Public Talk 6, London, 26 June 1955

Sixth Talk

Sunday 26th June, Friends Meeting House, 7 p.m.

I think it is important to find out for oneself what it is that we are seeking, and why we are seeking it. And if we could go into that rather deeply I think we will discover a great many things involved in it. Because, most of us are seeking some kind of fulfilment. Being discontented, we want to find contentment, — either in some relationship, or in fulfilling certain capacity, or searching out some action that will be completely satisfying. Or, if we are not of that nature, we generally seek what we think is the truth, God, and so on. And most of us are seeking, searching. And if we could find out what it is that we are seeking, I think it would reveal a great deal. And it is important to find out for oneself why one is seeking and what one is seeking.

Surely most of us, being discontented with ourselves, with our environment, with our activities, or any particular job, we want a better job, a better position, a better understanding, wider activities, more satisfying philosophy, a capacity that will be entirely gratifying. Outwardly that is what you do. And, when that doesn’t satisfy us, we go a little deeper; and still there is discontent. We pursue philosophy, reform, gather together in various groups to discuss, and so on.

And it seems to me that it is important to find out if our motive for the search is discontent. And, if it is that we are seeking satis- faction, at any level, then obviously our minds become very petty. And perhaps there may be a discontent without an object, discontent in itself, — not, to achieve a result, get somewhere. I think with most of us, being dissatisfied in our relationships, in our ways of life, in our attitudes, with the values that we have, we are trying to shake them all and find a different set of values, different relationships, different ideas, different beliefs. But behind it all there is this urge to be satisfied. And I think it would be important to find out if there is a discontent which has no motive, which isn’t the outcome of some frustration. And that very discontent without motive may be the quality that is necessary.

Because when we seek, — which is the outcome of dissatisfaction, discontent, — the motive is to find gratification in some form or another. And especially when we talk about truth, — or, if that word is not pleasant, then God, — then if that word is not satisfactory, then some state of mind which will be completely satisfying. It seems to me this motive in search creates the petty mind. Whether that mind is extensive or clever, has capacity, it is still petty, shallow. And a mind that is seeking, whose motive is satisfaction in some form or another, however subtle, — its gods, its virtues, its philosophies, – is bound to be petty, small, narrow.

And, is it possible for the mind to be free of all search? Which means, really, to be free of all discontent with any motive. Because surely the mind is incapable of grasping, — however clever, however intelligent, whatever virtues it has cultivated, — such a mind is incapable of grasping surely what is true. Because to me, all thinking process is petty, is very limited, — all thinking. Because thinking is the result of accumulated memory, and thinking is the reaction of that memory, thinking is the response to a conditioned mind. And without understanding the deeper urge to find, the deeper demand to find out what is truth, is not the way of thought; thought can never find it. Because, as I said, thought is the result of accumulated memory, of association, of experience, according to our conditioning. And when that conditioning creates dissatisfaction, any outcome of that dissatisfaction is still conditioned. And our search becomes so utterly futile as long as it is based on a discontent which is the reaction to a particular conditioning.

If one sees that, then, is there any other form of discontent? -which is not canalized, which has no motive, which is not seeking a fulfilment. And it may be that this discontent without any motive, which is not the response to a conditioning, — it may be that discontent that is essential. Because, our thinking, our search, has a motive. And that motive is based on our demand to find some place of complete satisfaction, where there will be no disturbance of any kind, — which we call peace, which we call God or truth, — a permanent state we demand. And all our tendency in seeking is to gain that state.

So, the search for most of us is the demand for satisfaction, for a state of permanency in which we shall never be disturbed. And, can the mind, which is the result of motive, — can such a mind thinking, find out what is true? So it seems to me that one must understand for oneself the process, and why one seeks, and not be satisfied by any word, by any end, by a target that is ennobling, inspiring, by an ideal.

Because surely, the very way of the self, the ‘me’, is this constant discontent till there is a fulfilment. That is all we know. And when there is no fulfilment, there is frustration; then, the many problems of how to overcome that frustration. So, the mind seeks a state in which there will be no frustration, no sorrow. So the very search for so-called truth may be the fulfilment of the self, of the ‘me’.

So most of us are caught in this. We are seeking fulfilment in different directions. And where there is the search for fulfilment there must be frustration. And to overcome that frustration we seek a state in which there will be no sense of frustration, no sorrow. And so we are caught in this vicious circle.

If one is aware of this, completely, totally, then there is no sense of fulfilment at all, — fulfilment in a need, in a dogma, in activity, in any particular state. Because fulfilment implies sorrow, frustration. Seeing the truth of that, the mind then is no longer seeking.

