Public Talk 4, Rome, 10 April 1966

Questioner: [(Italian)]{.mark}

Krishnamurti: Do you want to discuss that? Let’s go over briefly what we were talking the last few times that we met here. We said that it is absolutely necessary, from every point of view, that there should be a radical revolution in… psychologically, in consciousness itself. That’s what we said — at the beginning of the first talk, if I remember rightly. Then we went into the question of pleasure and pain; because we said as long as there is conflict of any kind, conscious or unconscious, at any level, of which we are unaware or aware, mind — which is, mind being the total entity of one’s being — mind cannot function clearly, harmoniously, cannot see without distortion what actually is. And this conflict exists because man has always sought pleasure, pleasure in which there is psychological security, pleasure in so many different ways — his moral, ethical, spiritual, economic values and everything is based on pleasure. And we said that where there is pleasure, there is inevitably pain, and hence the conflict between pleasure and pain. We went into that sufficiently in detail. What gives sustenance to pleasure is desire, and desire is strengthened by thought. I… we went… we explained all that pretty thoroughly and it’s no good going over and over again. I mean… and also one must be rather intelligently aware that intellectual argumentation, intellectual verbal exchange, theories, have no value at all. I mean, all the theologians and the priests throughout the world have indulged in theories, endless theories about God, about how to live and what to do and all the rest of it, but that has not brought about a fundamental, radical revolution in man. So we are not here discussing at boyish, adolescent, ideological level at all. We are trying to talk over things together which are serious problems in our lives. And so, last time we met, if I remember rightly, we were talking about fear. And man has lived for centuries upon centuries with fear, outwardly and especially inwardly. And having this unresolved fear, he has built a network of escapes: gods, priests, religions, amusements, every form, in order to escape from this deep-rooted fear. And we went into that too: whether it’s possible to radically eradicate fear. Because if one lives with fear, however trivial or however deep it is, one always has a dual, hypocritical activity in life. And a mind that is afraid obviously lives in darkness, strain and all the rest of it; so we went into the necessity of being free from fear completely and whether it is at all possible. And also we went into that; I don’t know if we went into it but perhaps we can go into that this morning. And so what shall we discuss this morning? (Pause) Mary Zimbalist: Could we speak about clarity in observation? K: Somebody asks clarity and observation. (Pause) (Inaudible) Q: I think… (inaudible) …wish to propose is very interesting, essentially regarding oneself. Could we also go into, as such, regarding oneself in conflict with… (inaudible)? K: Yes sir. First of all, to go into this question, either we do it theoretically or actually. If we do it theoretically — that is, intellectually, verbally, superficially — then it’ll lead us nowhere; it’ll be your opinion against my opinion, or somebody else’s opinion. And if we are merely discussing a different formula from that which we have had already, again that’ll lead us nowhere; because we can invent innumerable formulas, concepts: what God is, what he’s not and so on, so on, so on; which the modern theologian is trying to do — define — because they feel the whole concept of God has gone… has to be changed completely. Still they are dealing with concepts, and a clever concept is as good as a stupid concept; it’s still a concept. Right? So let us be clear what we are discussing, which demands clarity, which demands perception, and perceiving, rejecting theories; theories, concepts, formulas, beliefs, dogmas and all the rest of it. Right? If you can do it. I don’t know if you can do that; because that demands enormous, intelligent awareness into oneself. Otherwise we shall indulge in superficial, intellectual, verbal explanations and dialectical exchange, which will lead us nowhere. Right? So to examine this question, which is: first of all, is there such a thing as God? I am not saying there is or there is not. Is there such a thing? And to find out, one must be free of dogma, surely — right? — dogma, belief, concepts; otherwise, if you’re not, your beliefs, your concepts, your conditioned thinking is going to direct you in what direction you’re going to think, feel; therefore you can’t find. Now, I wonder if you see… Because man… I mean, this is obviously historical fact, that man has been seeking this extraordinary thing which he calls God — or give it a different name — ever since man has been; because he says life is so superficial, so meaningless, so boring: earning a livelihood for the next forty years, breeding a lot of children, a family, a routine, and, ‘Is that all? My God, is that all?’ (Laughs) So caught in that, he has to invent something. I don’t know if you’re following all this. AndiIn te most ancient Hindu — as far as I… I’ am t a Hindu; I mean… — thught, there was no concept asof G at all. There was just direct communication with nature; and. Go became got and more important because theyas p further and further away from nature, from feeling, from direct communication. And, Thatourse, that was utiliszed y clever people, who became priests, tointerpret reality to them –; yo know, t. Thhole game andof eloitation and vested interests of priests came into being. Right? Please, this is… I am just stating a fact.; Ttisis not my opinion against your opinion; tThisis what has happened historically throughout the ages. So f I… if one wants to discover what that thing is, there must be complete freedom, not only from To eef, dogma,s, boryies,dcepts, fom this; otditioning which man has lived in, which is propaganda. You know? You have been told every day, frm childhood what God is, what God is not, how to find rwis Him through the saviour, through the priest, through rituals, through… Right? Shall we proceed there? I mean, whether you are… whether one can be free is up to you; I mean… whether you can really, seriously be aware of all this conditioning and throw it off; not eventually but immediately, otherwise there is no way out. So again, as far as one understands, there has always been this idea that God outside, God within. Right? I don’t personally like to use the word *God* because it has very little meaning; it is so heavily burdened. You can use the word *stick* as well as any… (laughs) — you follow? — it has no meaning. So whether it is outward — which is, a universe created by God — or inward, personal, who is looking after, shaping, guiding, watching over each one of us — which seems rather infantile — and to find out whether there is such thing — we’ll use the word *thing* for the moment; again the word *truth* is heavy — whether there is such a reality, such a… something which is unimaginable, unthinkable, unconditioned; must be, otherwise we are just playing with words. So how does one find out? Right? That’s the question, isn’t it? Right sir? Right? The only instrument we have is the brain. Thought. Right? Please, let’s talk it over; because this is not a talk on my part. We must talk it over together as two friends who are investigating something, not just one man talking and then you are all listening, that leads us nowhere. *[Je vous en prie]{.mark}*. Q: (Inaudible) …when you spoke of this freedom, in order to reach… to be able to start the search for this unimaginable thing, there must be this freedom, complete freedom, from dogmas, from… K: Yes, yes. Q: If you really have this freedom, do you continue to search? (Inaudible) K: That’s what I want to… First let’s come to that point, you see? So we have to investigate what freedom is and who is the seeker and what is there is to be sought. It isn’t… you know, this isn’t just a polite Sunday morning discussion, talk; this is enormously serious. And what is there to be free from? Is freedom merely a reaction? You say, ‘I’m in prison, I want to be free.’ That’s a reaction. Therefore, I’m always contrasting, dividing freedom as opposed to slavery; and the opposite is not freedom. If freedom is the opposite of slavery, then freedom still contains slavery. I don’t know if you’re following.If f iIs tere any other kind of freedom? I see this; I sees thedom, if it is whieaction, contains in that freedom that which has been, and therefore it’s not freedom at all. After all, freedom is a reaction; like communism is a reaction against capitalism and all the rest of it; so…eteenth century socialism — you know(inaIon’t go into all that. And is there a freedom which is not a reaction? I say there is, if one Theware of thise prcess of reactions. So fFreeom is not from something,; fredom is *per se*, in itself; n. otecause If Im und toby ctain family ties, this, that; that’s merely, when I andak away from ithat is a reaction.; Aad . Threaction will again make me act aglch will pprodce a familynew m which I amwilling to escape again, and so on and on and on. Is this… am I going too fast? Q: No. Q: (Inaudible) talAh, wait a minute; I’m coming to that, madame.; Ffrs let us understand what we mean by *freedom*, the word. The politician uses it, the priest uses it, every dictator uses the word *freedom*, and andrefore we must be very clear what we mean. We mean –, atleast, I mean — a f Freom which is not a reaction. ; Ffeom is not revolt.; Ffeeom has nothing to do with independence. I don’t know… ‘”I wnt to be independent from my family.'” — man, that’s just a boyish, immature reaction; and that reaction sets about waves of other reactions and therefore it’s not freedom at all. I don’t know if you’ areRight? (Pause) And is this freedom, which is not of reaction, how does it come about? I don’t know if