Question: Since the major causes of catastrophe in the world arise from the malfunctioning social organisation, is there not danger in overemphasising the need for individuals to change themselves, even though the change is ultimately necessary?
Krishnamurti: What is society? Is it not the relationship of one individual with another? If individuals are ignorant, cruel, ambitious and so on, their society will reflect all that they are in themselves.
The questioner suggests that the conflicting relationship of individuals, which is society with its many organisations, should be changed. We all see the necessity and importance of social change. We are all familiar with the wars, starvation, ruthless pursuit of power and so on, and some earnestly desire to change these conditions. How are you going to change them? By destroying the many or few who create disharmony in the world? Who are the many or the few? You and I. Each one is involved in it because we are greedy, possessive and crave power. We want to bring order within society, but how are we to do it?
Do you seriously think only a few are responsible for this social disorganisation, these wars and hatreds? How are you going to get rid of those few? If you destroy them, you use the same means they have employed, and make yourself an instrument of hatred and brutality. Hate cannot be destroyed by hate, however much you may like to hide your hate under pleasant-sounding words. Methods determine the ends. You cannot kill to have peace and order. To have peace, you must create peace within yourself and thereby in your relationship with others, which is society.
You say that more emphasis should be laid on changing the social organisation. Superficial reforms can perhaps be made, but radical change or lasting peace can surely be brought about only when the individual changes. You may say that this will take a long time, but why are you concerned about time? In your eagerness, you want immediate results. You are concerned with results and not with the ways and means; thus in your haste you become a plaything of empty promises. Do you think that the present human nature, which has been the product of centuries of maltreatment, ignorance and fear, can be altered overnight? A few individuals may be able to change themselves overnight, but not a crystallised society. This does not mean a postponing, but the one who thinks clearly, directly, is not concerned with time.
Social organisation may be an independent mechanism, but it has to be run by us. We have created it, and we are responsible for it. We can be independent of it only when we as individuals do not contribute to the general hate, greed and ambition.
In our desire to change the world, we meet with opposition — groups are formed for and against, which only further engender antagonism, suspicion, and competition in conversion. Agreement is almost impossible except when there is common hate or fear. All actions born of fear and hate must further increase fear and hate.
Lasting order and peace can be brought about only when the individual voluntarily and intelligently consents to think without hate, greed, ambition and so on. Only in this way can there be creative peace within you and therefore in your relationship with another, which is called society.
Our problem is not food, clothes and shelter alone
Question: How can individual regeneration alone possibly bring about, in the immediate, the collective wellbeing of the greatest number, which is the need everywhere?
Krishnamurti: We think individual regeneration is opposed to collective regeneration. Regeneration is anonymous. It is not, ‘l have redeemed myself’. As long as you think of individual regeneration being opposed to the collective, there is no relationship between the two. But if you are concerned with regeneration, not of the individual but regeneration itself, you will see there is quite a different force—intelligence—at work. After all, what are we concerned with? What is the question with which we are concerned, profoundly and deeply?
One might see the necessity for united action to save humanity. We see that collective action is necessary to produce food, clothing and shelter. That requires intelligence, and intelligence is not individual, is not of this party or that party, this country or that country. If the individual seeks intelligence, it will be collective. But unfortunately, we are not seeking intelligence; we are not seeking the solution to this problem. We have theories of our problems, ways of solving them, and the ways become individual and collective. If you and I seek an intelligent way to solve the problem, we are not collective or individual. Then we are concerned with intelligence that will solve the problem.
What is collective, what is the mass? It is you in relationship with another. This is not an oversimplification. I form a society in my relationship with you: you and I create a society in our relationship. Without that relationship, there is no intelligence; there is no cooperation on your side or my side. If I seek my regeneration and you seek your regeneration, what happens? We, both of us, are pursuing opposite directions. If both of us are concerned with the intelligent solution of the whole problem because that problem is our main concern, then our concern is not how I look at it or you look at it, not my path or your path. We are not concerned with frontiers or economic bias, with vested interests and stupidity. Then you and I are not collective, are not individual. This brings about collective integration, which is anonymous.
