Public Talk 1, Rajghat, 23 November 1974

If I may, I would like to investigate together the problem of how to bring about a new quality of energy, a new way of life and action. Because as one observes throughout the world, and specially in this country, there is a steady decline, degeneration. And it is not a matter of opinion or judgement but actually observing what’s going on in the world, and here, in this country, one sees the decline every year more and more, not only in the religious field but morally. The intellect has a certain place and a certain value. But one can’t live by the intellect alone and those philosophers, psychiatrists and the vast profession of gurus, they have no new thing to offer, a new way of life. They repeat mechanically what tradition has taught them. And tradition becomes mechanical. And most human beings are mechanical and function mechanically in a crisis, which is, as one observes a moral crisis, not economic or social or over-population and inflation but rather it’s a crisis in the whole structure and nature of the way we think and act and live.

You know, I can go on talking about it but we have to share this thing together, partake in this problem. So, we have to think together, not agreeing or disagreeing but examining together, not accepting or denying, but investigating together this problem whether the human mind, whether the social, economic structure in which we are living, whether we can find a different way, not a system, not a method, but a different approach to the whole problem of existence. And to investigate this question, really, one has to be serious, not committed to any particular doctrine, belief or ideology or conclusion, then one is not free to investigate. If you have committed yourself to communism, obviously you cannot possibly investigate something which may totally deny that particular economic or social system, which is so obvious. Or if you are committed to a particular guru or a particular system of philosophy or religion or belief or dogma, you are utterly incapable of analysis — not analysis — of investigation. And since we are concerned, this evening at least, with the question of trying to find out a way of living — not a system — a process of thinking and acting which is totally different from that of tradition, from that of a fragmented mind and so on. If this is clear, that we are together sharing the burden of investigating this problem. Which is, we must find a new energy, a different kind of approach to this whole problem of existence. And that’s what we are going to do, if we may, this evening. Now we can take a breather.

Wherever you go, whether to America, Russia or China or Europe or this country, you see a great deal of suffering, not only individual suffering, personal suffering but also a collective suffering. There is this vast cloud of great suffering. And apparently throughout the ages we have not been able to solve it, we have not been able to go beyond it. We have learnt marvellously how to escape from it, how to suppress it, and to investigate endlessly the cause of the suffering, or resort to some philosophical, intellectual, theoretical comfort, which is meaningless. And it seems to me that unless one understands this human suffering, psychological travail, the deep inward anxiety, grief, loneliness, the utter lack of love and compassion, we must inevitably turn to some process of thought which will again bring about further suffering, further misery. So, we have to see if it is possible, not theoretically, not as an abstracted idea, but actually in our daily life — which is after all what philosophy means, the love of truth in daily life — not a theory, not constant explanation of some ancient theory by a clever man. And unless one actually understands the nature and the structure of suffering and are free from that suffering, I do not think it would be possible to come upon that energy that is required for the transformation of man and society. So we are going together, taking a journey into this question of suffering. You might ask, ‘Why do you make that as an issue, when there is economic problem, overpopulation, inflation, and all the mess that is going on in this country, why do you take that one particular thing and want to talk about it?’ Because by examining it, looking at it, we uncover a great deal, not only what is happening outside of us but also inwardly, because grief, anxiety, fear, pleasure are all involved in that one word. And when one considers the society in which we live, a society which is thoroughly immoral, one obviously wants to understand — not intellectually, not verbally — understand why human beings who have evolved for so many centuries and millennia are still such unintelligent, stupid, brutal, violent people. If this is also your concern, which it must be — not how to breathe, and do some kind of yoga, or run off into the mountains, or escape into some philosophical romantic nonsense — then this becomes a principal issue, that is, why human beings who have acquired tremendous knowledge about so many things are incapable of transforming themselves into decent, human, compassionate beings. This must be your problem, if you have concerned yourself with what is happening in the world. If you are not concerned then we have no relationship with each other. But, after all, we are related, and relationship means care, answerable.