you’re… If it is the product of will — right? — which is, because I *want* to be free — I don’t if you… — I want to be free because I am frightened, I am caught — right? — I am slave to… — oh, it doesn’t matter — a certain habit; the wanting to be free is an activity of the will — I mean, this isn’t good enough — and therefore it’s not freedom. (Pause) So how is this freedom to come about? It cannot be the result of a desire, a will, an aim which I must achieve, an ideological goal which I must pursue — I don’t know if you’re following… — therefore it’s not freedom. So how is this freedom to come about first? Now, if you will… I’ll go into it a little bit. That is, when there is an awareness of this process of reaction from *what is* to *what should be*, an awareness of this — you understand? — from *what is* to *what should be* — that is, the *what is* is lack of freedom; *what should be* is freedom — when there is an awareness of this process, then there is freedom. I… we mean by awareness — let’s go into that, otherwise we shan’t… — awareness implies an observation without criticism, without evaluation, without justification, without condemnation. Right? To be aware of that plant, those flowers, without identifying that species with its name and all the rest of it; just to observe. And just see how extraordinarily difficult that is, too, just to observe, without the operation of knowledge coming into it, which is thought. The thought which observes has an image of that flower, identified with the name; therefore the image is looking but not attention. I don’t know if you’re following all this. Tha’s fairly easy, because there’sit’shing… it’s just outside, objective thing; but it becomes. Ith more difficult to observe inwardly, to observe. If*atis* and the feeling,, a d *hould be*’; whih means denying what is. No? O course. M is a weyou sa'”This hould be that,'” thisis denied. If I say to a boy, ‘”You mst be like your uncle, who is so clever,'” youIhavedenied the boy — s. uel this is simple — and wWhen yuI compre the boy to somebody with s very clever, youI havedenied the integrity of thise boy. I dont know… So to be aware of the fact, and the desire to change the fact into *what should be* is the denial of the fact. PWhew. ow, to beIf you of the *what is* and *what should be* — an idea, an ideal, the whole of that –, to b aware of all that, withut condemning, withofying,; justto watch it , withtakes place inwardly;, whenyou are completely aware of it without any choice, —ttheris the other thing,; somehhas nothing to do with voluntary, spontaneous will. Because Iyou’ h erstood this and I’ am… trefore, beingwhat iof it this,and th is theis oth thingn’t know if… Right? (Pause) You see, tThat bings in a tremendous problem of what is beauty is –.ory,I must… Iit is elated to God, but… — bBecaus without thisThe quty of beauty, you can’t find. I don’t know… You knNow, pease don’t… I mean, beauty, like space, has to be understood;, not ntellectually but non-verbally. We only know beauty through comparison, or through the thing which has been created by or, put ogether by man, and , or c”That s beautiful; this is notat’s biful.'” Thisis… You see a picture and you say, ‘”That’ beautiful.'” You ee a beautiful woman and you say, ‘”How lvely,'” We seree; it’s always something made, put together, created, nature. Right? No? and sis aare cein standards, andhere is athe mig up of good taste with beauty, and so on, and s, and s. Now,, but ere beauty without the object? Like space; – iIshee space without the object? You understand what I’m saying? No, no; se… no, no, this becomesis ver Take tThat pant; that plant exists in space and that plant creates space aroundit. Of course. There is this house in space and also there is this house… because of this house, there is space round it. Right? Because there is tThis rom; this room has space because of the walls. The walls exist in space, outside. Now, wWe onl know space in relation to thea center — riht? — the object. Oh, this is…. CommentQ: Well, yYou men we knnside and the oThere of theand sp. K: No, I… Q: No, no… (iInaudile) outsir example. hK: Yes, I took that as an example. You see, there is tThe hose that exists in space and also, because of the house,; it cu kspace. You can’t think of space without a thinker. I don’t know… Q: Yes. K: , So e has tand yo out if there is a space without the object. Leave that for the moment. Again, take love — sorry to use that. The again, so is hely loaded but… (Laughter) , but ot being… I’m not… we are not using it sentimentally, emotionally, or deionally and all that slippery stuff, which is silly. UnWe areental;l — it something… NNow, l. Wwe ‘”I lov: – my untry, my wife, my family, my God, my…, I loe,'”; becse always ” or ais an object to which… to be loved, whether it isbject is an idea, or antity and so on; and hence, w. Whene object moves, the love becomes entangled, jealous and all the rest of it; we won’t go into all that. So one has to alto We wahether if this love