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


Brockwood Park 1976

Brockwood Park Dialogue with Students and Staff 30th May 1976

K: What shall we talk about?

S: Could we talk about happiness?

K: Do you want to talk about it? Or something else?

S: Experience.

S: The self.

K: The self, the 'me', the ego.

S: We leave the school, what is one to do in life?

K: Good Lord!

S: Could we talk about order?

K: Order; what is one to do in life; happiness; the ego, the 'me', and experience. Could we put all those questions together into one question, and then expand it? What would be the question that would include all the questions? Happiness, order, the ego, the 'me', experience, what should one do in life?

S: The question that we have talked about in the last few weeks, what is right action, it seems to include all those.

S: Right action in relationship.

K: What is right action in relationship? Shall we take, what is right action in relationship and work all the rest through that? Would you be willing, you questioners?

What is right action in relationship? What do we mean by action, the doing; not having done, or will do, the past action, or the future action, but what is action? To do. It must be always in the present, mustn't it? Now what is the present? You understand my question? If there is action according to the past - we are talking psychologically, is that understood, that is clear, isn't it, we are always talking psychologically. If there is psychological order inwardly then there is outward order. That's clear. So we are talking about psychological action, which is right, in relationship.

We say action is that which is taking place now. Right? One can say, "I have acted, I have done", that's in the past. Or "I will do something in the future", which is the past and the future, but not in the present. That's clear. That is, the past activity colours the present action, modifies it, somewhat transforms it and creates the future action. Right? Now in that movement of action, the past, modified through the present, creating the future, a movement of action, what is right in that action in relationship? You understand. Because unless you and I communicate verbally at least, and we are understanding each other, don't let's go any further.

So we are saying, there is an action which is a movement from the past, through the present, to the future. Right? Is there any other kind of action? We know this action, always in our life: the past, changing, controlling, shaping the present, and going on to the future. That's clear, isn't it? We all know that kind of action. Is that right action? That means, the past is always shaping the present and the future, always, changing the patterns, the style, the necessity, adjusting itself to environment, to pressures and so on and so on. The past moving through the present to the future, that movement of action we all know. Is that right action? You understand my question? What do you say?

S: ...coming in to the present and moving through to the future, don't the things that you have done in the past, wouldn't that damage all that you would do, will do?

K: Is that right action?

S: The past does the damage.

K: Yes, one does something in the past, whether right or wrong, and that passes, or goes through the present, and so modifies the future. So is that right action, we are asking? Because we are trying to find out what is right action, which is correct action, accurate action, in relationship. That's what we started out with that will include all the other questions.

S: What about saying if you tend to do actions now which will control your future then, as we have said, you are not living in the present.

K: So let's find out what it means to live, or to act in the present. You know this is an enormous question, you understand. It isn't just for amusement. This question has been asked by centuries of human beings, from the ancient Egyptians to the ancient Hindus and so on down to the modern age. So we are asking, what is right action in relationship, which is not modified, past. You understand? Be clear on this, don't agree with me, I may be wrong. You follow? So find out.

S: Well, when you are living in the present, would that mean doing any actions that you are doing - or let yourself be in a frame of mind that says, "All right, what I am doing now is for now".

K: Ah, but can you be free of the past?

S: No.

K: Then how can you say you are acting in the now?

S: If you see that the past is damaging, then you know, now is the time and present to say, "Right, I see the past is wrong and so now I am at present now".

K: That's right. That is, you say you have been hurt - let's take an example - you have been hurt in the past, by parents, by your friends, by your environment, psychologically deeply wounded in the past. And that past meets the present somewhat healed but goes on to the future. So can you be free of that hurt which has been given to you in the past?

S: It is a very difficult thing to do.

K: There is no action, no right action, is there?

S: You would be looking for the right action, or you should be anyway.

K: To find out right action the hurt which you have received in the past, it must be healed, cured, it must be wiped away. Can you do that?

S: This is where the difficulty seems to lie because how can I, who am the hurt, end it?

K: That's right. So one has to go into the question, who is it that is hurt? You follow? Please, this is very serious, all these questions, don't play with it. One has been hurt in the past, and that hurt acts in the present, and that present is somewhat changed, that wound is not completely healed, perhaps more hurt and you carry that into the future. Now we say, is that right action? You say that cannot be right action because it is still a movement of hurt. Right? Though somewhat modified, or exaggerated, or deeper, it is still the movement of hurt. A person who is hurt, what happens to such a person? He isolates himself, resists, feels frustrated, anger, violent - right? All this follows. So you say, seeing all that, you say that is not right action.