I think there is a difference between attention which is given to an object, and attention without object. We can concentrate on a particular idea, belief, object, — which is an exclusive process. And, there is an attention, there is an awareness, which is not exclusive. So, there is a discontent which has no motive, which is not the outcome of some frustration, which cannot be canalized, which cannot have any fulfilment. Perhaps I may not be using the right word for that extraordinary discontent. And I think that is the essential. Because without that, every other form of discontent merely becomes a way to satisfaction. And can the mind, being aware of itself, knowing its own ways of thinking, put an end to this demand for self-fulfilment? And, when that comes to an end, can it remain without seeking? — and be in a state in which it is completely in a state of void, with neither hope nor fear. Mustn’t one arrive at that state? — when there is complete cessation of all seeking? And then only is it possible for something to take place which is not the product of the mind.

Because, our thinking is the result of time, of many yesterdays. And through time, which is thinking, we are trying to find something which is beyond time. And so we are using the mind, the instrument of time, to find something which cannot be measured. And so, can the mind, which is the result of time, totally cease, for something else to take place? Which doesn’t mean, surely, a state of amnesia, a state of blankness, a state of thoughtlessness. On the contrary, it requires a great deal of alertness, awareness, — an awareness in which there is no object, nor is there an entity who is aware.

I think this is important to understand. When we are aware, simply, daily, — in that awareness there is condemnation, judgment, evaluation. That is our normal awareness. When we see a picture, immediately the whole process of condemnation, comparison, evaluation, is taking place; and we never see the picture, because the screen of evaluating process has come between. Can one look at that picture without any evaluation, without any comparison? Similarly, can I look at myself, whatever I am, all the mistakes, miseries, failures, sorrows, joys, — see all that without evaluation, just to be aware of it; without introducing the screen of condemnation or comparison? Then, if the mind is capable of doing it, then we will find that very awareness burns away the root of any particular problem.

And when the mind is so aware, so totally aware, then there is no search. Then the mind is no longer comparing, seeking satisfaction, thinking in terms of achievement. Then, is not the mind itself timeless? Not, that there is a state of timelessness, or the eternal; but, as long as the mind is comparing, condemning, judging, is conditioned, then it is in time: but when that has totally ceased, then is not the mind itself that thing which may be called the eternal? Because in that there is no observer, in that there is no experiencer who has association, who has experiences, who is seeking, — which is a result of time, the experiencer is the product of time. And as long as the experiencer is seeking, trying to fulfil, trying to gather experience, more knowledge, vaster field in which he can live, he is creating time, and whatever his actions are will always be in the field of time.

And so that which is measureless can never be found by the experiencer, by the seeker. It is only in that state when the mind is no longer seeking, when the mind is not cultivating, through search, an end to be achieved, — then only is it possible for that state, for that reality, to come into being.

Question: I am very interested in what you are saying, and feel full of enthusiasm. What can I actually do about it?

Krishnamurti: Enthusiasm soon fails. If you are merely inspired by what is being said, that inspiration will disappear, and you will seek another form of inspiration, or another sensation. But if what is being said is part of your own discovery, is the result of your own inward inquiry, then it is yours, it is not another’s. But if it is another’s, then you have the whole complicated, tiresome, corroding process of building authority and worshipping authority. But if you have listened, and it is your own understanding, then naturally you will do something about it. But, if you are merely enthusiastic, inspired, then you will join groups, form societies, organizations, — which will become another hindrance.

After all, what is it that we are talking about? I am not saying anything new. Only, how to look at oneself, how to observe the whole process of consciousness, that which we are. And to understand oneself there must be self-knowledge, an awareness in which there is no condemnation, comparison, judgment, — just to be aware, to know the way of our thought, the way of our self. That needs no authority, surely. It’s for you, as an individual, to find out for yourself.

But the difficulty is, we want encouragement, we want companionship, we want to be told that we are doing very well, we want to meet others thinking along the same lines, — which are all distractions. Because this is something that must be done entirely by yourself. And you will find, if I may suggest, that as you go deeper and deeper into the whole issue, you will find for yourself, discover for yourself, a state which, if you can find it, will act of its own accord, — you don’t have to do anything. If you discover something real, that truth will operate. But we want to operate on the truth, we want to do something about it. So we begin to condition every kind of experience, in order to satisfy our own particular vanity through action.

But I think there is an activity which comes into being, which is not the result of some few talks, of reading some books, but an activity that comes into being because you yourself have experienced something beyond the mind. But if you cling to that experience, and act because you have understood something, then it becomes your own impediment.