without the object. Because all this will show something which we are leading up to. So we say there is freedom which is not a reaction; freedom is not *from* something. Like love,Neithey, nor s, nor t the result of an object. I mean, if I say that’s a beautiful building… So I have to find out if there is beauty without the object, which. ItTh an enous investigation, you know; it’s not just… we’re not playing with words. So… and when we say freedom, freedom in which there is no… which is not the outcome of reaction, then in that freedom there is no conflict — righ? — becase conflict exists only when there is the entity that is seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Right? Sorry, is this all too abstract? And freedom is also not the result of time. That is, I cannot say to myself, ‘”I’ll e free day after tomorrow.'” Becase if it is a gradual achievement — that is, I am… the entity who wants to be free and freedom is at a distance, something to be achieved, there is a time interval between this and *what should be*; and in that time interval, there are all kinds of other strains and pressures and therefore there is never complete freedom. I don’t know if you’ are… So freedom is something immediate, not of time. Now, and also — we are still pursuing your subject, sir — to pursue that subject you must have order; order being freedom in which there is no envy, ambition, greed, worship of success; otherwise there is disorder. Virtue is order — again that word *virtue* is terribly loaded — without that, there is no freedom. Right? I mean, please don’t agree; this is… It means you have to be virtuous — you follow? — not just… and not virtuous according to the pattern of society; because society is not virtuous. So freedom implies all that. Now, from there we can proceed. Right? Unless you have this, you cannot possibly find out if there is that thing or if there is not. How can a disordered mind discover something which may have… may be something entirely different. (Pause) And it’s only a mind that is free from conflict, and therefore free, that has energy to pursue… to go. Right? You must have passion, otherwise you can’t proceed. Right? There must be energy. Right? My energy now is dissipated in conflict, in adjustment, in imitation, in following authority, not following authority… oh! And to follow, to see, to understand something you need tremendous energy. Look sir, to look at that flower without dissipation of energy, which is, say, ‘I like; I don’t like; this is a beautiful flower; it’s not a beautiful flower; I wish I had it; I wish…’ all that is a dissipation of energy which prevents me from looking. (Pause) Now, with this… from having established this — and if it is not established, if it’s not there, you can’t proceed. After all, this is what the monks and the ancient Indians and all the Hindus in India did it, but they did it all wrongly, because they had mere suppression; they isolated themselves; it was an escape; it was a form of self-delusion, self-hypnosis. So when this has taken place — and it must be involuntarily, not purposively, in order to… I don’t know… — therefore no motive for order. If you have a motive for love, it’s not love, obviously. If I love you because you give me pleasure or money… or I’m frightened or I want security, it’s no longer love. So all that must be very clearly understood and lived, put away. Then we haveWe must next to go into the question of seeking. Why do we seek at all? BWe seek because we are lost, we are confused, we are messy, disorderly; we have contradictory beliefs, ideas, desires; it is suchthere is a whirlpool of contentious demands. Right? This is… Therefore, I say, ‘”For God’s sake, help me to get out of this.'” So wWe either turn to a priest or turn to a dogma, to a belief, to a priest, or we turn to somebodyone who says, ‘”I know, and follow me.,'” and follow him.So the question then arises… – Ssorry to… Iit is not so complex, all this; but it i’s very simple when one understands all this; you can brush all this out;; with one breath it disappears. I assure you it does, if you do… if you are serious. You see, we are confused; hHuman beings are dreadfully confused.; Aand w. Whatever action that takes place out of that confusion is still confused. We don’t realise that.; Wwe say, ‘”Well, there are moments of clarity; in that clarity I act,’.” bBut that action of clarity is negated, or set aside, contradicted by the action of confusion. Surely; this is simple. And iIf we are confused, we should not to do a thing. Bbecause whatever youwe do out of confusion is still confusion. I… You…? This… Because… – Pplease, this is important to understand; which is: w