And so in considering this question of suffering, I think we’ll come upon many things. I do not know if you have observed, not only in yourself but also in the society, in the culture in which one lives — if there is a culture in India at all — I do not know if you have observed that we have become accustomed, put up with this burden of sorrow and we do not seem to be able to understand it and go beyond it. We have learnt ways and means of escape, seeking various forms of psychological comforts. And if one gave one’s attention to this question, then what is suffering? There is the biological, organic suffering, pain — that’s one thing. And there is the psychological structure which holds in itself the seed of pain. Please, as we talk, observe this fact in oneself, whether the mind, the whole structure of the mind that includes not only the organism but also the brain, and the whole structure of that, is the mind, the totality, and in that mind the movement is a material process, which is thought. Thought is a material process. Thought is the response of memory, experience, knowledge, which is the area of time. I hope we are travelling together, and I mean together. Thought, as one observes in oneself and also externally, thought is the basis of our civilisation, of all civilisations. All religions are based on thought. All the gods, saviours, gurus with their systems and all their business is essentially the structure of thought. And thought is a material process. And we are trying to solve our human problems in the area of thought. Thought is measure, direction, and so time. And we have worked in that area, in that field endlessly, both technologically and psychologically.

And I think one has to understand this very deeply that thought has created all our problems — all our social, moral, intellectual structure is put together by thought. And thought has divided nationalities, sects, gurus — ‘Your guru is better than my guru’ and so on, so on, so on, so on — the various systems of philosophies. And if one sees that actually, not theoretically or verbally, but actually sees the truth of that, that thought has divided people into nations, into races, into classes; thought has done extraordinary things, like medicine, all the technological knowledge, technological activity. And also thought has created, put together the idea of the saviour and so on. You have created your gods, God hasn’t created you. You may worship the image of God, which you have created, but it is the activity of thought. Do you accept all this?

And what relationship has thought with suffering? What is suffering? Because I want also, if I may, to speak about death this evening. I want to relate all this — as much as one can within a certain period of time. So what is suffering? Is suffering the activity of thought? Or is suffering, your psychological suffering — not physical suffering, you can do something about physical suffering fortunately in these days. But if one is not clear that physical suffering does not contaminate psychological suffering — psychological freedom from suffering. We’ll go into it. So, we are asking what is the relationship between thought with all its subtleties, with all its brutality, with all its fragmented minds and parts and divisions, what relationship has thought to suffering and can thought end suffering? Can thought end suffering, or thought is the very movement of suffering? Are you interested in all this?

Questioner: (Inaudible)

Krishnamurti: Just a minute, sirs, perhaps at the end of the talk you would be good enough to ask questions. But in the meantime I hope you don’t mind if I go on a little while.

Suffering is anxiety, suffering is a state of mind that’s uncertain, suffering is that sense of utter, unrelated loneliness. Suffering is the sense of not being loved or having loved, not receiving love. Suffering is attachment: one is attached to a house, to a family, to a wife, to children, to ideas, to beliefs, to doctrines, to conclusions, opinions and when those are questioned, when they are made uncertain, there is a sense of uncertainty, anxiety and out of that comes many forms of neurotic activity. I hope you are not merely listening to the words but observing your own mind, observing yourself whether this is so or not, whether it is actual or theoretical. What we are concerned with is ‘what is’, not with ‘what should be’ and in the understanding of ‘what is’ perhaps we can go beyond ‘what is’. So suffering, the loss of someone you love, the loneliness, the sense of failure, and the goal you have established for yourself dictated by pleasure are the basis of suffering. The self-concern and therefore self-pity, and the whole structure is essentially based on thought.

Do we stop?

Technician: No, sir, it is all right.

K: Go ahead? All right. Bene.

