Public Talk 2, Rajghat, 26 January 1960

26th January, 1960.

Perhaps this morning after I have talked a little, it might be worthwhile to discuss what I have talked about. I mean by discussion to think the problems out together; that you and I should enquire not only verbally, but also see how far each of our minds can penetrate into the problem. That is why it might be worthwhile to really discuss and not merely listen, though listening is an extraordinary thing in itself because very few of us listen. We are surrounded by our own words, by our own explanations, by our own experiences and we scarcely, if ever, listen to another to find out what he really thinks. And perhaps if we could, this morning after I have talked a little, go into this question more intimately and deeply through exchanging thought, through verbally clearing the field as it were so that we can more deeply penetrate.

What I want to talk about this morning is a problem I think, that confronts not only us, a group of people here but also the rest of the world. Because, we are all concerned as the rest of the world with this problem of working together, cooperation, get things done together. The working together has been approached, has it not, by various methods, the coercive, the compulsive, the persuasive methods? The working together has become so important not only in society, but in production, mechanical production and also working together ideologically, which I am not sure is working together at all. So the working together has many, many implications and everyone who is concerned with a radical change in society, surely is also concerned with this question of working together. Generally we work together, don’t we, through fear? Or through reward, or through the desire to gain a position, a prestige or power; or through punishment? Please, if I may suggest, please do not merely listen to words but actually apply if we could to each one of us. That is how we work together, don’t we? Either we are influenced by a person, by a cunning person intellectually, emotionally or by so-called people who assume the spiritual authority as the saint, as the guru and so on. That is one way of bringing about the so-called working together. The other is the political way; a certain piece of work has to be done, a party is formed opposing another party with another scheme and there is the getting votes. In that is implied a great deal of cunning, scheming, chicanery, an enormous amount of propaganda and persuasion.

We are discussing the problem of working together. So, please follow it a little but if I may suggest. Then there is the working together for an idea, for a belief. The idea can be social or so-called spiritual or an idea which few people have projected and we cooperate with that person because we thing [think] that idea is excellent or worthwhile or significant. That is also called working together — working together through an idea, through persuasion, through compulsion, through fear and that is all we know. That is all we know — how to come together to do something. You may say that is not so brutal and superficial, that we work together for love of the country, love of an idea, love of the poor. When there is love, surely, there is no sense of persuasion, is there? There is no sense of vote getting, a forming of parties, the mine and the yours.

So when we do work for something which is not self-projected, which is not profitable for oneself, or for the family or for the cousin or the relations or for an idea and so on and so on, then the working together has quite a different significance. But, before we can find out what it is to work together, surely we must eliminate in ourselves the various forms of compulsion. Which is, can I work with another in which there is no authority, either mine or yours or his, in which there is no personal profit however subtle, in which there is no agreement or disagreement? But the working together, the true working together comes about, surely when there is understanding, when you and I understand about the problem, really understand it; then that very understanding brings about the necessity of working together. It is not self-imposed, it is not the outcome of a tolerance, the outcome of any form of persuasion. When you and I see certain form of education has to be brought about, there is no you and I. What is important is the education. When you and I see that starvation must be rooted out, when we see the necessity of it, when we do feel deeply and not merely intellectually but totally with a great deal of affection, sympathy, love, in that understanding, surely, you and I work together to eliminate starvation. But if you have a system and I have another system by which or through which the starvation can be wiped out, then the system becomes all important and for those systems you and I fight or you gather votes and I gather another set of votes and we fight each other and so we dissipate our thoughts, creative thoughts and energy in bringing about a system that will solve the problem.

Do please examine this though I do not go into great many details which it is not possible as one is talking here, one can see that working together implies a great deal. There can be only working together in every department of live, either political, social, economic, religious or educational, when our minds are free from every form of fear, every form of influence and reward, which is a very difficult thing for most people to do; probably for most of us to do. Because, we do want something at the end of it. We do want a position, a prestige or we think this is the right thing to do and we work, sweat for it pushing others, gathering votes because we thing [think] that is right and so there is a contention, a conflict. To me every form of conflict at whatever level of our existence is the most destructive, deteriorating factor in life; a conflict within and without.