But the questioner wants to know how to act immediately, what to do the next moment so that our needs can be solved. I am afraid there is no such answer. There is no immediate moral remedy, whatever politicians may promise. The solution is the regeneration of the individual, regeneration which is the awakening of intelligence. Intelligence is not yours or mine; it is intelligence. It is important to see this deeply—then our political and individual action, collective or otherwise, will be quite different. We shall lose our identity; we shall not identify ourselves with something—our country, our race, our group, our collective traditions, our prejudices. We shall lose all those things because the problem demands that we lose our identity. But that requires a great, comprehensive understanding of the whole problem.
Our problem is not the bread-and-butter problem alone. Our problem is not feeding, clothing and shelter alone; it is more profound. It is a psychological problem of why one identifies oneself. And it is this identification with a party, with a religion, with knowledge, that is dividing us. And that identity can be resolved only when, psychologically, the whole process of identifying, the desire and motive, is clearly understood.
So the collective or the individual problem is non-existent when you are pursuing the solution of a particular problem. If you and I are both interested in something, vitally interested in the solution of the problem, we shall not identify ourselves with something else. But unfortunately, as we are not vitally interested, we have identified ourselves, and it is the identity that is preventing us from resolving this complex and vast problem.
There must be radical change in the political field, but such a change will have no depth if l do not pursue the ‘other’.
Question: Can I, religiously inclined and desirous of acting wholly and integrally, express myself through politics? For it appears that a radical change is necessary in the political field.
Krishnamurti: Seeking religiously the whole, the entire, the complete, can I politically function, that is, act partially? The questioner says politics is the path for him; when he seeks and follows that path which is not the whole, he merely functions in partial, fragmentary fields. Is that not so? What is your answer? Not your cunning answer or immediate response.
Can I see the whole of life, which means, can I love? I have compassion; I feel tremendously for the whole. Can I then act only politically? 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 country, with an economic or religious system?
Suppose I want to improve the particular, bring about a radical change in the country in which I live. The moment I identify myself with that particular, have I not shut out the whole? This is your problem, just as mine; we are thinking about it together. You are not listening to me. When we are trying to find an answer, your opinions and ideas are not the solution. We are trying to find out: can a truly religious person, not a phoney one that consults others, but a really sacred person seeking the whole, can they identify themselves with a radical movement for a particular country? And will it do to have a revolution of one country, of one people, of one state, if l am seeking the whole, if I am trying to understand that which is not within the scope of the mind? Can I, using my mind, act politically?
I see there must be political action. I see there must be real change, radical change in our relationship, our economic system, the distribution of land, and so on. I see there must be revolution, and yet at the same time I am pursuing a path, the political path. I am also trying to understand the whole. What is my action there? Can you act politically, that is, partially, and understand the whole? Politics and economics are partial; they are not the whole, integrated life; they are partial, necessary, essential. Can I abandon the whole, leave the whole of society, and tinker with the particular? I cannot. But I can act upon it, not through it.
We want to bring about a certain change; we have ideas about it; 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? I am not telling you what I think; do not accept it but think it out for yourself and see. For me, political and economic action are of secondary importance, though they are essential. There must be radical change in the political field, but such a change will have no depth if I do not pursue the other. If the other is not primary, if the other is only secondary, then my action towards the secondary will have limited significance.
If I see a certain path and act politically, this political action becomes important to me, not acting integrally. But if acting integrally is really important to me and if I pursue it, political action, religious action, economic action will come rightly, deeply, fundamentally. If I do not pursue the other but merely confine myself to political, economic or social change, I create more misery.
So it all depends on what you emphasise. 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, without saying, ‘I am going to act politically or socially,’ you will bring about fundamental alterations politically, religiously and economically.
Why do specialists take charge of our lives?
Question: One sees chaos in the world is rapidly increasing. Billions are being spent on arms, and social justice is being eroded. Governments, totalitarian and democratic, are increasingly aggressive and violent. Though one sees the necessity of much deeper, fundamental human change, could you comment on the issue of active political involvement?
Krishnamurti: Am I Democratic or Republican—is that the question?