And can suffering really end? Not only personal suffering, and if the personal suffering ends what is the relationship of that entity or that human being to the rest of the suffering of the world? You understand my question? You may, by some fluke, by some chance — by hearing a word, by really investigating yourself, not according to some Gita, book or another, but actually investigating what you actually are, not what you would like to be — you might perhaps step beyond the area of thought. But there is this collective weight of suffering. That is, human consciousness is its content. Right? Just see, it’s a fact. Without the content there is no consciousness as we know it now. The content is your furniture, your house, your opinions, your judgements, your gurus, what they say, what they don’t say and so on. Your conclusions, your beliefs, your despairs, your anxieties, your passing pleasures, your sense of importance — all that is the content that makes up your consciousness. You may say, ‘No, that is only a part of it, there is a higher consciousness’ — which is still an invention of thought. No? Do look at it. If thought, finding itself in this limited area which is called consciousness and its content, then it finds itself caught in a trap, of course, because in that there is no freedom. And so it has to find an agency, an area which is not touched by thought. You will see it in a minute, I am going to explain. You will see it. You understand, sir, the soul, the atman, super-consciousness, the higher-self are still the activity of thought. Obviously. So, human consciousness is its content. And its content is pleasure basically, fear, and suffering, and occasionally a sense of concern for another, occasionally compassionate look, but which soon fritters away and is gone. Now, when the human, when the content of that consciousness is changed then that state affects the rest of the consciousness of the world. Bene? Hai capito? You have understood? I’ll repeat it, just go slowly. I am sorry.

Sir, if you were aware of the content of your mind, of your consciousness, that is, your beliefs, your dogmas, your superstitions, what you have learnt from books, what you think, the attachments, the fears, the pleasures, your gods, your rituals, your puja, all that is the content which makes up your consciousness — obviously. Including the higher consciousness because that’s another process of thought. Now, if you go into it, understand it, not verbally, theoretically but actually, give your energy, your attention to understand this thing — and one can transform the content — then you are affecting the rest of the consciousness of the world. Didn’t Hitler affect the rest of the consciousness of the world? Of course, he did. The saviours, Stalins, Mao — they have all affected, adversely or beneficially. So, the content is basically pleasure, the pursuit of pleasure, and therefore its shadow, fear and so suffering. Right? Now, can this suffering end? I’ll go into it. Please listen. You know what it means to listen? Not interpret what you hear according to your prejudice, knowledge or your particular form of guru but just listen to something that the Speaker is trying to convey, like a stone dropped into a lake, quiet, it makes no ripple, it just sinks. And if one could listen that way, neither accepting nor rejecting, which means care, attention, affection, and that act of listening is so essential to understand deeply the whole movement not only of thought but of suffering and whether this suffering can end.

How do you observe suffering? Please, this is an important question if you are interested in bringing about an end to sorrow. How do you look, observe your own sorrow? Is there an observer who is looking at it, an observer outside looking inside, an observer enquiring the cause of suffering, the observer wanting to get rid of that suffering, go beyond it or run away from it? So, is the observer different from the observed? You understand my question? Or is the observer the observed? So there is no division. Right? If the observer is the observed — are you following me? — then there is no division and therefore no conflict. For most of us the observer is different from the observed. We are talking psychologically. Not that there is not difference between you and another, between you and the tree, between you and somebody who is taller, thinner, wider and so on, so on. We are not looking at that. We are considering the psychological division that exists in man, in you, that the observer is different from the observed. That is, put it very simply: when you are envious, the envy is different from you who feel envy and therefore you are trying to get rid of envy or encourage it or rationalise it or say it’s justified. So there is a division and where there is a division, there must be conflict. That’s obvious. Like the Hindus and the Muslims, like the Jews and the Arabs, between you and your top guru. So where there is division there must be conflict.