Question: How can we have peace in this world?

Krishnamurti: First of all, let us see if anybody can give us peace. Politicians cannot give peace. There will be no peace as long as there are nationalists, as long as there are armies, separate governments, barriers of race, and above all, barriers of belief, barriers of religion, — at least, so-called religion, — of dogmas. And there may be peace through terror. But surely all that is not peace. So, peace is something entirely different, isn’t it? Peace is the cessation of inward violence, — that violence which expresses itself through ambition, through competition.

And, are you and I willing to give up our ambitions? To be nothing? So surely, peace is a state of mind, is it not?, which cannot be bought. And how is one to come to this peace, this inward sense of peace? Not through self-hypnosis, not saying “I will be peaceful”, and practising the virtue of non-violence. That is merely a process of. hypnotizing oneself into a state. So can one actually, inwardly, psychologically, give up, put aside, all nationality, all sense of ambition, which does breed violence, all sense of comparing oneself with somebody, the sense of envy? And only then it is possible, is it not?, to have a world which can be called ours.

It’s not our world now. It’s neither the Eastern world nor Western world, — Western civilization as opposed to Eastern civilization, – besides the English. It’s either the English world or American world or Communist world. It’s not our world, yours and mine, to live in. And that world cannot come into being if any one of us who is really serious about this matter have any nationality, have any sense of competition, of trying to achieve a result, becoming something. As long as I’m trying to become something, I am violent, — which expresses itself in competition, in ruthlessness. And, is it possible for you and me, actually, not theoretically, to be as nothing? Not, because my ambitions haven’t been fulfilled, therefore I try to become nothing, or I have no opportunity for my capacities, therefore I try to be peaceful, — but because I understand the whole process, the inward nature, of violence.

Because, if I love something, there is no need for competition, is there? If I love what I’m doing, not because of what it’s going to bring me, the reward, the punishment, the achievement, the notoriety, and all the rest of it, then all sense of competition has been rooted out of me, because I’m not concerned who is more, who is less. And because we do not think in these terms, we have violence. There may be pacts, legislation perhaps, to have superficial peace. But inwardly we are seeking, inwardly we are competing, struggling, trying to express ourselves, to be something. As long as that violence exists there will be no peace, do what you will.

And to have peace there must be deep understanding of the ways of the self, the ‘me’, that is competing, trying to become something. It is very difficult to understand that and to let go of it. Because all our tradition, all our education, our social culture, everything, has conditioned us to be something. And we think, if we are nothing we shall be destroyed. I think we are destroying ourselves because we are trying to be something; that is what is happening. Either as a group, individual, or the nation, or a class, this is actually what is taking place. We are destroying ourselves, because we all demand to be something. But if we understand the whole process of this urge to be something, then perhaps, in being nothing, we may find a different way of living, and which may be the true way.

But this requires total revolution, — not the communist, not any kind of outward revolution, — a complete inward revolution. Because then there is no division as your religion and my religion, your belief and my belief. Then this is our world, to live in. From that, feeling that this is ours, a different kind of culture, different kind of government or power, can come into being.

Question: You say that if one thinks out completely a thought that arises, it will not take root, and one is therefore free of it. But even when I have done so to the best of my ability, the thought crops up again. How then can I deal with it?

Krishnamurti: After all, you’re thinking out a thought completely because you want to get rid of it, don’t you? Isn’t that the reason why you think out a thought completely? For the questioner says, how then can I deal with it?, because I can’t get rid of it, it recurs again and again. So he is concerned with getting rid of a particular thought; that is the motive of his examination, of his understanding. Therefore he is not thinking it out completely at all. Because he wants to be rid of a particular thought which is tiresome, which is painful or pleasant. If it is pleasant, obviously he’ll keep it, therefore there is no problem; it’s the unpleasant thought that he wants to get rid of. So that is the motive of his thinking it out.

And, when the mind is concerned with a particular thought, with the idea of getting rid of it, he is already condemning it, is he not? So, he opposes the thought with the desire to remove it. So, how can he understand the thought completely when his intention is to put it away?

So, what is important is not how to think out a thought completely, but to understand that you cannot think completely if there is any sense of condemnation, — which is fairly obvious, isn’t it? If I want to understand a child, I must study the child, I mustn’t condemn it, I mustn’t say “This child is better than that child”, or identify myself with this child. I must watch him, — when he’s playing, weeping, crying, eating, sleeping. So, can my mind watch a particular thought without naming it? Because, the very naming of a particular thought is already condemning it.

