through development of certain qualities, virtues, experiences, to establish itself in its own activities, is that not trivial? So, can the mind, which is the result of memory, of time, which is trivial in itself, what can it do to free itself from itself? Can it do anything? Please see the importance of this. Can the mind, which is self-centred activity, free itself from its own activity? Obviously, it cannot; whatever it does, it is still trivial. It can invent God, it can invent political systems, it can invent beliefs; but it is still within the field of time, within the field of memory, changing from memory to memory; but it is still within its own limitation. And can it break down that limitation? It can only break down when it is quiet, when it is not active, when it recognizes its own trivialities, however great it may imagine them. So, when the mind is really, having seen its trivialities, is aware of them , and so becomes quiet; then only is there a possibility of these trivialities dropping away. But as long as you are inquiring with what it should be occupied, it will be occupied with trivialities — whether it build a church, whether it go to prayer, whether it go to a shrine; because the mind itself is petty, small, and by saying it is petty and small, you haven’t dissolved it. You have to understand it, you have to recognize, the mind has to recognize its own activities. And in the process of that recognition, in the awareness of those trivialities which the mind has built consciously as well as unconsciously, the mind becomes quiet. In that quietness there is a creative state. It is [that]{.underline} that is going to bring about a transformation.

QUESTION: I find I am a snob. I like the sensation, but I feel it is a wrong attitude. How am I to be free from this snobbishness?

KRISHNAMURTI: We all like to be superior, do we not — or to [feel]{.underline} that we are superior: we have friends who know more, we have friends who are in the centre of things, who know the great. We all want to be identified with the great, or we try to be with the great, or be ourselves the great, either through heredity, or through our own particular endeavour. We all want to be some bodies. So there beings the snobbishness, the sense of importance, with the clerk, and with the highest of the land, with the lowest and with the highest, we want to be somebody. And the questioner wants to know, though it is pleasurable, that feeling of being somebody, the questioner wants to know how to be free from that snobbishness. Surely, it is very simple to be free from that snobbishness, is it not? Be nobody. (Laughter.) No, sirs, don’t laugh and pass it away. It is very difficult to be nobody; because, our education, social environment, our society, our religious instruction — everything makes us to be somebody. Inwardly, don’t you want to be somebody? A good writer, or to know somebody who writes extra- ordinarily well and is popular, famous. Don’t you want to paint amazingly well, to be the first painter, first musician, the most beautiful person, or the most virtuous, saintly human being? To know, to acquire, to possess — isn’t that what we are all striving after? If we are honest to ourselves, we are. All our struggle is towards that, everlasting conflict [is]{.underline} to achieve that: to be somebody. And it gives great impetus, great energy as long as we are struggling to be somebody. Ambition is a great spur; and being caught in that through habit of thought, through environment, through education, through religious instruction, to [be]{.underline} somebody. How can you easily deny all that and be as nothing? And yet we must be as nothing — not through discipline, not through compulsion. But we are as nothing when we know what it is to love. But how can a man love when he is concerned with his own importance?

So, it is easy to say, “We must be as nothing”; but to bring it about requires enormous vitality, energy to break down the habits, the customs, the traditions, the educational influences, the competition — to break down all those encrustations, influences, requires a great deal of watchfulness, alertness, not only at the superficial level, but profoundly, deeply. But to be conscious that you are as nothing, is to be something. So, to be as nothing is a state which comes without invitation; and one knows that state only when there is love. But love is not a thing to be sought after; and that comes when there is inward revolution, when the self is not the importance, when the self is not the self-centred activity of one’s existence.

August 17, 1952