So it is very important to understand how to observe this suffering. You understand? Have you understood what we are saying? Can you observe, can the mind observe without the observer? The observer is the past, the observer and all the rest of it — I haven’t time to go into it now. So can you observe, is there an observation without the observer? Then you will say, ‘Who then is aware that he is observing?’ That’s a clever remark, question. Because then you are asking a question which you have not really gone into. When there is no observer, there is only observation. Right? Look sir, one is envious. Take that, if you are envious — you know better than I do if you are or not — if you are envious, there is always an attempt either to justify that envy or to go beyond it, suppress it, control it, change it. There is this activity between the observer and the observed. That activity is always in a state of conflict. And we are brought up from childhood to accept this conflict. Now, is the observer different from the observed? Obviously not. Right? Then there is only the fact and not the observer translating the fact. Right? May I go on? So, instead of wasting energy in conflict, in rationalisation, in trying to find the cause of suffering, in escaping from it, in trying to control it and so on — which are all wastage of energy — then you have this fact of only observation, which means you have all the energy to go beyond it, and so there is an ending to suffering. Ah, don’t shrug your shoulders. Don’t say, ‘Yes, that’s all very well’. Unless you do it, it has no meaning, they are just words — and you have been fed on words. Because only when there is an end to suffering there is love, there is compassion. And you cannot buy compassion, love from another. Compassion comes from suffering and going beyond it. Right.

Now, I want to talk about — I didn’t realise it — about death. Of course, perhaps, tomorrow evening, if you are here and if I am here too, we can talk about meditation. But this evening we’ve talked about sorrow and the ending of sorrow and from the ending of sorrow there comes wisdom. And with wisdom, there is compassion.

You know, from the ancient of days man has tried to escape from death. Or he has said, ‘Life is the way to death and beyond’. And death is a way of final catastrophe. Or death is something that is inevitable and being inevitable there is great sorrow, fear, and trying to find an area where there is certainty, where there is a sense of timeless movement. One has gone through all this. You don’t have to study history but one can observe all this, that Man has tried to escape in different ways, through rationalisation, through intellectual concepts, through the very worship of death and so on, so on, so on to get beyond it. It is important to understand because it is totally related to living, this question of death, not only for the old people who are just about ready to be gathered to their fathers but also for the young, for everyone it is always there. It is not a morbid subject. It is something that one has to understand and find out what it means to die. It doesn’t mean you commit suicide. What actually happens to a mind that comes to an end. Right? To enquire into this, not accepting any authority, including the Speaker’s, not searching for comfort and hope and all the rest of that nonsense, which is rather infantile, but wanting to find out actually what is the state of a mind that knows death. Not theoretically, not in imagination or romantic, speculative amusement but actually to see what happens when death comes. Are you interested in all this or am I talking to myself? Because you see, otherwise you won’t find anything new, otherwise you won’t find new energy. I won’t go into all this, I am tired.

So the first thing is, what is it — no — is there anything permanent in you, in me, in human beings? If there is something permanent then that’s like a change of clothes, like in seasons. It doesn’t affect one. And if there is not — nothing permanent — then what does it matter how you live? You are following? Then what does it matter immoral or violent, just drag on and through old age, disease, accident or some misfortune end. So, one has to go into this question, rather deeply: is the ‘me’, the ‘you’ permanent? Because that ‘me’ is seeking immortality in different forms, through fame, through its own righteous behaviour, through some kind of activity that give it a name, position, prestige, a status or that ‘me’ that says, ‘I must have enlightenment quickly, I must experience God’ — or Nirvana or your own particular little god. That ‘me’ wants experience, not only the ordinary, obvious experience of sex or this or that, but it wants superior, far nobler, far extensive, far wider and deeper experience. No, you have to understand this, please. Is the experiencer different from the experience? And how do you know when you experience that it is an experience — unless you recognise it, unless you give a name to it and the recognition and the name is from the past and therefore it is nothing new. Oh, do see this, this craving for experience. You have had experience of Christianity with their saviours, now you come to India or Indians go over there or God knows what else, and wanting experiences through drugs, through meditation, through breathing — you know all that stuff.

So, once you understand that the experience is the projection of the experiencer and the experiencer is the experienced, then you never want experience of any kind. Therefore the mind is free. This requires, you know, a great deal of enquiry, a great deal of understanding of oneself. And unfortunately most people haven’t the time or the energy or the inclination. They think they will get it from going somewhere else or sitting with somebody who thinks he has got enormous wisdom — which is nonsense.

