Public Talk 4, Ojai, California, 16 June 1940

Krishnamurti’s Talk in the Oak Grove, at Ojai,

Sunday, June 16, 1940

In the last three talks I tried to explain an experimental approach to the problem of greed, an approach that is not the result of merely denial or control but an approach that comes when experimenting with the problem of greed, that understanding, that [will](../../projects/kft/data/transcripts-input/vri.ll) to solve the conflict of greed. I am not going into that this morning because I think we have dealt with it in the last three talks pretty thoroughly, because there are many problems connected with it and each one has to solve those. If one has the central point very clear, the central point, that as long as one psychologically depends — psychologically being the desire for happiness, satisfaction, enrichment — there must be greed, and therefore the problems that awaken, that arise in connection with greed. And when one is caught up in this net of craving, with all the intricacies, delicacies and subtleties of greed, if one wants to disentangle thought from that, it is not good to merely try to control but rather build up understanding. So there is this craving, this continual urge to things. If you merely control, that is a limitation to thought. You do not solve the problem in dependence on things. You merely seek to deny. But if one begins to discover why there is this craving, and one can only do that by continual alertness and constant watchfulness, in a watchfulness of choice; and if one experiments with that you will see — not in a day or two, but by continually dwelling upon it, probing it, experimenting with it — one comes to an understanding, and that understanding is permanent with regard to your greed. One is no longer caught up in greed. There is no fear of falling back into it. If we have that point clear, that understanding alone will free us from this conflict of greed, which is creating such havoc in the world and all the resulting problems connected with it. Then we can, as I went into it a little bit last Sunday, into the problem of relationship with people, we can there again apply the same principles and the same alertness; and here, of course, it is much more difficult, much more complex, because one has to deal with two elements, not only this but the other, the other being perhaps your immediate friends or your relation or your neighbour and society and the values of society — and this problem becomes much more complex, and I think one can deal with it if one deals with it more simply, perhaps, therefore, more directly.

We make, do we not, of relationship into a thing of dependence. That is, one depends for psychological satisfaction, happiness and well-being on another. There again if I may point out, let us approach this problem experimentally. That is, one has to experiment with one’s self and see where one is with regard to the relationship on hand with others, and if our relationship on another is merely that of dependence. Then that dependence results in fear, in possessiveness, in a friction, with which perhaps some of us are familiar, because psychologically the other person is important to us for our happiness, for our well-being. Without that other person we feel empty, uncreated. There is a dependence, and, therefore, a continual questioning, and our social relationship also is based on that. Economically, we depend on others. That is a perfectly normal thing to do, naturally, because there we can choose, discard or change our relationship if it is possible economically in our work, in our livelihood, if it is possible. I am not referring to that type of dependence. I am referring to that dependence which is the result of psychological craving for inward satisfaction, which one hopes one can arrive at or get from another. That is, if one feels full, rich in relationship with another being, one’s own little being will be thereby enriched. That is, we consider a relationship of dependence produces a greater flame, greater happiness, a greater well-being being created. Isn’t that so? In being related, in this relationship of dependence, one hopes one’s own little flame of affection, of kindliness, and so on, that will be enlarged, inflamed, expanded, in relation with another, and one having felt, one cleaves to the other person. So in your relationship there must always be this withholding, questioning, suspicion, I think with which we are more or less familiar, aren’t we, and behind it all in this dependence there is a reaction to be inviolate, that is to be isolated, not to have this constant friction, and, therefore, to build up a resistance, either biological or physical, so that you will no longer have this friction. So in relationship the main point, is it not, is not that of depending, but how one is capable of being in a state of affection or a state of love or kindliness, generosity, and so on, how to conquer that in which there is not this desire to isolate one’s self, to withdraw. Because if one can understand this relationship between people, then perhaps one can understand the relationship with the world, and as we tried to explain, the world being ourselves in extension.

If I depend for my happiness on a neighbour’s society, environment becomes essential for my well-being. I create an environment which acts as a security, as a guarantee for my happiness, for my creative existence, for my psychological happiness. Having created it, I cling to it, that is, the physical embodiment of another or values, and, therefore, any alteration in it, any change in it, unfortunately, I violently object to, because essentially the relationship is based on dependence, and, therefore, a desire to hold and possess.

