Jiddu Krishnamurti texts Jiddu Krishnamurti quotes and talks, 3000 texts in many languages. Jiddu Krishnamurti texts


Bombay 1950

Bombay 2nd Public Talk 19th February 1950

When there is so much confusion and contradiction, not only in our own lives, but also among the specialists and the learned, action becomes extremely difficult, and to know what to do, to find a right mode of conduct, a right way of living, is hazardous and uncertain. This confusion is on the increase at the present time, not only in ourselves, but also about us; and we have to find, have we not?, a way of action that will not bring more conflict, more misery, more strife and destruction. We see that whatever the experts, the political leaders and religious authorities assert, only leads to further misery, further chaos, further confusion. So, the problem of action - not only individual, but also collective action - is very important; and to find out how to live is much more significant than merely to follow a certain pattern of action.

Now, to act, obviously there must be true individuality; but, though we have separate bodies, we are actually not individuals at all, psychologically we are not separate. We are not individuals in the true sense of the word, but are made up of many layers of memory, of tradition, conflict, and patterns, both conscious and otherwise; and that is the whole structure of our being. So, if we examine the individual closely, we will see that in actuality there is no individuality at all, there is no uniqueness. After all, by individuality we mean the quality of uniqueness, the quality of creativeness, the quality of aloneness that is creative. Sirs, the action which does not contribute to further misery, to further chaos, to further destruction, is possible only when there is true individuality, and individuality is possible only when we understand this whole process of conformity and imitation. For most of us, living is merely the pursuit of a pattern, the pattern that has been, or the pattern that will be. If we examine our daily conduct, our daily way of thinking, we will see that the process of our action is a continual imitation, a mere copying. All that we know and all that we have acquired is based on imitation. It is because we are imitative, copying, that we are not individuals at all. We quote what so and so has said, what Sankaracharya, Buddha or Christ has said, because it has become the pattern of our existence never to discover, never to find out the truth for ourselves, but to repeat what someone else has discovered, what someone else has experienced. When we use the experience of another, however true, as the pattern for our action, our action then is really founded on imitation, and that action is a lie. Please sit down, Sir - these meetings are not meant for those who are not serious. This is not a political meeting or a show, where you can show off your faces or get your photographs taken. (Laughter) You would not do this in a religious temple, would you? We are dealing with life, not with the mere outward show of things; and to understand life, we have to understand this complete process of living which is ourselves. To understand ourselves we must understand the whole content of the conscious and of the unconscious mind; and if you merely pay scant attention to what is being said, I am afraid you will not gather the full significance of it.

So, action which is based on imitation, on copying, on conformity, on the pursuit of a pattern, must inevitably lead to confusion - which is actually what is happening in the world at the present time. Why is it that we conform, why is it that we imitate, copy, quote authorities, cling to the sanction of what has been or what will be? Why is it that we cannot discover how to live directly for ourselves, instead of copying somebody? Is it not because most of us are afraid to be without security? Most of us want a certain state which we call `peace', but which is really a state in which one does not want to be disturbed. Most of us are not adventurous, and that is why we merely live by copying and are satisfied with imitation. It is only when we break through, when we understand the process of imitation, that there is a possibility of individual action, which is creation.

Especially in these times, when there is so much confusion in the world, when there are so many authorities, so many gurus, so many leaders, each asserting and denying, each giving a new pattern of action, is it not important to find out what is action independent of the pattern, independent of the copy? And you can find that out only when you understand the process and the significance of imitation - not only the imitation of an external example, but the imitation and the conformity brought about by the authority of your own experience. Authority comes into being, does it not?, when you want to be secure; and the more you desire security, the less you will have it - which is being shown by these endless wars. Each group consisting of so-called individuals wants to be secure, so each creates a system, a pattern for security based on its own authority in conflict with the authority of others. So, as long as you seek security in any form, psychological or physiological, there must be conflict, there must be destruction. The desire for security implies conformity; and it is only when the mind is really in secure, completely uncertain, when it has no authority, either external or inward, when it is not imitating an example, an ideal, or clinging to the authority of what has been - it is only then that the mind is without any conformity and therefore free to discover; and only then is there creation.