This is rather a complex process. If you will kindly listen to it you will probably get the significance of it. Say, I am greedy, envious. And I want to get rid of it, — or rather, I want to understand it; most of us want to get rid of it. And I try various ways of getting rid of it, for various reasons. But we never get rid of it, it goes on and on and on indefinitely. But if I really want to understand it, go to the root and completely, then I mustn’t condemn it, surely, — then that very word ‘envy’ has a condemnatory sense, I feel. Can the mind dissociate the feeling which is called ‘envy’ from the word? Because, the very terming, giving the name to that feeling as ‘envy’, — with that very word I have condemned it, haven’t I? Because with ‘envy’ is associated the whole psychological significance, the religious significance. And can I dissociate that feeling from that word?

Then, if the mind is capable of not associating that feeling with the word, then, is there an entity, a ‘me’, who is observing it? Because the observer is the association, surely?, is the word, is the entity that is condemning it.

I hope this is fairly clear, — I’m afraid it’s not. Now, let me go into it a little bit, if I may. Please, if I may suggest, watch your own minds in operation, not listen to me merely intellectually, which is, verbally, but, examine a particular feeling, a particular sentiment of envy or of violence of which you are familiar, and go into it with me.

Say, I am envious. The ordinary response to that is either, justifying it, or condemning it. Justifying, because I say to myself “I’m not envious. I shall be nobody. It’s part of culture, part of my society”. . Or, I condemn it, because I feel it is not spiritual, or whatever reasons there may be. So, I approach that feeling which I call ‘envy’, either justifying it or condemning it. Now, if I do neither, — which is extremely difficult, because I have to then free the mind from all my conditioning of the past, of all the culture in which I have been brought up, — then, if the mind is free of that, then the mind also must be free of the word, — because that word implies condemnation.. You understand? Now, my mind is made up of words, of.

symbols, of ideas. The symbols, the ideas, the words, is the ‘me’. Now can there be a feeling of envy when there is no verbalization, when there is the cessation of all that is associated with the ‘me’, which is the very essence of envy? So, is there envy experienced by me when that ‘me’ is absent? — because that ‘me’ is the very essence of condemnation, verbalization, comparing.

And, to think out a thought completely, to the very root of it, -as I said, there must be awareness, an awareness in which there is no sense of condemnation, justification, and all the rest of it, nor, a sense of trying to overcome a problem. Because if I’m merely trying to dissolve a problem, then my attention is focussed on the dissolution of the problem, and not the understanding of the problem. And the problem is, the way I think, the way I act. And if I condemn my way, the way I am, it obviously blocks further investigation. If I say “I must not be this and I must be that”, then there is no understanding of the ways of the ‘me’, whose very nature is envy, acquisitiveness.

And, is it possible for me to be so aware, without any sense of condemnation or comparison? Then only is it possible to think out a thought completely.

Question: You appear to dismiss Yoga as useless, and I agree with you that Yoga is often practised as a method to escape from ‘what is’. But if we avoid the artificial fixing of the mind on a chosen object, and allow our so-called meditation to take the form of an inquiry over the whole field of ‘what is’, without expecting any particular answer, this surely is what you recommend. Do you not think also that we may be able to do this difficult thing more easily if we have learned to quieten the body and the breathing?

Krishnamurti: The questioner wants to know, in a roundabout way, how to meditate, — whether quieting the body and steadying the breath will not help in meditation, — which is the process of inquiry, as the questioner points out, — inquiring over the whole field of ‘what is’ and not running away from it. And, let us find out how to meditate.

Now, if you will kindly listen, without focussing your attention on any particular sentence, on any particular phrase of the answer, -we are inquiring into the whole question of how to meditate. To me, that is not the problem at all. But the problem is, what is meditation? Not, how to meditate. Do you understand? You will see, presently, -I hope. (Laughter.)” If I do not know what is meditation, the mere inquiry how to meditate has no significance. So, my inquiry is not, how to meditate, — which is, what method to follow, how to be aware of ‘what is’ without escaping, — which is, the ‘how’, — to sit quietly, to repeat certain words and so on. We are not discussing how to meditate. Because, if I know what meditation is, then the question of how to meditate will have no issue, surely. So, can I find out what is meditation? — not, how to meditate. Is it very clear, that?

Now, what is meditation? As I do not know what is meditation, — because, you don’t know what is meditation, you’ve no idea how to begin; I hope you see the difference, — as you do not know what meditation is, you must approach it with an open mind, mustn’t you? Do you understand? You must come to it with a mind that says “I do not know”, — not, “How to meditate?” You understand? I do not know if you follow this. Please, if you really follow this, — not, what I’m saying, but actually experience the thing which I’m saying, — then you will find out for yourself the significance of what is being said.