So the problem in working together, seems to me, lies in bringing about a radical change in ourselves, a change which is not the result of any form of influence. Sir, we do know that we change through persuasion, don’t we? Either the Communist form of persuasion or the Socialist form of persuasion or the Democratic form of persuasion or the mother saying do this for me. We do change a little. I do not know if you have noticed for yourself in your own lives, whether you have changed at all and if you do, what has brought about that change. Change is what? Towards what? How is this change in your life been brought about? Has it been through persuasion, through a motive, through some form of compulsion? Or the change has been brought about without any motive because a change brought about through a motive is no change at all? Is it really?

Look sirs, revolution is necessary. Revolution in this school, in society, in religion. Things must be broken up, however uncomfortable it is. Things cannot go on as they are. Where few people rule, where tradition, dogmatism, stupidity reigns, where the few have such capacity, educational and others have not, where there is immense poverty, starvation, degradation and extraordinary prosperity, things cannot remain status quo as they are now. Something must break and they are breaking. I can say I would like this present existence, my condition, the things I have created and hope to create to continue but somebody comes along, breaks it and creates in his own way. So, revolution, economic, social, religious, there must be. But unfortunately most people resist it. Specially people who have little position, whether they are the back [bank] clerks or the family which has a little house, jewellery, property, or a man in position. Everybody resists change; in little things and big things how we resist. When we have to eat a different kind of food, have you not noticed it in your own lives, how your body rebels eating something which is highly spiced or when you are used to mild food? That is also a form of desire not to change.

So in little things and in big things we resist. Please search your own minds, not my speech. Don’t merely listen to a talk. It is a beautiful morning, lovely river, beautiful sky. It is much better to look at all those things than be crowded in this room with people who have no intention of examining any of those things. It is much better to look, enjoy life, to feel the richness of the earth, to the poverty, the river flowing by; much better do that than sit here and speculate. Speculation is the most stupid form of intellectual amusement.

So, we always resist change and change is going on and change will take place whether you like it or not. The few who rule a school are going to be broken the moment something happens and the thing that they have built cracks and the wise man knows and yields in himself and the revolution is shattering the things that he is building but such people are few. So the problem is how to bring about a radical change in ourselves and which is necessary, without persuasion. The difficulty, see the problem involved without persuasion to bring about a change, because if you are persuaded for good or bad, you are changing, you are merely reacting to a certain form of compulsion, Whether it is the Indian form or the Communist form or the Western form. So the difficulty of the problem of change — if I change through some form of compulsion, then it is merely a reaction; it is not a change at all. If I change because you offer me a position, regard or you threaten me and I yield but the change has not taken place. I have merely conformed to another pattern. The change of one pattern to another pattern is no change at all. It is merely a reaction to what has been and so reaction to what has been is not a revolution, because it comes back to a pattern which has been modified from the old. That is all. Am I talking too fast?

So one sees in the world and within oneself that there must be real, radical transformation in the quality of the mind and one also sees that people change very easily from democracy to easily from democracy to Communism, to totalitarianism whether the Nazi kind or the Communist kind. Give them more bread and butter, offer them better opportunities for a livelihood and excite them about the stupidity of nationalism and they will all change. But as one observes, one sees such changes are merely a reaction and being a reaction it can again be influenced to be changed in another direction. One day I am a Communist; if it does not pay, I become a Socialist or a Capitalist and so on. And one sees this throughout the world and one says what does it all mean, where is the change to take place. Is change merely a changing of one pattern to another and conforming to another pattern? You see the problem sirs? What is implied in the word change? I like to change because I think I am angry or greedy; I change because greed is painful or I don’t want to change because I find a great deal of pleasure in greed. So when I want to change greed, I am changing with a motive and the motive is a reaction and when there is a reaction which is the outcome of the desire to change, that reaction can be modified and changed again. I do not know if you are following all this.