And at the same time, intellectually, we know that life is a continual process of flux, change, mutation, and one side being intellectual, urging the change, the mutability of all things, and yet emotionally, in our feelings, wanting to hold on, and, hence in ourselves there is this constant battle going on. Now, how are we going to alter having that battle, and is it possible to alter fundamentally, deeply, not again superficially, changing persons, changing values, changing embodiments? If we merely seek to do that and if we change the embodiment, attempting to eradicate, the deep source of the trouble is still there, so let us understand that very clearly. Relations to be harmonious, relationship does not deeply lie in environment, in the other person, but in one’s self, and as long as one does not deeply alter the source of the trouble, mere change alone will not affect it.

So when one is considering relationship, the primary thing is one’s self, and also with the other person it is himself. If each of us considers the primary importance is not how you react and how I react but how I am and what you are, and what am I, and if that can be fundamentally, deeply altered, then perhaps our relationship will be changed and thereby effect or bring about a different relationship and different condition in the world. And also in this problem of relationship with another, a relationship is not merely on the physical, surely, but on different levels of thinking, feeling, and so on, and one can be harmonious only with another when integrally, wholly, completely, one is harmonious in one’s self. Therefore, in relationship the important thing is not the other but one’s self. It is not a process of isolation, not a process of more and more selfish demands, but an understanding of the process that causes the friction with another, and that as such, requires experiment. That is why one has to approach one’s self as we do with regard to things, property, clothes, food, and so on. In the same way one has to experimentally approach one’s own self in relation with another. There we begin to discover how we depend on another for our sensations, for our satisfaction, physical or intellectual or emotional. Being dependent, we must possess that person and, therefore, fear. So in this relationship, which is so complex, one has to have tremendous patience. One must inwardly see one’s self in relationship with another and see what is involved in that relationship, how there is friction, and there is not one cause of friction. There are many causes, and to discover the many causes, naturally, one must have patience, and, as I said last week, relationship is really a process of self-revelation. In relationship I discover myself, what I am, and I never allow myself to be discovered as long as I depend on another, which prohibits that person from telling me what I am. Please see the importance of it. In making relationship, try to make it as harmonious as possible, not force it or make it artificial, and therefore avoiding, therefore building up resistance. Therefore, never get into that relationship of criticism, discovery, revelation. After all, if another does not show me what I am, who will show me, unless I have an extraordinary capacity, a critical, experimental capacity to unfold, question, to probe — which can only come in contact with another, with society or with values. So if I base my relationship with another on dependence, then it is no longer revelation. Then it is clearly a question of satisfaction which brings about that state of non-self-reliance. I do not know if we know how we react in our relationships. I am laying for the moment emphasis on our relationship with regard to things and our relationship with regard to people, because in understanding this relationship we are building up an understanding, an understanding that transcends reason as well as feeling. Because, if we base our understanding merely on reason then there is in it a process of contempt, isolation and pride. And if we base our understanding merely on emotion, feeling, then it soon evaporates, leaving us more hollow than ever before; whereas, if we begin to understand our relationship with regard to things and with regard to people, without this desire to discard, to deny, but to merely understand the whole complex problem, and, therefore, we bring into that an understanding that is not the result of mere reason and emotion, and I feel that understanding is permanent, psychologically permanent. Therefore, in it is the element of truth. Therefore, it is impersonal and cannot be destroyed, therefore. It is no longer at the behest of time. So that is why I began with regard to food, clothes and property, if we could not bring understanding into the problem of greed and thereby discard greed, and likewise if we cannot bring understanding into the question of relationship with people, and, thereby bring about a compassion, a kindness, a generosity in our relationship. When we merely cultivate kindness and generosity and kindliness towards all people, then it becomes merely emotional, or if we base it on the intellect, on reason, in which there is an element of pride. Whereas, if one really begins to understand the problem of relationship comprehensively, integrally, as a whole, then we see the main aspects, and in this integral perception, in this wholeness of relationship there is no longer a pride, but a fullness, a wholeness. But, as I say, one has to really approach this problem experimentally, and one can approach it experimentally if one begins to be aware, if one begins to perceive how one is reacting with regard to things and with regard to people and with regard to society. That requires concentration; that requires intellect, and that is why one thinks. Meditation is necessarily a form of training. Such a training has its own dangers because one becomes one-sided, incomplete, therefore, more and more shallow. To completely control, too, one has to have interest which brings about its own concentration. For example, if you are really interested in possessing many things, clothes, and so forth, and so forth, find out why being interested in, why you wish to possess. Don’t accept it for granted that you are interested, but by questioning find out why you are interested and you are beginning to awaken your interest with regard to it; you bring interest into it, and, therefore, awaken concentration, but if you merely try to concentrate without interest to discover why you are interested in these things, surely then you are merely superimposing certain ideas on yourself, and, therefore, they do not produce, they are not conducive to an understanding, which we have been talking about.