S: Sooner or later it is going to catch up with you.

K: That's right. Exactly.

S: And when it does I should think you would feel, well this is going to catch up with me, which is going to make things worse.

K: So how will you be free of the hurt that you had in the past? You have been hurt in the past, how will you be free of it? She says, isn't there a difficulty here: how am I to be free of the hurt? And is the hurt me? You understand my question? Be careful. Go slowly, go slowly. I understand. I'll explain. I have been hurt in the past - right? Now who is the 'I' that has been hurt? If I am not clear on that point, who is it that is going to free me? You understand, you get the point? Right? I have been hurt. You have said something to me which has hurt me, and I realize to find out right action I must be free of this hurt. Right? If not there is no right action. But I say to myself, who is it that is hurt? Right? And I say, "I am hurt". So who is the 'I' that is hurt? We are answering that question, the ego, me. Who is the 'me', the ego, that is hurt? Go slowly. Don't hurry.

S: You said that the image that is hurt.

K: I know what I said, but what do you say? Don't repeat what I said a few weeks ago, that would be just useless. What do you think? Because if you repeat what I say then I become the authority, don't I? Then you become the parrot, you are the follower, then you lose everything.

So who is the 'I' that is hurt? You say it is the image, the picture, the pattern, the shape which I have made that is hurt. Right? Are you clear? Be clear. I have built an image about myself through my parents and grandparents, through society, through school, college, university, and society helps me to bring about this image. Right?

S: You are the parent of that, aren't you?

K: Wait. So this picture has been built, and is the picture, the image different from me? Go slowly, watch it carefully in yourself. Who has built this picture, this image? You understand? I think I am a great man, or a fool, whatever I think. Now who has built this picture?

S: You have.

K: Who is you who have built it?

S: All of what society has put there.

K: Society, the name, the physical form, the shape of your head, the colour, the stature, the shortness, or the fatness, whatever it is. So the name, Mr So-and-so, the form; then psychologically, inwardly you have been told that you are somebody, or that you feel you are somebody. You are attached to this - a toy, a house, a wife, a husband, furniture, you are attached, that is you, isn't it? What you are attached to, you are that. Wait, go slow, go slow. Have you understood that? If I attached to this house, I am the house. Right? Wait, get one thing at a time, don't generalize and try to capture everything at once.

So I am the result of human struggle, pain, fear, sorrow, whether I live in India, here, or in Europe, or in America, wherever I live, I am the result of humanity - right - which is sorrow, struggle, pain, anxiety, fear, all kinds of psychological disturbances. Who has created this, which is the image I have - I am a great man, I am nobody, I must be somebody. You follow? Who has created all this?

S: Thought.

K: Are you sure? Or are you guessing?

S: I would still say it is still all those things.

K: All those but who has produced this strange mixture? A ratatouille! You know, ratatouille? Who has produced all this? You say, thought. You are quite sure? Don't back out of it. So you say, thought - thought being the thought of the past, all the generations which have thought. So you say, thought has created the picture, the image, and that image gets hurt. Right? Now I am asking you, is that image different from the 'me'? Or the image is me? You have understood my question? Now listen carefully, listen carefully. If the image is different from me then there is a division, isn't there, between the image and myself. Right? When there is a division what takes place?

S: Conflict.

K: Right. Muslim, Hindu, Arab, Jew, communist, socialist - you follow? You are British and somebody else is German. Wherever there is division there must be conflict. Right? So when the image is different from me then there is a conflict between me and the image. Right? Conflict which takes the form of saying, "I must control it", "I must alter it", "I must struggle with it", "I must suppress it". All that conflict goes on, doesn't it? Right? Have you understood this? So I am asking, is the image different from me?

S: I understand what you mean by picture, but I don't understand what you mean by 'me'.

K: Is the 'me' not the picture?

S: The 'me' is the picture, yes.

S: I think there is a lot of confusion that arises from even the way we use the language when you say, "I have built a picture".

K: I didn't say that.

S: But we tend to say, "I have an image".

K: There is a confusion, a semantic confusion that is, when we use words like 'I' and 'image', there is a difficulty. Now let's be clear. We know we have images, don't we, each one of us, about oneself. No? Right. Now I am asking you, is the image hurt? Who is hurt? Is the image hurt, or somebody who says, "I, different from the image, am hurt"? You understand my question?