So, seeing the extraordinary complexity of a change, of a revolution, a revolution that is total, not economic or social or religious which are all superficial, but a revolution which is a total thing where my whole consciousness, my whole being has been shattered and a new thing comes up. Because you see sirs, change for most of us is a modified continuity and that is no change at all. So, seeing all these difficulties, seeing the complexity involved in this process of revolution, change, one invariably asks, is it possible to change within the field of consciousness. Is this all too difficult sirs? too complex?

AUDIENCE:– May I speak?

KRISHNAMURTI:– Just a moment. I have not yet finished what I want to say. First see the problem sir. You see, really if one really goes into it, it is a problem of Thought versus Being. For most of us thought is a means to change. Through thought we hope to change, through ideas we hope to change. I persuade you through an idea to drop your nationalism or to a particular form of religious practise or what you will. I persuade you because I am very clever, I show you the absurdity of this or that; you are persuaded by my intensity, by the word and you change or at least you think you change. Now, what actually has taken place in that process?

It is that you have changed ideas, you have changed thought and thought is always conditioned; whether it is the thought of Jesus, Buddha , X,Y, or Z, it is still thought and therefore one thought in opposition to another thought and when there is an opposition, a conflict between thought, the result is a continuity, modified thought in another form but it is still within the field of thought. So, seeing that, is it possible to leave thought and bring about a change outside the field of thought? Look sir, change within the field of thought is no change at all. One idea being substituted by another idea is no change and all consciousness is within the field of thought. All consciousness whether it is past, the present or the future is within the field of thought and a change within the field of consciousness which is the limitation of the mind, is no change. So a radical change can only take place outside the field, not within the field and the mind can leave the field only when it sees the confines, the boundaries of the field and any change within the field it realises is no change at all. This is real meditation. This requires great deal of work, thought, energy to go into this, The energy which we dissipate so emptily on practice and all the rest of it, which is all so childish. But to really investigate into the field of thought and see the limitations of consciousness — after all these limitations are the result of efforts, contradictions, conflicts and the desire to change and seeing this field totally, entirely, wholly, understand it, then change of which I am talking about comes; not through any persuasion, not through any form compulsion, authoritative influence and I think that is the only way to function, live and work together. Right sir?

Audience:- I feel all the changes that you are talking about, social, economic, political they are all certain expressions but I think only one principle works and that is the principle, unifying principle.

KRISHNAMURTI:– That is a theory.

A:– I feel there is a unifying principle in the world.

K:– What is it you are trying to say — that there is a unifying principle.

A:– Working in the entire creation.

K: May be. I don’t know.

Audience:– Changes will come. Nobody can resist them. So why do they come and are they not necessary?

KRISHNAMURTI:- You say changes will come. Are you not resisting changes, each one of us? That is all that matters. If we resist, if we do not resist change, we should not talk about unifying principle. Then life would be a constant revolution.

A:– Unifying principle rests on the revolution.

K:– Why bring this word unifying principle into this problem at all.

A:– Are these changes to be rejected or do we accept them.

K:– So you drop the unifying principle. You say changes are inevitable, shall we accept them or reject them. That is very simple to answer. The man who has a position will resist them. He says for God’s sake, keep things as they are, political, economic, in the school and everywhere, keep things as they are, don’t disturb. Right? Then what happens? A man like you, X, Y, comes along and says what are you all doing, this is a footling education you are giving. I know people won’t like this. He says what are you doing in life. So the people in authority, position say for God’s sake do not disturb us. They have no problem of accepting or rejecting. They say don’t disturb us. Right through life it is the same, from the Prime Minister to the small political entity. They have no problem of saying shall I accept or reject. Who says this, who asks this question? — The man who says I am discontented with things as they are; he wants to find out about change, he says shall I accept this change or that change because, he is disturbed for himself, in himself and in accepting a particular form of change, he is satisfied, he is gratified and when he is established in that habit, he does not want to be disturbed. So the problem is not choice of change. We are not given a choice of change.

Audience:– There is another form of change within ourselves and outside which comes like this. I am so dissatisfied that people can very easily be caught in any kind of change which is made to appear the opposite of what they dislike; it means we are again at the mercy of something which we do not know.