Apart from joking, why, if one may ask, do we have such great confidence in political leaders? This is the same issue in all countries. We put such confidence in the economists, in the politicians, in the leaders. Why do we do this? And what do we mean by political action?
Please, we are inquiring together; you are not just waiting for an explanation. We are thinking together over this problem, which is really a very serious problem affecting the whole of humanity.
A political group comes into power, Conservative or Labour, Republican or Democrat; they seem to have such extraordinary power, position and authority, and we follow them. They tell us what to do, and we accept them. Why is there that sense of trust in them and acceptance of their judgments?
We are sent to war by rulers, by government officials, and thousands are being killed. A majority voted them into power, and they set position and direction, and we merely follow them like sheep. Generally, they appeal to our lowest instincts, to our national pride, honour and all that business. We are stimulated by that and are willing to kill others for it, for a piece of land, and so on. Why? Why do we trust them? Please answer this question.
And what do we mean by political action different from all other actions? Why do we separate politics from daily living?
Why do we separate political activity of the left, right, centre, or extreme left, extreme right? Why, if one may ask, is political action so very different from our action of relationship, action with regard to fear in ourselves, and so on? Or is politics part of our life, not something separate? According to the common usage in the dictionary, politics is the art of government, the science of government. Why do we give this art to the politician? Apparently, they are a separate breed, different from us. Why do we depend on a politician, a guru, a priest, on anybody to govern us? Please answer this question. Why do specialists take charge of our lives? Is it that we have no so-called confidence in ourselves? Are we not sure of ourselves and so attribute clarity to politicians, to others? Is it that in ourselves we are insufficient and somebody out there is going to make us sufficient?
Are we to treat life as separate factors—political, religious, economic, and so on—or are we to treat life as a whole? Please question this. The questioner asks what political action one can take. Is that political action different from religious action, from the action of an idealist? Or does one treat life as the whole of living: learning, relationship, fears, faith, anxiety, and political action? Isn’t that a whole way of living?
Are we fragmented in ourselves, into religious action, political action, family action, individual action and collective action? Can we treat life as a total movement in which all these activities are included? If we separate one from the other, we inevitably bring about contradiction. A religious life is incompatible with political life; a religious person will have no part in politics because generally politics is such a crooked affair, controlled by big industrialists, by wanting a great deal of money for the party, by dependency on rich people, and so on.
So how do we, each one of us, answer this question? There is an increase of armaments. Right now they are destroying each other, killing for God knows what. And both the democratic and totalitarian worlds are becoming more and more aggressive. How do you deal with this question? It is very easy to ask questions and find an answer from another. But if we have to answer this question ourselves, taking what is actually going on in the world, the national, religious, economic divisions, wars, tremendous spending on armaments, then what is your answer? If you are American, you say your way is the best way. Would you consider the right answer, the true answer is that we cannot separate these activities but must treat life as a whole movement?
What is political action? Would you like to start a new party, look for a new leader for the next election? You condemn the present leader, and when a new leader comes into being, there is soon doubt about them too. You know the whole thing: when the honeymoon is over, the problem begins. So what is your answer? Please go into it for yourselves. What is your answer when you have thought it out deeply? Do you ask if there is an action that is not divisible, an action that includes politics, religion, economics, everything, the whole of life? And is that possible?
We are concerned not with reformation or modified continuity but with the fundamental transformation of humanity in our relationships. One sees corruption right through the world: black markets, rich people getting tremendously richer, the privileged classes and so on. Where do you begin to bring about an action that will include all actions? Where do you begin? To go very far, one must begin very near. So what is very near? Me. I am the nearest person, so I begin, but not as a selfish activity or self-centred movement. I am the nearest; I am the centre from which I start, not out there. Can I live a life that is absolutely not broken up? Not a religious life separate from all other lives and activities but a life that is political and religious. Can I live that way?
That implies, doesn’t it, that I understand the whole separative activity completely and comprehend that the separate activities are contradictory, conflicting, causing endless divisions. If I understand that very clearly, perceive it not as an abstraction or as an ideal but as an actual fact, then from that observation there will be an action that will be complete.