We have so far approached this problem with an attitude of, how to meditate, what systems to follow, how to breath[e], what kind of practices of Yoga, and all the rest of it, — because we think we know what meditation is. We think we know that the ‘how’ will lead us to something. But, do we know what meditation is actually? I don’t. Nor do you. So, we must both come to the question with a mind that says “I do not know”, — though we may have read a thousand books, and practised Yoga disciplines. Because, you don’t know actually. You only hope, you only desire, you want to achieve, through a particular pattern of action, of discipline, to arrive at a particular state. And that state may be utterly illusory; it may be your own wish. And it is; it’s your own projection, as a reaction from the daily existence of misery.

So, the first essential thing is, not how to meditate, but to find out what is meditation. Therefore the mind must come to it without knowing. You understand? Which is extremely difficult, isn’t it? Because, we are used to think that a particular system is essential to meditate, — either the repetition of words, as prayer, or taking certain posture, or fixing the mind on a particular phrase, on a picture, breathing regularly, making the body very still, complete control of the mind; with these things we are familiar. Because, we think these things will lead us to something which we think is beyond the mind, beyond the transient process of thought. So, we already know the way. So then, we are now trying to compare which is the best way. So that issue, how to meditate, is completely false. But, can I find out what meditation is? That is the real question, — what meditation is. It is an extraordinary thing, to meditate, to know what meditation is. And we are going to find out.

Surely meditation is not the pursuit of any system, is it? So, can my mind eliminate this tradition? — not only here, but in India, -the tradition of a discipline, of a method. But that is essential, is it not? Because, I don’t know what is meditation. I know how to concentrate, how to control, how to discipline, what to do. But I don’t know what is at the end of it. Only I have been told “If you do these things you will get it”. And I am greedy, therefore I practise. So, can I, to find out what meditation is, — can I eliminate this demand for a method? You understand all this what I’m saying? I am now meditating, am I not? I am meditating the moment I began to inquire what is meditation, — not, how to meditate.

The moment I begin to find out what is meditation, my mind, not knowing, must reject everything that it knows, — which means, my desire to achieve a state. Because, that is the root, the base, of my search for a method. I feel moments of peace, quietness, and a sense of other-ness; and I want to achieve that, to make it a permanent state. So, I pursue the ‘how’. So I already know what the other is. So the method will lead me to it. If I already know what the other is, then it is not what is true, it’s merely a projection of my own desire. I hope you are following all this.

So, my mind comes to, when it is inquiring what meditation is, it is free from the desire to achieve, — you understand? — to gain a result. Therefore it has completely set aside all authority. Because, it does not know, and no-one can tell it what it is. So, my mind is completely in a state of not knowing, — no method, no prayer, no repetition of words, no concentration, — because it sees concentration is another form of achievement, a result, trying to concentrate on a particular idea, hoping thereby to train itself to go further by exclusion, -which implies, again, a state of knowing. So, if I do not know, then all these things must go. You understand? I no longer think in terms of achieving, arriving. There is no longer a sense of accumulation which will help me to reach the other shore.

So, when I have done that, have I not found what meditation is? Which means, there is no conflict, no struggle, a sense of not accumulating,-at all times, not at any particular time. So, meditation is the process of complete denudation of the mind, the purgation of all sense of accumulation and achievement, — which is the very nature of the self, the ‘me’. That ‘me’ is strengthened through practice. You may cover it up, you may beautify it, refine it; but it’s still the ‘me’. So, meditation is the uncovering of the ways of the self.

And, you will find, if you can go deeply into it, there is never a moment when it becomes a habit. Because habit implies accumulation, and where there is accumulation there is the process of the self demanding further accumulation, asking for more. All such meditation is within the field of the known, and that has no significance whatsoever except as a means of hypnotizing oneself.

And it’s only the mind can say that I do not know, — actually, not verbally, — when it has wiped away, through awareness, through self-knowledge, this whole sense of accumulation. So meditation is the dying to the accumulation, — not, achieving a state of silence, a quietness, that comes into being, — which again is irrelevant. As long as the mind is capable of accumulating, then the urge is for more. And the ‘more’ demands the way, the system, the method, the setting up of authority, — which is the very way of the self. And when the mind has completely seen the fallacy of that, then it is in a constant state of not knowing. It’s only such a mind can receive that which is not measurable, which only comes into being from moment to moment.