So, our problem is not how to act, but how to bring about that state of creation which is true individuality. That state is obviously not based on an idea, because creation can never be an ideation. Ideation must cease for the creative to be. There cannot be creative action as long as there is a pattern, an idea; and as our life is based on idea, on conformity to the ideal, we are not creative - and that is the real problem, and not how to act. Anybody will tell you how to act, any politician, any clever system, will tell you what to do; but in doing it, you will create more mischief, more misery, more confusion, more strife, because your action is not the outcome of creation. That is why it is important to be free from conformity and to be a true individual. To do that, you must know what you are at every moment; and in the understanding of what you are, there is a possibility of bringing about a society which is not based on conflict, destruction and misery. Such an individual is a happy individual, and happiness does not demand the imitation of virtue; on the contrary, happiness creates virtue. A happy man is a virtuous man - it is the unhappy man who is not virtuous; and however much he may try to become virtuous, as long he is unhappy, for him there is no virtue. He may become respectable, that respectability only covers up unhappiness. So, what is important is to discover for ourselves the pattern of conformity and to see the truth about that conformity; for only when we see that the pattern is created by fear of insecurity can there be a state of creation.

I have as usual been given many questions, and while considering them together may I suggest that you do not resist what is being said, but rather hear it just as you would listen to music. Just listen to me without disputation. To dispute and deny is the usual and easy way, but the disputatious mind can never be in a state of tranquillity, in which alone understanding comes. Also, if I may suggest, do not merely wait for explanations, do not look to me for a conclusion or an answer - which I shall not give. There is no categorical answer for the real problems of life, there is only understanding; and understanding is catching the full significance of the problem, seeing the whole content of it. So, please be good enough to listen to me with friendliness, and with the intention to find out the significance of the problem itself rather than merely wait for an answer.

Question: You assert that you have not read a single book, but do you really mean it? Don't you know that such loose statements cause resentment? You appear to know the latest jargon of politics, economics, psychology, and the sciences; and are you trying to suggest that you get all this information by some superhuman powers?

Krishnamurti: Sir, whether you like it or not, it is a fact that I have not read a single religious book, nor any books on psychology or science; and it is also a fact that when I was young I was not put through a rigorous course of learning in philosophy or psychology. Somehow or other I have been reluctant to read them - they bore me, that is a fact. Obviously I meet large numbers of people of every type - scientists, philosophers, analysts, religious people, and so on - who come to discuss; and occasionally I read some weekly magazines on politics and world affairs. That is all I have in the way of general information. Now, why do you resent it? Is it not because you have read so much, and your own ignorance is shown up by someone who has not read? Sir, do you read in order to become wise? Is knowledge wisdom? Is wisdom not something entirely different from knowledge? But there are two problems in this: one is why there is resentment in you, and the other is how I gather all that I am talking about. So, let us first enquire into why you resent.

Is it not important to find out why you feel resentment? You read newspapers, magazines, sacred books, all the commentaries on philosophy, psychology and science, and you keep on reading. Why do you read, why do you keep your mind so constantly occupied? And why do you resent it when somebody who has not read points out something? Is it because you are frustrated and you dislike, you hate anyone who shows a different attitude towards life? What is the process of your own resentment? Surely it is important to find out whether wisdom, understanding, comes through books; and why is it that you read, why do you fill your minds with information, with what so and so has said? Does it not indicate a very sluggish mind, an un-enquiring mind? Does it not also indicate a mind that is not capable of really investigating, directly experiencing? Such a mind is living on other people's experience, and so it is satisfied, it is put to sleep, it is made dull; and can a mind that is filled with chatter, with information, ever be receptive to wisdom?

The second problem is this: though I may talk, I have not read any book; and you ask, "Are you trying to suggest that you get all this information by some superhuman powers?" Now, if you do not read, you have to know how to listen, you have to see and understand more clearly, observe more delicately and acutely, do you not? You have to be much more subtly aware of everything about you, not only of the people you meet, the people who come to see you, but also of the people in the tram car, in the taxi, on the road. You have to watch everything, haven't you?, more acutely, more clearly; and you are prevented from doing it, if you are cluttered up with information. When you are living fully, with undivided attention, there is direct experience, you do not have authorities and sanctions; and besides, why do you want to look to others when you have the whole treasure in yourself? After all, you are the total result of all humanity, are you not?, both the collective and the so-called individual. You are the sum total of all the fathers and all the mothers; and if you know how to look into yourself, you do not have to read a single book on religion, on philosophy or psychology, because the book is yourself. You may have to read for scientific information, to learn mathematics, and so on; but all that can be kept in libraries. Why do you want to fill your mind with facts when you have a treasure in yourself which requires a great deal of attention, a great deal of watchfulness? You see, that is the whole gist of the matter. Though we come across people of every type, of every degree of learning, it is the understanding of oneself that brings infinite knowledge, infinite wisdom.