Let's go slowly. You say you are hurt. Right? What is hurt, who is hurt?

S: My image.

K: Your image is hurt. You are sure?

S: All that you have made of yourself.

K: Yes. Now is that image different from the idea that there is a different 'I' from the image?

S: Well one likes to think that the 'I' is a permanent entity which is producing the images, and that the images can be changed.

K: One likes to think the 'I' is a permanent entity, which controls everything else, shapes. So I am asking, is that 'I' who thinks it is permanent, different from the hurt, from the picture which is hurt?

S: If you are the image, no.

K: Are you the image? Or are you different?

S: Both are the image.

K: So you are the image. The 'I' is the image. Be clear on this. Right? Wait.

S: I mean what is the 'I' besides the physical shape, I mean it is thought and thoughts are the image.

K: That's what I said. I said the 'I' is the name, the form, the shape, the body, the biological structure, and then the psychological structure - I am good, I am not good, I am better than somebody else. So the 'I' is the image. The 'I' is not different from the image. You are clear on this?

S: Is it the 'I' that gets hurt?

K: The image gets hurt, which is the 'I'. Right?

S: Through the body, or the idea of the body?

K: The idea of the body, of course. I said the name and the form. Right? Sanskrit has got different names for it but I won't go into all that. The 'I' is the name, the form, the biological structure of the form, the psychological content. All that is the 'me'. And that 'me' is the image. So when you say something to me which is unpleasant and there is hurt, it is this whole entity which is the image that gets hurt. Right? Be clear on this because the next step is going to be rather difficult. Sure?

Then what is to take place? When the image is hurt, how is that hurt to disappear, if there is no 'I' who says, "I must get rid of it?" You understand what I am saying?

S: No.

K: Wait a minute. Go slowly. I am getting hot, are you getting hot too? It is rather exciting isn't it? Good! It is rather fun to look at it.

We said we are trying to find out what is right action in relationship. We took an example of hurt, if that hurt continues through the present, modified to the future, that movement of hurt cannot bring about right action. That's clear. Who is hurt? We said the hurt comes when there is the image. That image is the 'me', the 'me' is not different from the image. Before we separated the 'me' from the image, and then the 'me' said, "I will make an effort to get rid of that hurt". Right? "I'll battle with it, I'll suppress it, I'll go to an analyst, I'll do anything to get rid of that hurt". But when we discover that the 'me', the 'I' is the same as the image then what takes place? You understand my question? Before you made an effort to get rid of it, the effort came from the 'me', who said, "I must get rid of it". Now what will you do? You understand the question?

Because before you made effort, the 'I' said, "I must get rid of it. I see in order to have right action I must get rid of hurt", and so it made an effort. But suddenly you realize the 'I' is the same as the image. Right? And where is effort then? You understand my question? If you don't understand stick to that question. I make an effort to learn a language, to learn about driving a car, mathematics and so on, I make an effort. And there that is a form of learning, I learn how to drive a car. Here I have always thought the 'I' is different from the picture, so the 'I' says to itself, "I will make a tremendous effort to get rid of the wound" - right. So it made effort - it suppressed it, it battled with it, it said, "I must get rid of it in order to have right action", and so on and so on. But suddenly someone comes along and says, "Don't be silly, the 'I' is the image". Right? Then what happens? You have taken away all effort from it. You understand?

S: The most difficult thing is that if you are doing it from image any effort that you put into it from your image will be only what you want to put in to it.

K: So where is your effort? I made effort before in trying to get rid of the image and the hurt. Now I find that I is the image, which is a fact. Right? Which is so, which is 'what is', which is accurate. So what am I to do? What is there? Be careful! Before I made effort to get rid of the hurt; now I see how silly it is, then what am I to do with it? What action takes place?

S: If you see it's silly, why do anything?

K: What does that mean? Keep at it, keep at it, keep at it. Go slowly, go slowly.

S: It's silly.

K: That's it. If you see that it is silly...

S: If you can see that it is silly you just drop it.

K: Do you see it as silly? Or do you have an insight into the truth that the image and the 'I' are not separate? When you have an insight what takes place? There is no hurt, is there? You have got it?

S: What do you mean by an insight?