If you want to start a political action, a new party, a new group, a new leader of your own, then I am afraid you and I won’t meet; we are back into the same old pattern. We are saying that from the quality of a mind and heart of a life that is complete and sufficient psychologically, all action is included.
Question: Why don’t you participate in politics or social reform?
Krishnamurti: Have you noticed how politics and social reform have become extraordinarily predominant in our lives? Our media is full of politics, economics and other problems. Have you ever asked yourself why it is that way, why human beings are giving such extraordinary importance to politics, economics and social reform?
Reform is necessary because of the economic, social and political confusion, and the general deterioration of the state of humanity since the World Wars. So crowds gather around political leaders; people line the streets to watch the strange animals. They try to solve the problem on the economic, social or political level, independent of the total process of humanity. Are these problems to be tackled separately, unrelated to our whole psychological problem?
You may have a perfect system that you think will solve the world’s economic problems, but another will also have a perfect system. The two systems, representing two ideologies, will fight each other. As long as you are fighting over ideas and systems, there cannot be a true, radical revolution; there cannot be fundamental social transformation. Ideas do not transform people. What brings about transformation is freedom from ideas. Revolution based on ideas is no longer revolution but merely a continuation of the past in a modified state. Obviously, that is not revolution.
The questioner wants to know why I don’t take part in politics or social reform. Surely, if you can understand the total process of humanity, you are dealing with the fundamental issues, not merely trimming branches of the tree. But most of us are not interested in the entire problem; we are concerned merely with reconciliation, superficial adjustment, not with the fundamental understanding of humanity as a total process. It is much easier to be an expert on one particular level. The experts on the economic or political level leave the psychological level to other experts, and we become slaves to them. We are sacrificed by experts for an idea.
So there can be fundamental revolution only in understanding the total process of yourself, not as an individual opposed to the mass, to society, but as an individual interrelated with society. Without you, there is no society. Without you, there is no relationship with another. There is no revolution, no fundamental transformation as long as we do not understand ourselves.
Reformers and so-called revolutionaries are factors of retrogression in society. A reformer tries to patch up the present society or create a new one based on an ideology, and their idea is the conditioned response to a pattern. Such a revolution, based on ideology, can never produce a fundamental, radical transformation in social relationships. We are concerned not with reformation or modified continuity, which you call revolution, but the fundamental transformation of humanity in our relationships. As long as that basic change does not take place in the individual, we cannot produce a new social order.
That fundamental transformation does not depend on belief, on religious organisations or on any political or economic system. It depends on your understanding of yourself in relationship with another. That is the real revolution that must take place. Then you as an individual will have an extraordinary influence on society. But without that transformation, merely talking about revolution or sacrificing yourself for an idea—which is not really sacrifice at all—is mere repetition, which is retrogression.
To act collectively, we must begin individually.
Question: Why don’t you face the economic and social evils instead of escaping into some dark, mystical affair?
Krishnamurti: I have been pointing out that only by giving importance to primary things can secondary issues be understood and solved. Economic and social evils are not to be adjusted without understanding what causes them. To understand them and so bring about a fundamental change, we have first to comprehend ourselves who are the cause of these evils.
We have, individually and so as a group, created social and economic strife and confusion. We alone are responsible for them, and thus we, individually and perhaps collectively, can bring order and clarity. To act collectively, we must begin individually. To act as a group, each one must understand and radically change the causes within oneself that produce the outer conflict and misery. Through legislation, you may gain certain beneficial results, but without altering the inner, fundamental causes of conflict and antagonism, they will be overturned and confusion will arise again. Outer reforms will ever need further reform, and this way leads to oppression and violence. Lasting outer order and creative peace can only come about if each brings order and peace within themselves.
Question: Why do you waste your time preaching instead of helping the world in a practical way?
Krishnamurti: Now, what do you mean by practical? You mean bringing about a change in the world, a better economic adjustment, a better distribution of wealth, a better relationship, or, to put it more brutally, helping you to find a better job? You want to see a change in the world—every intelligent person does—and you want a method to bring about that change, and therefore you ask me why I waste my time preaching instead of doing something about it.