Sirs, I am sure that in the olden days, before books were published, before there were followers, teachers and gurus, there were original discoverer's who had never read any book. Because there was no Bhagavad Gita, no Bible, no book of any kind, they had to find out for themselves, had they not? How did they go about it? Obviously they neither had sanctions, nor did they stupidly quote the authority of some individual. They searched out the truth for themselves, they found it in the sacred places of their own minds and hearts. Surely we also can discover the truth for ourselves in the sacred places of our minds and hearts. But to discover, to see what is without condemnation or justification, is extraordinarily difficult. The mind is merely a process of the past using the present as a passage to the future; and how can such a mind see what is? To see what is, the mind must be free from all acquisition, from all accumulation - but that is a different problem. We are now trying to understand the problem of why we read, and why we have resentment against those who do not read; and is it possible for one who has read, who has accumulated so much information, to be free to see, to listen and to hear?

Now, it is no good being resentful, that is stupid, that is only a waste of time; but we are all indulging in action which has no meaning, and surely, Sirs and Ladies, if you want to find out what wisdom is, you have in yourselves the key and also the door which must be opened. Self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom; but self-knowledge begins very near, it is not at some supreme Atmic level - which is merely another invention of a clever mind seeking security. Self-knowledge is reflected in your relationship with your wife, with your children, with your neighbour, with your boss, with your property, with the trees, and with the world. To go very far, you must begin very near. But most of us dislike to begin near because we are so ugly and so frightened of ourselves; so we imagine something marvellous in the distance and make that our goal, our motto, the pattern which we have to follow. Because we are not willing to see and understand what we are from moment to moment, we make of our life a contradiction, a misery, an utter mess. Sir, truth is here, not far; happiness is in the discovery of what is, and that is virtue.

Question: Is beauty to be cultivated or acquired? What does beauty mean to you?

Krishnamurti: Beauty, surely, is something which is not of the mind, therefore beauty is not sensation. Most of us seek sensation, which we call beauty. The fashion, the style which can be changed, adjusted or dropped; the expensive furniture which you buy or have copied for your particular home, if you have money; the beautiful woman, the beautiful child, the beautiful picture, the beautiful house - surely, all that is really the response of sensation, which is the response of the mind, is it not? And is beauty sensation, is beauty merely of external form and shape? Putting on a sari in the right way, having one's lips carefully curved by lipstick, walking in a particular manner - is that beauty? And is beauty the denial of the ugly? Is virtue the denial of evil? Is there beauty in any denial? Surely, there is denial, the pleasing and the not pleasing, only when there is sensation. Just listen to it, do not contradict, do not oppose; just listen and you will discover what we mean by beauty.

While the outward form must obviously be given certain respect and needs certain care, cleanliness, and all the rest of it, both as part of necessity and for esthetics reasons, surely that is not beauty, is it? Beauty which is a sensation is of the mind, and the mind can make anything beautiful or ugly; therefore beauty that depends on the mind is not beauty, is it? So, what is beauty? The mind is sensation, and if the mind judges beauty and gives it a name as goodness or truth, is that beauty? If beauty is perceived through the mind, it is sensation, and sensation comes to an end; and can that ever be beautiful? Do you understand what I mean? Is it beauty that comes to an end as sensation? I see a tree in the evening lights, the sun dancing and sparkling on the palm leaves, and it is very beautiful. The mind, becoming attached to it, says, `How beautiful it is', and holds to it, resuscitating and reviving that image. At the moment of perception it has great pleasure, a deep sense of satisfaction, which it calls the beautiful, but a second later it is over, it is only a memory; so the mind gives continuity to the sensation of what it calls beauty.

The mind, then, is continually picturing, imagining the beautiful, which is always of the past. But is beauty of time? If it is not of time, then beauty is something illimitable, is it not; it is not within the frame of the word `beauty'. The mind can invent the beautiful, but the experience of the illimitable cannot be known by a mind that is pursuing the sensation of beauty. You and I can see beauty externally; but the mere appreciation of that expression is not beauty, is it? So, beauty is something beyond the mind, beyond sensation, beyond time-limits, beyond the time-binding quality of thought; and that measureless sense, in which all things are, is beauty - which is to be really infinitely sensitive. The man who denies evil, who denies the ugly, can never know what beauty is, because the very denial is the cultivation of the ugly. The illimitable is not to be found in a dictionary, in any religious or philosophical book.