When the mind is confused, it is seeking; an what it is seeking is, …s someth hopes, something which is not confused. Right? I’m confused k; and what I’m seeking is clarity, but the clarity which I am seeking it finds is the result of my confusion, and so myrity is still confusion. I don’t know if…(Inaudible). So I see that, ad therefore I don’t act. I don’t… — this is ery iportant to understand this;. jJust a minute –. I don’t achis n that I e in a vacuu, in a blank state;. Isen born of confusion is furthigconfusion, t. Therefore I stop. I stop, rallybecause I’m confused, not because I want to find, I want to seek, I wantto… and find, therefore, t but because I am confused. That’s a completely negative stte. Right? (Pause) The acton of confusion, which is to seek, apers te positive.; Aand w. We like that; we feel that’s it is right., but Tto seek, to endeavour, to urue, to mke effort, to determine, to pray, all the rest of it, is —a tose are the result of confusion. If a’m not confused, I won’t pray,; I won’t ask,; I won’t look. And tThe denial of actio which is the resulsion is total negatin of the positive. wonder if you’ are getting all this. Now, which means, tThe mind n i not seeking; the mind is not wanting more experien cs are sneatds me great plfrustmany nottotI k etfind an. No? : I may even h people. In doing all that, I s pain, frration. Yes, but the pleasure… you also feel pleasure in… not in comparison only; you can feel pleasure, call it happiness or whatever you like. K: Wait, wait; I understand that. What is pleasure and what gives duration to pleasure — you understand? — length, a continuity. If you say, ‘That’s beautiful,’ there is pleasure; finished; but you say, ‘No, I must have it.’ Q : Why? K: Ah… No; we don’t say, ‘Why?’ we want it. If you say, ‘No, I… it’s a great… it’s a beautiful thing to look at,’ it’s finished. Right? Q: You can also look this way, the pleasure of looking at things and smiling at things and hearing things… K: Now, we must be a little… Of course. You smile at me; I like it and I want more of it. Q: Yes, but you are the other person. I am the person who gives. K: Ah, but I want more of it. Q: Yes, but I… perhaps I don’t want to give you something in return. K: (Laughs) But I want it. You may not want to give it; you gave me the first smile, a delight to you and it was a delight to me. And that delight I want to perpetuate. This is simple. No? Q: Yes. K: So I say, ‘Please, be with me. I like your smile; I must have it.’ And you say, ‘Sorry, I smiled at you as a friend, but later on it’s become a damn nuisance.’ (Laughter) There is pain; I suffer. Don’t you…? I mean, through life we do many, many, many things hoping to find a continuous pleasure; and at the end we say, ‘My God, what a bore it all is; there is no pleasure.’ Q: Of course, if you’re seeking… it’s the same thing as seeking for… (inaudible) K: But we do. Don’t you? Don’t you? Don’t we all… d on’t you all seek pleasure? Oh, goodness’ sake, don’t… What madame? Q: Yes, but I still believe you can also give without… K: We are not… Q: …waiting to receive… (inaudible) K: I am not… You give, out of your goodness; you give. Because you say, ‘By Jove…’ It’s like the sunshine; it pours. Q: But one needs a pleasure, a great pleasure. K: Right, have it; but what happens to me, who receive it? Q: All right; perhaps that smile was not destiny to you, because perhaps you are not the kind of person who will understand. K: And therefore… you have smiled; that has given me delight. You must… Q: (Inaudible) K: *Comment*, *madame?* Q: Then this is the point where, you see… in a person, when a person feels this pleasure in giving, it’s always an egotistical thing because he always gives because he feels pleasure in it. K: Of course. Q: So then, well… (Laughs) K: I didn’t want to put it so brutally; of course it is. (Laughter) Q: No, I know, but I’ve talked with her about this before, that’s why… (Laughs) But this is… (inaudible) Q: No, I believe in generosity. K: Ah, but…! I am… But that’s not the… (Laughs) Not you *believe*; you are generous. You are generous; you don’t believe that you want to be generous. You are believing… you are saying, ‘I believe in generosity and therefore I must be generous,’ it is not generous; it’s just an idea. But if you are generous, that’s a different thing. This is… Please, this is happening; this actually happens in life. You are generous, because out of… you want to be; it gives you pleasure. Ah, wait a minute. If it gives you pleasure, it is not generosity; then you are generous because it gives you pleasure. But if you are generous, it’s finished. But if you derive something from that generosity as pleasure, then you’re… It’s like giving my love to my wife or my children and it’s giving because I have a motive. Do you see, all this, what we discussed this morning, all this makes the mind not isolated but very sharply alone. No? You must… one must be alone, not in the isolated sense of the monk and all that; that’s nothing. To be alone implies freedom. I mean, it’s not aloneness of self-pity and loneliness and all that; it is a marvellous thing to be… to say… to see something clearly, you are alone. I mean, when everybody around you shouts nationalistic slogans and waves flag and you think it’s all nonsense, you’re alone. (Pause) Is that enough, sirs?