Now, is what I am doing a waste of time? It would be a waste of time if I introduced a new set of ideas to replace the old ideology, the old pattern. Perhaps that is what you want me to do. But instead of pointing out a so-called practical way to act, to live, to get a better job, to create a better world, is it not important to find out what impediments actually prevent a real revolution? Not a revolution of the left or the right but a fundamental, radical revolution, not based on ideas. Because, as we have discussed, ideals, beliefs, ideologies and dogmas prevent action. There cannot be a world transformation, a revolution, as long as action is based on ideas because action then is merely reaction; therefore ideas become much more important than action. That is precisely what is taking place in the world.
To act, we must discover the impediments that prevent action. But most of us don’t want to act, and that is our difficulty. We prefer to discuss, we prefer to substitute one ideology for another, and so we escape from action through ideology.
The world at present is facing many problems: overpopulation, starvation, division of people into nationalities and classes, and so on. Why isn’t there a group of people sitting together trying to solve the problems of nationalism? But if we try to become international while clinging to our nationality, we create another problem— which most of us do. So you see that ideals are really preventing action.
Eminent authorities have said that the world can be organised and all the people fed. Then why is it not done? Because of conflicting ideas, beliefs and nationalism. Therefore, ideas are actually preventing the feeding of people. Most of us play with ideas and think we are tremendous revolutionaries, hypnotising ourselves with such words as practical. What is important is to free ourselves from ideas, from nationalism, from all religious beliefs and dogmas, so that we can act, not according to a pattern or an ideology, but as needs demand. To point out the hindrances and impediments that prevent such action is not a waste of time; it is not a lot of hot air.
What you are doing is nonsense. Your ideas and beliefs, political, economic and religious panaceas, actually divide people and lead to war. It is only when the mind is free of ideas and beliefs that it can act rightly. One who is patriotic and nationalistic can never know what it is to be brotherly, though they may talk about it. On the contrary, their actions, economically and in every direction, are conducive to war. So there can be right action and therefore radical, lasting transformation, only when the mind is free of ideas, not superficially, but fundamentally. And freedom from ideas can take place only through self-awareness and self-knowledge.
One who is eager to reform the world must first understand themselves, for they are the world. If the reformer, the contributor to the solution of the world’s problems, has not radically transformed themselves, if they have had no inner revolution of values, then what they contribute will only add further to conflict and misery. One who is eager to reform the world must first understand themselves, for they are the world. The present misery and degradation of humanity is brought on by ourselves, and if we merely plan to reform the pattern of conflict without fundamentally understanding ourselves, we will only increase ignorance and sorrow.
To be alone is to be in a state of revolution against the whole set-up of society
The problem is this: a mind that is not innocent can never receive that which is innocent. God, truth or whatever the thing that is not nameable—the immeasurable— cannot be without an innocent mind, without a mind that is dead to all the things of society, dead to power, position and prestige, dead to knowledge. After all, power, position and prestige is what we call living. For us, that is life; for us, that is action. You have to die to that action, and you cannot do it because that is what you want. To die to the things we call living is the very living. If you go down the street and see those flags, which are the measures of power, and if you die to all that, it means you die to your own demand for power which has created this horror.
Is the way you live now really living? We want to gain heaven without going through anything; we want to be mediocre human beings, completely comfortable and secure, have our drinks and sex and power, and also have that thing we call heaven.
To be alone, which is not a philosophy of loneliness, is to be in a state of revolution against the whole setup of society—not only this society but the communist society, the fascist, every form of society as organised brutality and power. And that means an extraordinary perception of the effects of power.
Have you noticed those soldiers rehearsing? They are not human beings anymore; they are machines. They are your sons and daughters. This is happening everywhere— not only at the governmental level but also at the monastic level, belonging to monasteries, to orders, to groups who employ this astonishing power.
Aloneness is not something to be cultivated. When you see all this, you are out, and no governor or president is going to invite you to dinner. Out of that aloneness, there is humility. It is this aloneness that knows love—not power. The ambitious person, religious or ordinary, will never know what love is. If one sees all this, one has this quality of total living and therefore total action. This comes through self-knowledge.