I feel that to understand the complex problem of life and its conflicts, one must have the capacity, the faculty, of understanding the complex problem; not of one cause or a series of causes, but integrally by cultivating an understanding that is whole and not partial. But to have this understanding that is complete all around, whole, one must begin with things with which we are concerned in our daily life — food, money, clothes, people — and if we can understand them, we can lay the foundation so then we can proceed to other things which become more and more complex.

Q: In speaking of self-revelation, do you mean revealing one’s self to one’s self or to others?

A: What do you think? Can you reveal yourself to another, unless the other is without prejudice, without bias, without hurt, and so on, and so on. Then he will see how you are. What I was trying to explain in relationship, relationship acts as a mirror. It gives the necessary card, frame, in which to see how you are, but as I explained, if your eyes are blind, if you are crooked, if you are prejudiced with regard to this, if you have theories, views, in regard to this or that, then what you see will be perverted. Then in relationship there is no revelation but to see clearly what prevents you from seeing clearly. I hope I am explaining the point. In relationship there is a possibility of revealing, revelation of one’s self. We can not see what is revealed clearly if we have ideas about ourselves, views, beliefs, which prevent our clear perception. So our primary consideration is not that we shall see clearly, but why have we these ideas, views, beliefs about ourselves, are they necessary? That is, we tackle the problem indirectly. If you tackle it directly it is not necessary, but if you understand the reasons of perversion, why you have an idea about this, partly pride, partly tradition, partly embodimental influence, your fears, and so forth, and so forth, and so forth. So those are the things that are preventing each one of us from seeing exactly what is reflected. Without understanding the background, we try to alter, without perceiving, and make more confusion; whereas, if one begins to question — — first, of all, most of us deny, do not think that we are what we are. We see crookedly. Most of us are convinced that what we see is all right or all wrong, or we are so concerned in altering it. So, if I may suggest, the primary consideration should be not the alteration of what is perceived, but to inquire and discover if we see clearly and become aware of the many causes that bring about a perversion, and that requires, as I said, constant questioning, probing and earnest inquiry, but unfortunately, few of us have time. We have time, rather, but we are not interested. Therefore, we seek an immediate result, and thereby destroy the possibility of complete understanding.

Q: You have used several times the word “training” in these past talks. As the idea of training with many of us is associated with control and leading eventually to the possibility of rigidity and lifelessness, could you give a definition of this term? Is it to be understood in the sense of unflagging will, of alertness, adaptability and constant pliability?

