We are concerned with the alteration or modification of the social structure, of the masses. We talk about how to affect the masses, how to bring about this experience or that knowledge, a reform in the social structure. We are more concerned with society than with the revolution of the individual. This is the same cry throughout the world, that somehow the masses must be transformed – somehow this inchoate thing must be informed, instructed, transformed or changed.
So it is important to discuss these two points and see the truth of them, whether the mass, as we call it, actually exists or is only theoretical, and how the individual revolution, the transformation of the individual, the ‘you” and the “me”, does fundamentally affect the social structure, the civilization, the culture about us. This is a fundamental question which most of us are unwilling to look at because we are so concerned with the education of the masses.
Now, is the individual different from the world? Isn’t the individual, you and I, the total process of the world movement, world life? You and I are the result of the past—past thoughts, past actions. Not of any thought in particular, but the thought of human-kind. You are the result of the country, the culture, the civilization, the environmental and social influences, the religions, the climate. So is the individual “you” a separate, antagonistic process, an exclusive process away from the world, away from human culture, society?
When we talk about individual craving, individual will, individual attainment, what do we mean by the individual? Are you an individual because you have a little property, a name, a family, live in a separate house, and have peculiar idiosyncrasies and a different facial expression? Though we are dissimilar, is there not an extraordinarily great similarity between us all? After all, doesn’t each one of us think more or less alike? Where is the individual, and where is the mass? Where is the demarcation between the two? I am not saying that there is not the individual, but I want to know from you, who insist on dividing the individual and the mass, where the line is between the two. We are all the result of the past; our thought is founded on the past, along with all the religious, organizational beliefs, and the orthodox traditions. Of all that, you are the result. Without that, you would not be an individual.
Is there an individuality exclusive from the world process, from the community process, from the society, from the world’s organizational thoughts, feelings and beliefs? Then your transformation, not verbal but actual revolutionary transformation, will affect the world because you are the product of the world, the environment and society. But if you think you are an exclusive process unrelated to the world, to other people, then such a thought, which is the exclusive thought, will inevitably think, ‘If I change, as I have no relationship to the other, I cannot possibly affect the world.’ But if you are the product of the environment also, the effect, the result of a deeper process, which is not unrelated to the whole world process, then when you change, obviously you do affect the world.
We are affecting each other all the time, the world, the ‘you’ and the ‘me’ are influencing each other, modifying each other. So, you are not different from me. We have got the same passion, craving, pursuit and emotions. The same. All this exists because of our fear of not being individuals. But we are not individuals. I wish we were— then we would be able to think clearly for ourselves and not be persuaded by politicians, priests, executives and all the rest, to do what they tell us. If you were an individual, you would not seek a guru. We would throw away all the scum of gurus and wouldn’t belong to any organization. But we are not individuals, despite our different faces and physiognomy. Inwardly, we are extraordinarily alike.
Are you and I not the result of each other’s influence and relationship? Therefore, you and I exist only together. There is no such thing as isolation. And since you and I influence each other, you and I are not separate. Therefore I cannot exist without you, economically, socially or psychologically. I can be in isolation in an asylum without you, and that is what most of us are trying to do: create a character in isolation, which is a kind of asylum. Since you and I are related, since I cannot exist without you and you cannot exist without me, the “you” and the “me” is the whole world. Whether you live in Russia, North America, South America or Japan, you and I are the whole world.
Since we are the product, you and I, of each other’s influence and the influence of another, are we individuals? How can we be individuals when we are influencing each other all the time, when I am the product of the past, and you are the product of the past, and the two pasts related in the present, modifying? How can we be individuals? There can only be individuality with aloneness, when you are not influenced by me and I am not influenced by you, psychologically and therefore externally. Until then, we are not individuals. That is why we have to become alone to find truth.
It is a clever invention on the part of the exploiter, on the part of the priest, the politician, the dictator, the ruler, the general, to treat individuals as the mass. It is so much more convenient. We do the same. But there is only you and me in relationship, which creates the society – the ‘you’ and ‘me’ all over the world. We, you and me, are constantly influencing each other. We are modifying each other. The past in conjunction with the present is producing you and me. We cannot dissociate ourselves from the past. We are the past, you and I.
Now, if you and I want to find what is true, must we not dissociate from all influence? I must have food, clothes and shelter; that has certain influences, and its organization has certain effects on me. That is an obvious fact, but when they become psychological, then I am enthralled; I am caught. In freedom only can we discover what is truth.