Krishnamurti:– Yes sir, that is what we were saying.

Audience:– You said real change must be outside the field of thought. We must first collect all the possible facts, all that can be collected by the mind and then let it influence the feeling and then you must wait until our feelings tell us that you are right.

Krishnamurti:– I don’t quite see how it works that way. That is, you are saying through analysis and deduction gather sufficient information and see the importance of this collective information and then transform that information into the feeling and act from that feeling. That most of us do consciously or unconsciously. I see that certain political or religious way of living is right. How do I know? because, I have read about it, people have persuaded me and I see it is worthwhile, it will improve. I deduce, I collect information and I feel that is the right thing and then I commit myself to the party or against the party. That is what most of us do all the time. Now in that engendering that feeling, surely the thing implied in it, is it not, a sense of judgment based on experience? Experience which is conditioned; my experience as a Communist or a Democrat or what you will is based on several influences, persuasions, compulsions, fears and rewards and from that feeling, I act. And so I feel sirs, and I don’t know how to convey this to you, if it is at all possible verbally.

I am sure most of you have thought about this problem of change ..

AUDIENCE:– I think feeling is more or less unconscious. We should use our thoughts to influence our unconscious feeling with the conscious minds.

KRISHNAMURTI:– I purposely avoided the conscious and the unconscious, because is there a division between the conscious and the unconscious or it an unnatural, superficial division invented by our social, environmental influence? It is too vast a problem to touch, that particular issue. Whether the conscious influences the unconscious at all or the reverse or the unconscious influences the conscious. But the conscious mind is the mechanical mind, the mind that is learning, that has learnt, that has acquired; a superficial collector, of knowledge, goes to the office everyday, does certain routine things and then there is the unconscious and can the conscious mind influence the unconscious? That is an impossible thing. If you really examine it, it is the unconscious that is influencing us, fortunately or unfortunately There is an interplay between the two all the time. To discuss this question of the unconscious and the conscious requires a great deal of penetration, time and we have to start right from the beginning, not at the end of the hour. Perhaps we will do it another time.

Audience:- How is it possible to bring about a change outside the field of consciousness?

Audience:– That is possible only when we can forget the division between you and I.

Krishnamurti:– I do not think you have listened at all. A gentleman says how to change away from the conscious. He wants to know what the method is, how to do it. You know it is one of the odd things that we are so slavish to methods, as though method is going to solve any problem. It never has except mechanical problem. Sir, there is a method of putting something together; if I want to be mechanical, there is a method and how to learn mechanical things. That is very simple. I go to school and they teach me and it is a mechanical thing but we are not talking of mechanical things and therefore there is no method. You have to think it out, Thinking, working, has no method. Sir, do look at it this way, if I may point it out. Is there a method to love people? what sir?

Audience:– No.

Krishnamurti:– Why do you say no there and method elsewhere?

Audience:– When we think of change, it is material; it can be felt, experienced.

Krishnamurti:– Think it out sir, don’t ask me. I told you the problem is so vast. You cannot say tell me what the method is. It has no meaning but if you and I are concerned about change, not theoretically and go back home and continue in my own way but if it is a problem where you have got to change, where you discover the necessity of change, then all these problems arise. The problem of persuasion, influence, punishment, reward and your reaction of which you are not aware and you can get up for a few minutes and say, please tell me all about it, what is change outside the field of consciousness but if a man who is really interested in this question and human beings must be interested vitally because that is the problem in the world; not in this school or round the corner but this is the problem of humanity — of how to bring about a change in the quality of the mind, which now is becoming mechanical, slavish. If that was a vital problem to me and you, you won’t say casually what is the method. It has no meaning. That is why sir, please, either we discuss theoretically or factually. I feel all theoretical discussion is valueless, hot air, waste of time but if we discuss factually, factually in the sense I see the necessity of change, I see I am greedy and how am I to change that; I am envious, how am I to break that envy; not the method but let us examine the problem of envy, how a man who is in position of power, if he says look, don’t disturb me,

I love this, I am a great man, there is no problem. I go away from him and leave him, because I do not want anything from him and so I don’t play up to him. But as ordinary human beings we are concerned with this problem. It is not my problem which I am thrusting on you. It is your problem and few of us, if we can think it over together, then that is different thing altogether. But if you sit there and say, tell me all about it, you and I have no relationship.