So, beauty is not something of the mind; but unfortunately, modern civilization is making beauty a thing of the mind. All the picture magazines, all the cinemas, are doing it; most of our efforts go to making wonderful paintings, marvellous furniture, building beautiful houses, buying the most fashionable dresses, the latest lipstick, or whatever is displayed in the advertisements. We are caught in the things of the mind, and that is why our lives are so ugly, so empty, that is why we decorate ourselves - which does not mean that we should not decorate ourselves. But there is an inner beauty, and when you see it, then it gives significance to the outer; but merely decorating the outer while ignoring the inner is just like beating a drum - it is still empty. Beauty is a thing beyond the mind; and to find that which is beautiful - call it truth, God, or what you will - , there must be freedom from the thought process. But that is another problem which we can discuss some other time.

Question: Through such movements as the United Nations Organization and the World Pacifist Conferences recently held in India, men all over the world are making an individual and collective effort to prevent the third world war. How does your attempt differ from theirs, and do you hope to have any appreciable results? Can the impending war be prevented?

Krishnamurti: Let us first dispose of the obvious facts, and then go more deeply into the matter. The first fact is the impending war; and can we prevent it? Sir, what do you think? Men are bent on slaughtering each other; you are bent on slaughtering your neighbour - not with swords, perhaps, but you are exploiting them, aren't you?, politically, religiously, and economically. There are social, communal, lingual divisions, and are you not making a great ado about all this? You do not want to prevent the impending war because some of you are going to make money. (Laughter.) The cunning are going to make money, and the stupid also will want to make more. For God's sake, see the ugliness, the ruthlessness of it. Sir, when you have a set purpose of gain at all costs, the result is inevitable, is it not? The third world war is arising from the second world war, the second world war arose from the first, and the first was the result of previous wars. Until you put an end to the cause, mere tinkering with the symptoms has no significance. One of the causes of war is nationalism, sovereign governments and all the ugliness that goes with them - power prestige, position and authority. Most of us do not want to put an end to war because our lives are incomplete; our whole existence is a battlefield, a ceaseless conflict, not only with one's wife, one's husband, one's neighbour, but with ourselves - the constant struggle to become something. That is our life, of which war and the hydrogen bomb are merely the violent and spectacular projections; and as long as we do not understand the whole significance of our existence and bring about a radical transformation, there can be no peace in the world.

Now, the second problem is much more difficult, much more demanding of your attention - which does not mean that the first one is not important. It is that most of us pay scant attention to the transformation of ourselves because we do not want to be transformed. We are contented and do not want to be disturbed. We are satisfied to go along as we are, and that is why we are sending our children to war, why we must have military training. You all want to save your bank accounts, hold on to your property - all in the name of non-violence, in the name of God and peace, which is a lot of sanctimonious nonsense. What do we mean by peace? You say the U.N.O. is trying to establish peace by organizing its member nations, which means it is balancing power. Is that a pursuit of peace?

Then there is the gathering of individuals around a certain idea of what they consider to be peace. That is, the individual resists war either according to his moral persuasion, or his economic ideas. We place peace either on a rational basis, or on a moral basis. We say we must have peace because war is not profitable, which is the economic reason; or we say we must have peace because it is immoral to kill, it is irreligious, man is Godly in his nature and must not be destroyed, and so on. So, there are all these various explanations of why we should not have war; the religious, moral, humanitarian, or ethical reasons for peace on the one hand, and the rational, economic, or social reasons on the other.