A: Let us understand, first of all, what it is we mean by control. Do we control ourselves because it does not pay us to do otherwise? Do we control out of fear? Do we control in order not to be heard or do we control in order to gain a certain result? That is, is control the result of the search for greater satisfaction? If it is, then there is a rigidity and lifelessness, because it is based primarily on fear. That is, if I, being dissatisfied with the world, seek a result, seek a happiness in another world, yet I am clinging to the satisfactions of this world, and clinging to them, therefore, being afraid of them, and being caught in them. If I, without understanding, reject them and seek satisfaction in others, then there must be control, must there not, because there is still the pull for the things of this world and after this world. Therefore, there must be control based on fear, on pain, on suffering, control based on the desire to seek a certain result which will be greater, give more satisfaction, give more gratification. Control surely does ultimately result in sterility of thought. You may think it may be enough. In that there is no pliability but a rigidity, with which most of us are familiar, who have done it. That is not what I am referring to. I am talking of understanding. That is not the result of control as I tried to explain, but in understanding there is a control. Control does not produce understanding but understanding does produce control. To understand, one must have the interest, the clarity of thought and the clarity of purpose, the clarity of purpose not established by another, but, to seek, how you, in your relationship with things or people, what are your reactions. Surely in the inquiry, in the experimental approach with regard to things, you are beginning to understand. You are beginning to see how you depend on things for your psychological happiness, and in that very inquiry, in that very questioning, you are beginning to be free from things, and that inquiry, if it is earnest, serious and constant, then you will see that brings a natural control, not this control of fear, will, and reason; and such an understanding gives a pliability, because that understanding is whole and not partial. In other words, if we try to cultivate a virtue, it is no longer a virtue. Virtue is a by-product of understanding. So those people who say, “I must no longer be covetous, greedy; therefore I am going to hold myself, train myself, not to be greedy,” they soon become rigid in life because their one concern is not to be greedy. They limit the whole vast expanse of life into one virtue. They think by the aggregation of many parts, they will come to the whole. But if one understands the problem of greed, which is so complex, it is not to be understood in a couple of minutes or a couple of weeks; and in trying to probe, question, experiment with it, you will see there comes a curious kind of control which is not the primary reason, primary demand, but a by-product. I hope I have made this clear.

Q: How does one cultivate virtues?

A: Let us put it differently if we can. There are primary and secondary virtues. The primary virtues are understanding and affection, love. Every other virtue is secondary, isn’t it? The secondary virtues, such as not being angry, not being greedy, being dutiful, and so on, and so on, and so forth, and so forth. They have great danger in themselves, have they not? Inherently, secondary virtues, being the result, being in themselves their opposites, are not virtues at all. Take, for example, the whole question of duty. That can be brutally misused, and is misused. But duty is a form of virtue, but as it is secondary, and if one has no understanding and love, that duty can be misused colossally, brutally, tragically. So as there are primary and secondary virtues, and the secondary virtues are merely the by-product of the primary virtues, one has to be conscious or one has to cultivate, if I can use that word without being misunderstood, cultivate understanding which brings about the secondary virtues. I wonder if I am making myself in any way clear. I am not sure. Most of us have been brought up on secondary virtues, haven’t we: to be dutiful, to be kindly, not to get angry, not to be jealous, not to be greedy, and so on, and so on. Our whole education is based on secondary virtues, most of our education; and as I said, the secondary virtues can be misused because secondary virtues are the result of their own opposites, and, therefore, the secondary virtues contain the opposite, and, therefore, they are no longer virtues from my point of view. That is, if one is angry, covetous, and one tries not to be angry, not to be greedy, the desire not to be greedy or angry is a secondary virtue, and I say that a secondary virtue is inherently its own opposite. When I say I must not be angry, why do I say that. Because we find it does not pay to be angry. You might lose your job. It brings pain. So fear is prompting you to cultivate the opposite. But, if you inquire why you are greedy and not merely cultivate the opposite, in the inquiry why you are greedy, you will begin to create understanding, and in that understanding the secondary is also there, which is, you are not greedy. So the primary virtues are real understanding and love, and if one has those, if one begins to build up those, the other things come into being, but if one merely emphasizes the secondary, the primary will not come into being, and that requires great balance, delicacy of approach.

Q: What do you mean by self-reliance?