Let’s proceed. So, is ‘you’ permanent? You, you who are the form, the name, the attachments — the furniture, the bank account, the quality, your books, your knowledge, your — all that is you. Right? Including your higher-self, the atman — all that is you. Is that permanent? Permanent in the sense enduring, that means timeless, incorruptible, a movement which has no beginning and no ending, but a movement. But you, the ‘you’, the ‘me’, we want that to continue — don’t we? And when death comes, as it will, then we are scared stiff. Then we begin to invent all the theories, comforts that there is reincarnation, that there is not, that, you know all the rest of it.

Now, please listen carefully, see the truth of it for yourself: if there is no ‘me’ permanent at all — and there isn’t, it isn’t ‘me’, there is no permanent ‘me’ — if there is no permanent ‘me’ then you are free from attachment: attachment from your beliefs, from your gods, from your wife, husband, from all the things you cling to. And that is what is going to happen when you die. You can’t take your family with you, your bank account, your house, your character, your — whatever it is — can you? So, can the mind free itself from every form of attachment, every form of the cultivation of character — go into it all, you will see it — every form of fear, which is the area of thought? And can the mind, whose consciousness is its content, including all your gods, all your knowledge, all your Gitas, all your temples and mosques and churches — all that is your consciousness, which means that you are second-hand people. And can that end? Not tomorrow, not at the end of one’s life, but end today, and everyday so that living and dying are close together all the time. You understand? And — I can’t go into it too deeply because… — and what happens if I, as a human being carry on with the content of my consciousness when I die? You follow? You have cleared the mind of its content — if that’s possible, and it is possible, we will go into that perhaps tomorrow — and I have not, I am just an ordinary clerk or a factory worker or a glorified clerk sitting in high places, what happens to me? Do you understand this question? Do you understand? Unless you step out of this area of time — perhaps you have — but if another has not, then what happens to that consciousness? Right? So, man says, ‘I will live next life, I believe in next life, I will reincarnate next life and next life will be more beautiful than this’ — forgetting the next life depends on this life: how you behave, whether you are cruel, violent, all the rest of it. You forget all that, but next life you are going to be better, that gives you a great deal of comfort and you can carry on playing with that game.

So, there are two types of human beings, of consciousness: one, who being aware, having no conflict, because he has understood the relationship between the observer and the observed, understood the truth of division and gone into himself very, very deeply, not theoretically, not according to some book or some analyst, but gone into it as he is, and discovers there is nothing permanent and therefore his consciousness with its content is no longer functioning, except in the field of knowledge which is technology — how to ride a bicycle, write a letter, speak a language or run a motor. Now, what happens to the man who is not free? I don’t know if you have ever gone into this. You know, this demands great compassion. You understand? Which you haven’t got. Compassion implies beauty, compassion implies care, care of your children, how to bring about right kind of education. But you are not interested in all that.

So, what happens to the man who has not understood himself, who is suffering, who is anxious, fearful, worshipping the gods which he has created — what happens to such a man, what happens to you? You understand my question? Right? Are you so very different from another? You may have fair skin, you may be very clever, you may have a position, prestige, a status — the outward signs, but you are like the rest of us — greedy, ambitious, struggling, in conflict, depressed, moody, frightened. Right? And escaping to some romantic India or wandering off into some monastery. You are like the rest of us — dull, second-hand, knowing some technology — and misery, like the rest of the world. And what happens to a human being that dies, through disease, old age, some accident, some misfortune, what happens to such a man? What happens to you all? Are you different from the rest? Sir, do look at it. You might be learned — does that indicate that you are different? Aren’t you greedy, possessive, attached, like the rest? So, there is that human consciousness like a vast stream going on endlessly, and the one who steps out of that stream is the blessed one. And out of that stream you can invoke all the parapsychologists desire. You are following all this?

So, this is our life. This is the society which we have created by our greed, by our divisions — economic, social, class, the one who knows, the one who doesn’t know. The one who knows in the technological field is right, but the man who says, ‘I know God’ — he doesn’t know. And this is what we call living. From morning till night, till we die, we are in constant conflict, constant suffering, trying to be something different from what we are, or saying, ‘Yes, we are God, only all that I have to do is remove the ungodliness’. That’s a nice theory but not a fact. So, one is afraid to look at facts as they are, that is, oneself as one actually is. Then you will find, if you are serious, totally committed to the understanding of all existence, your existence is the other man’s existence, you are the world and the world is you and so if you understand yourself, you understand the whole world and perhaps then you may be a human being that will affect the consciousness of the world.