Now, is peace a thing of the mind? If you have a reason, a motive for peace, will that bring about peace? Do you understand what I mean? If I refrain from killing you because I think it is immoral, is that peaceful? If for economic reasons I do not destroy, if I do not join the army because I think it is unprofitable, is that peaceful? If I base my peace on a motive, on a reason, can that bring about peace? If I love you because you are beautiful, because you please me bodily, is that love? Sirs, please pay a little attention to it, because it is very important. Most of us have so cultivated our minds, we are so intellectual, that we want to find reasons for not killing, the reasons being the appalling destructiveness of the atomic bomb, the moral and economic arguments for peace, and so on; and we think that the more reasons we have for not killing, the more there will be peace. But can you have peace through a reason, can peace be made into a cause? Is not the very cause part of the conflict? Is non-violence, is peace an ideal to be pursued and attained eventually through a gradual process of evolution? These are all reasons, rationalizations, are they not? So, if we are at all thoughtful, our question really is, is it not? whether peace is a result, the outcome of a cause, or whether peace is a state of being, not in the future or in the past, but now. If peace, if non-violence is an ideal, surely it indicates that actually you are violent, you are not peaceful. You wish to be peaceful, and you give reasons why you should be peaceful; and being satisfied with the reasons, you remain violent. Actually, a man who wants peace, who sees the necessity of being peaceful, has no ideal about peace. He does not make an effort to become peaceful, but sees the necessity, the truth of being peaceful. It is only the man who does not see the importance, the necessity, the truth of being peaceful, who makes non-violence an ideal - which is really only a postponement of peace. And that is what you are doing: you are all worshipping the ideal of peace, and in the meantime enjoying violence. (Laughter.) Sirs, you laugh; you are easily amused, aren't you? It is another entertainment; and when you leave this meeting, you will go on exactly as before. Do you expect to have peace by your facile arguments, your casual talk? You will not have peace because you do not want peace, you are not interested in it, you do not see the importance, the necessity of having peace now, not tomorrow. It is only when you have no reason for being peaceful that you will have peace.

Sirs, as long as you have a reason to live, you are not living, are you? You live only when there is no reason, no cause - you just live. Similarly, as long as you have a reason for peace, you will have no peace. A mind that invents a reason for being peaceful is in conflict, and such a mind will produce chaos and conflict in the world. Just think it out and you will see. How can the mind that invents reasons for peace, be peaceful? You can have very clever arguments and counter-arguments; but is not the very structure of the mind based on violence? The mind is the outcome of time, of yesterday, and it is always in conflict with the present; but the man who really wants to be peaceful now, has no reason for it. For the peaceful man, there is no motive for peace. Sir, has generosity a motive? When you are generous with a motive, is that generosity? When a man renounces the world in order to achieve God, in order to find something greater, is that renunciation? If I give up this in order to find that, have I really given up anything? If I am peaceful for various reasons, have I found peace?

So, then, is not peace a thing far beyond the mind and the inventions of the mind? Most of us, most religious people with their organizations, come to peace through reason, through discipline, through conformity, because there is no direct perception of the necessity, the truth of being peaceful. Peacefulness, that state of peace, is not stagnation; on the contrary, it is a most active state. But the mind can only know the activity of its own creation, which is thought; and thought can never be peaceful, thought is sorrow, thought is conflict. As we know only sorrow and misery, we try to find ways and means to go beyond it; and whatever the mind invents only further increases its own misery, its own conflict, its own strife. You will say that very few will understand this, that very few will ever be peaceful in the right sense of the word. Why do you say that? Is it not because it is a convenient escape for you? You say that peace can never be achieved in the way I am talking about, it is impossible; therefore you must have reasons for peace, you must have organizations for peace, you must have clever propaganda for peace. But all those methods are obviously mere postponement of peace. Only when you are directly in touch with the problem, when you see that without peace today you cannot have peace tomorrow, when you have no reason for peace but actually see the truth that without peace life is not possible, creation is not possible, that without peace there can be no sense of happiness - only when you see the truth of that, will you have peace. Then you will have peace without any organizations for peace. Sir, for that you must be so vulnerable, you must demand peace with all your heart, you must find the truth of it for yourself, not through organizations, through propaganda, through clever arguments for peace and against war. Peace is not the denial of war. Peace is a state of being in which all conflicts and all problems have ceased; it is not a theory, not an ideal to be achieved after ten incarnations, ten years or ten days. As long as the mind has not understood its own activity, it will create more misery; and the understanding of the mind is the beginning of peace.

Question: You repeat again and again that the mind must cease for reality to come into existence. Why then do you attack prayer, worship and ceremonial's, which are really meant to still the mind?