A: There is a great deal involved in this question, and I do not know if we can tackle it this morning. For most of us, religion has not made us self-reliant because we look to salvation, either to the masters, to ideas, to a deified personality, so we have been brought up with the idea of looking to another or looking to society or to environment to alter the conditions in which we are groups. Conditions can not be changed through groups, through associations, through parties, through this and that. In looking to another for a change of society, for salvation, for the discovery of reality, to another primarily, makes us non-self-reliant. Surely, that is obvious, isn’t it? That is one part of the question. The other is we have made self-reliance as merely individualistic. That is, we see that we must depend on ourselves for everything psychologically. Therefore, reason brings into it a certain sense of pride which affects our relationship with another, with society, and so on, and also in it there is an idea of self-expression. We all feel we must express, self-express ourselves. Otherwise, we are not creating. We all want this, have this craving to express ourselves, and with the result we have placed in that self-expression, we think it is of great importance. Please, I am not condemning all this. I am just showing the complex problem of what is implied in self-reliance. Now, let us see, analyze a little more what is implied when we rely on another or a group for our salvation, for the changing of the individual. What happiness is there psychologically, spiritually, when you rely on another for your happiness, for your spiritual security. When you look to the masters or when you look to the Saviour, what happens to you psychologically? Surely it is an obvious thing, isn’t it? There is in it intrinsically an element of fear, that the discovery of reality can only come through another and not through your own strenuousness, through your own understanding, through your own volition, but that somebody else will give it to you, with the result that belief becomes the most important thing, dogma takes the place of understanding. Therefore, there must be friction between the various types of dogmas and groups. So self-reliance becomes a contradiction in terms of religious hopes and religious pursuits; and it is only when you are completely self-reliant, completely independent of any saviour, that you find reality, but that will be in the future talks. Likewise when we rely for our happiness, for our social well-being, merely on groups and organizations, not that organizations are not necessary, but rely on them, again the primary and the secondary, if we rely on them, then we shall be merely used as instruments of exploitation. Then again if we seek mere self-expression, what is involved? We are partly the result of environment, and if we merely express that environment, it is surely not self-expression, is it? I wonder if you are all getting tired —

AUDIENCE: No.

KRISHNAMURTI: As I said, we are the result of the past, and if we merely continue the past, and think that is self-expression, that must create chaos, must it not? But, if we understand, we try to understand what is the past, the various ideas that have been handed down to us, the conditioning influences that restrict thought, partly because our ancestors were afraid and partly because their ideas which have been handed down to us, with which are incorporated other sets of ideas which we have acquired without understanding the whole process of that and surely that self-expression leads to further competition and further brutality, and besides there is also in it, is there not — — as I said, we are the result partly of yesterday, and without, and if the result merely expresses, surely that is not self-reliance, is it. If I, being a Hindu, suppose I am a Hindu, and being a Hindu, I express certain dogmas, certain hopes, certain fears, which have been handed to me, and I express them originally and completely as possible, surely that is not self-expression. I am only continuing what has been planted in me. And that is what you are doing. That is what all of us are doing. So all of us are trying to self-express, which means all of us are trying to continue that which has been handed down to us, that I am a Hindu, that I am God, that there are certain traditions, certain memories and certain values, and you are doing the same. Ignorance is expressing itself, and we revel in that expression without understanding the whole problem or what it is we are expressing. and we try to alter the expressions according to space and time, and in alteration we think we are achieving progress, movement, getting more and more volume, expansion, you understand. So the problem is in self-expression, is it not, what it is that we are expressing. And if we can understand that which we have been going into for the last four weeks, there comes a peculiar self-reliance, which to me is the result of a wholeness and understanding. So those of us who feel they must express, self-express themselves, and thereby find self-reliance in that expression, must first inquire what it is that is expressed. If it is merely greed, such expression has its own results. If self-expression is the result of dependence, naturally, that has its own results, and, hence, conflict. So in inquiring as to that what is expressed, we discover not only the conditionings of the past, but also the reactions of the past to the present; and also we discover in deed the conditionings that the past and the present have produced in us. So self-reliance can only come about — the true self-reliance, not self-reliance of mere aggressive self-expression — real, true self-reliance can come about only in understanding, and understanding the conditionings, the values, and so on, that have been imposed on us, which we have created. And in that understanding there comes a peculiar self-reliance, which is really a completeness. Thank you for this talk.