Audience:– There is a staircase and we reach the roof. We do not know what type of roof there is. Only when we go there we will know. Shall we say that roof is something external to the staircase? Will there be roof if there is no stair case?

Krishnamurti:– Sir, the house is the floor, the walls, the windows, the roof and the stair case. You cannot separate the staircase from the house. The roof is the house. There is no such thing as the roof hanging without the walls. It is a total thing. So the total thing is the house. Now change within the house, going from one room to another, decorating in a different way and so on is no change. Within the house every change is limited. It is conditioned, it is narrow. It is not freedom. Now, seeing that, how is there to be a change altogether which is not within the house? Either we say that change is not possible, all change is always everlastingly eternally within the house. What you are talking about outside the house is shere nonsense. What is it that you think? Within the house or is it possible to bring about a change, not a change but a way of action. After all change means action, a way of action which is not confined to the house. Look sir, I act. I am a Hindu and I see how stupid, squalid, ugly it all is and I join Catholicism. It is an action, is it not? And I think I have changed but I see it is still within the house, within the cage, it is which in the same field of human misery. Only I have exchanged one set of slavery to another. Seeing that, I say is it possible to act without this limitation, without this house, without this system of Hinduism or Catholicism. Though we say it is not possible as vast number of people do, including the Catholics and so on, the Communists and so on, they say it is not possible. That may be. Then you have to admit that the mind is everlastingly a slave.

Audience:– As you say change from Hinduism to Catholicism is no change. When we cross the staircase, we are in a different dimension.

Krishnamurti:– That is, you are saying it is through gradual process, step after step you reach the roof and you reach a different dimension. It is too complicated. Do not easily agree. You are inviting time, are you not? When you say step by step up the ladder till you reach the roof from where you have a different look on life, a different outlook on life, the process from the first step to the last step implies gradualness, which means time, does it not? Which means a distance from one point to another point. All this implies still working within the field of thought, within the field of the mind.

Audience:– We have not seen the roof. That is last step. When a man is going up the stairs, he does not know what the roof is but at the last step it is a spontaneous thing.

Krishnamurti:– Similes are most misleading. That is why I refuse to talk in similes and examples. Then we shall get lost in similes and examples. Don’t try to find way out; just see the problem. I am just putting all this to you but be aware of the problem sir. The problem is that we must change. You can say intellectually don’t disturb me, let things remain as they are. Things will not remain as they are. Life is going to shatter it, whether it is life, life in the sense of the soldier with the gun or a man like me with the word. Something is going to shatter. When you are so shattered by an outward event, through some form of compulsion, influence, I am asking is that a change? So, I say is it a change if there is a motive of any kind and is it possible to change without a motive. Don’t say it is possible or it is not possible. We are thinking it out. We are not coming to any conclusion because that is a terrible thing to come to a conclusion, because then you have stopped thinking. So seeing the enormity of the problem, one has to be very tentative about this and therefore one has to ask and find out for oneself through watching, awareness, all the rest of it, to see if there is a change which is not merely induced, influenced.

Sir, see one of the difficulties, another difficulty — the mind likes to function in habit. Habit is the desire to be secure, because I am a great man, I have power and I love that habit. In that habit I like to function. So the mind is always seeking various habits which give it certain sense of security and in that security it can function and any movement to disturb that habit, is [it] resists. So anybody who wants to break the habit into which the mind has falled and to break it we say have an example, influence it, practice, do this and do that, threaten it, reward it and I say this takes place as one watches it. Is that a change or is change something entirely different? Is it something which awakens the extraordinary feeling that the real change is in creation; not the creative faculty of a cunning mind or the mind that has a gift or a talent, But that sense of complete release from the house and acting within the house?