Krishnamurti: By a trick the mind can be made quiet; you can take a drug or a drink, you can do ceremonial, worship, pray. There are many means by which you can make the mind still. But is the mind still when it is made still? Some of you pray, don't you? You repeat the Gayatri, you chant to still the mind, or you clasp your hands and mesmerize yourself into a state which you call peace. Self-hypnosis by the repetition of words is very simple. When you keep on repeating certain words, your mind becomes very still, quiet; by taking certain postures, breathing a certain way, forcing the mind, you can obviously reduce the activity of the mind. That is, through various tricks of discipline, compulsion, conformity, the mind is made still; but when the mind is made still, is it really still? it is dead, is it not? It is in a state of hypnosis. When you pray you repeat certain phrases, and that quietens the mind; and in that quietness there are certain responses, you hear voices which you of course attribute to the Highest. That `Highest' always replies to your most urgent demand, and the reply gives you gratification. This is all a well-known psychological process. But when the mind is made still through prayer, through ceremonial's, through repetition, through chanting, through songs, is the mind really still, or merely dull? The mind has hypnotized itself into quietness, has it not? And most of you enjoy that hypnotized state, because in that state you have no problems, you are completely enclosed, isolated and insensitive. In that state you are obviously unconscious, the response of the conscious being blocked. When the mind is artificially made quiet, the upper layer of the mind is able to receive intimations, not only from its own unconscious, but from the collective unconscious; and the intimations are translated according to the conditioned mind. Therefore a Hitler can say he is guided by God in what he does, and somebody else in India that God is all for something quite different. It is a very simple psychological process which you can discover for yourself if you watch your own mind in action and see how it can hypnotize itself into tranquillity. Therefore, when the mind is forced into stillness through concentration, through conformity, through any kind of discipline or self-hypnosis, it is obviously incapable of discovering reality. It can project itself and hear its own ugly voice, which we call the voice of God, but surely that is entirely different from the state of a mind that is really still. Now, the mind is active, it is constantly thinking of the things that have been and the things that will be; and how can such a mind be still - not be made still, which any fool can do? How is the mind to be really still? Surely, the mind is still only when it understands its own activity. As the waters of a pond be come very quiet, very peaceful, when the breezes stop, so the mind is still when it is no longer creating problems. So, our question is, not how to make the mind still, but how to understand the creator of problems; because, the moment you understand the creator of problems, the mind is still. Do not close your eyes and go off because that word `still' is mentioned. The understanding of the creator of problems brings tranquillity to the mind. So, you have to understand thought, because thought is the maker of problems. Thought creates the thinker, thought is always seeking a permanent state seeing its own state of transition, of flux, of impermanence, thought creates an entity which it calls the thinker, the Atman, the Paramatman, the soul - a higher and higher security. That is, thought creates an entity which it calls the observer, the experiencer, the permanent thinker as distinct from the impermanent thought; and the wide distance between the two creates the conflict of time.

Now, the understanding of this whole process of thought creating the thinker, and the incarnation of thought as the thinker, brings about tranquillity of mind. This means that one has to understand what is thought. What is this thing which you call thinking? Until we understand that, whatever thought does only creates more confusion; until we know the whole significance and depth of thought, the conscious as well as the unconscious, the individual as well as the collective merely to indulge in further thinking, further speculation, only creates more misery. So, a mind which is ceaselessly active, chattering, always using the present as a passage from the past to the future, how can such a mind be still? Such a mind can never be still. A stupid mind is always stupid, it can never become intelligent; you may become what intelligent; you may become what you call clever, but that is only further stupidity. A mind that is wandering cannot be still, cannot be tranquil. It is only when the mind understands its own process, when it begins to be aware of itself, that you will see the end of thought. After all, what is our thinking, of which we are so proud? Our thinking, surely, is merely the response of memory, the response of experience, which we call knowledge; our thinking is merely the response of yesterday, is it not? And how can such thinking, which is of time, understand something which is beyond time?

Sir, is it not important for the mind to be aware of its own action - not as an entity apart from action, but aware of itself as action? And it can be aware only in relation to property, to people, to ideas. It is in understanding relationship that we understand thought; for there is no thinker apart from thought, of the thinker who thinks thoughts: there is only thought. When we see the truth of that, then the thinker is not; and when there is no thinker, the mind becomes very quiet. When there is no entity attempting to make the mind still, then the mind, which is only the result of time, of the past, becomes still of itself; and then only is it possible to understand truth, or for truth to come into being. Truth is not a thing of memory, truth is not of knowledge, of information. Truth is neither of the mind nor of emotion, it has nothing to do with sensations, it is not the projection of the self as the image, the voice of the Almighty. Truth is not of memory, therefore truth is not of time. As truth is not of the mind, it can come into being only when the mind is still, when thought is silent. Truth must be seen from moment to moment, and it is only truth that can resolve our problems, not the mind or the inventions of the mind.

February 19, 1950


Bombay 1950

Bombay 2nd Public Talk 19th February 1950

Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.


the 48 laws of power