Would you like to ask questions? Yes, sir?

Q: At the very beginning of the talk you said that certain people who have been committed to some ideology or the other, such as communism or a guru, they cannot investigate what you are planning to do. How do you say that? What do you mean by commitment?

K: What do I mean by commitment.

Q: Commitment to a certain ideology or a…

K: Yes sir, yes sir. Commitment to a certain ideology. You can sit down, sir, I’ll tell you. It seems so simple, isn’t it? If I am committed to Hinduism — right? — and another is committed to Islam, can I investigate anything because I am prejudiced? Wait, sir, I haven’t finished. Have you understood what I said?

Q: Yes, sir.

K: I am prejudiced — just a minute, sir, just a minute. Go slow, have patience. I am committed to a course of action — to a course of action, that is, along a particular line. And if I’m committed to that particular course of action, can I look, understand the other person who has also committed? I can’t. I may intellectually understand, or verbally, but my relationship to him is verbal, therefore it is no relationship at all. And to investigate any problem, sir, you must be free to look. You must be free to enquire. Look: there is starvation in this country — poverty, enormous poverty — overpopulation, inflation and you are committed to the glory of India, close yourself and don’t allow anybody. And you think you are going to solve the problem that way? That is committed to a course of action — say, ‘I’m a nationalist’. And this problem can only be solved when all the world come together. You understand, sir?

Wait sir, I haven’t finished that. Take… You’re not listening. You are eager with your question. You haven’t listened to what I have said, sir, because you’re so eager to reply to what I’m going to say.

So, where there is a commitment — ideological commitment or commitment to a course of action — such a mind is incapable of looking at the whole. And we need a mind to look at the whole — not Bihar, not as a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Communist, Socialist and all the rest of it. We are concerned with the whole of man whether he lives in India, America, China or any other place.

Q: You stated, sir, that thought created God and not that God has created man. Kindly put some more light on this.

K: (Laughs) Need I put light on that particular thing? It seems so obvious, isn’t it? I don’t have to put any light on this at all, it is there for you to look. Isn’t your God, Siva or Vishnu or whatever God, your Jesus…

Q: Sir, excuse me. God, we take it as the ultimate reality then only you will find my question is right.

K: Oh! God is ultimate reality. How do you know God is ultimate reality? (Laughter) Don’t get up, sir, don’t get up, it’s all right. Don’t waste your energy getting up. How do you know anything?

Q: By inference.

K: Ah, which is intellect. For God’s sake! Do you know — what do you mean, sir, go carefully, step by step — when you use the word ‘know’ what does that word mean, ‘to know’? Now, do you know your wife or do you know your husband or your girlfriend, whatever it is? Do you know? Or you only know the image which you have built about her or him. Right? Right? And that image is the past. Right? So, when you say, ‘I know’ you know something which is gone, which is dead. So, when you say, ‘I know God is the ultimate’ — what is it? — ‘reality’, what does it mean? When you don’t know reality in daily life, when you don’t know how to be honest, you talk about ultimate reality, which is sheer nonsense! Therefore to find out — not speculate about reality whether it is ultimate or immediate or imminent or moving — you have to understand yourself, your instrument is the only instrument that can find out. If your instrument is clouded, frightened, anxious, fearful, all the rest of it, how can that instrument find out?

Q: Can you tell me the way?

K: Oh! (Laughs) Can I tell him the way. You see, look: the second-hand mind is in operation! ‘Tell me what to do and I will do it’ — or I won’t do it. And that’s what you have been fed on for centuries. You have never said, ‘Out — all authority in spiritual matters. I’ll find out, I’m going to go into myself, find out’.

Q: That’s true, sir.

K: What, sir?

Q: That’s true.

K: Then, if it is true, do it. (Laughter)

Right, sirs, we’ll meet tomorrow.