K: You know what it means to have insight - sight into. Right? Which means see what is in, what is reality, what is the fact, in which there is no illusion, but see actually what is. That is what it means to have an insight. To have an intelligent perception of 'what is'. I wasn't intelligent when I separated the 'I' and the image. Right? It is not being accurate. So I was caught in an illusion. When I see that it is an illusion I am intelligent to see the fact.

S: (Inaudible)

K: That's what I am coming to. Go slowly. I don't want to press it.

S: It is useless to say, "I see the image", because the 'I' is the image.

K: Let us start it again.

S: Perhaps we will have to change our language.

K: Change the language, all right we will change it.

S: Could we also go into why should one get rid of hurt.

K: Why should one get rid of hurt? Tell him. Will you answer him instead of me

S: It's because of what I said earlier that when anything from the past comes into your present it is going to create more conflict and problems and nothing else.

K: Quite right. So there it is. That if I am hurt - in my relationship with you I have been hurt, and that hurt goes on, though I say I am your friend, I love you, but that hurt goes on. Right? What does that hurt do between us? It separates us, doesn't it? Right? So there is conflict then between us two. I am more and more withdrawing from you, more and more frightened that you might hurt me, so I get more and more resisting, so conflict grows more and more. Right?

S: Why say, "I must get rid of it", what makes you?

K: I'll show it to you. One has to be free of hurt because unless you are free relationship between two people becomes a continuous conflict. That's obvious. No? Don't agree.

So, let's go back: before I made - I am using the word 'I' specially there - before I thought I was something different from the image, and so I made an effort to do something about the image which has been hurt. I suppressed it, I confessed to another that I have been hurt, I went to an analyst and talked about my hurt, and I controlled my hurt, I resisted it. All that is a struggle, a conflict, a battle between me, between the 'me' that says, "I must get rid of it" and the image. So you come along and tell me, "Look, it's all wrong. Are you different from the image?" And you show me it is not. So I say, "By Jove, how true that is". When I say, "By Jove, how true that is", I have an insight into it, I have understood it. Right? Not, "I have understood", there is an understanding of the fact. So what happens then?

S: Is insight turned into memory?

K: No, insight is never memory.

S: No, but it might be if you say, "I have an insight" then...

K: Ah, insight is not, "I have an insight", it is an insight.

S: You might say there is an insight but then the image comes back up.

K: Just a minute. Have you understood this fact, that the image is you?

S: You tell us that I is different from the image.

K: I don't tell you. I don't tell you anything. I say to you right from the beginning, let us in all our discussions, in all our dialogues, say, "Don't accept anything from the speaker" - right? I am not your authority, I am not your guru, you are not my followers and so on and so on. I say, let's investigate together. Right? Now we have been spending nearly forty minutes investigating into this problem - the problem being, what is right action in relationship. The right action cannot take place in relationship when there is any kind of hurt. That hurt, who is hurt? You are investigating, we are not accepting what I am saying. Who is hurt? We said, the image. Is the image different from me? And we said, the image is created by thought and the 'me' is created by thought also. Am I going too fast?

S: Why do I think I am an image?

K: Aren't you the image? Have you got a name, a form, all the psychological structure, the content, when you say, "I must be better, I am not good, I must be taller, my hair is not right" - the whirlpool that is going on all the time. Isn't all that your image about yourself? And yourself, is that different from you who are looking at it?

Now look, you look at me, don't you, because unhappily I am sitting on a platform, you look at me. Right? Have you an image about me?

S: Yes.

K: Then you are looking at the image, aren't you, which you have built about me. Right? So you put a mask on me and are looking at the mask. Right?

S: That creates a lot of conflict.

K: Sir, so remove the mask and you will see me, if you can. Right? So if the image is the 'me' then what takes place?

S: To remove the mask...

K: That's an image, drop it, don't take it too seriously. You understand my question? Answer my question: if you are the image, what has happened? Is the hurt there? Is the conflict there between the 'I' and the image? What takes place? Before there was an illusion, that me is different from the image, but suddenly that illusion has gone, and only the fact remains. What is that that remains?

S: The real you.

K: What is the real you?

S: I'd say a real illusion.

K: What is the real you? You have suddenly introduced a new word - the real you. This is a trick played by the ancient Hindus, which has been knocked on the head everlastingly. But we still carry on - not that you are a great Hinduist, or Buddhist, but this sense that there is something behind. So I am asking you what remains, what is there when you realize, or when you have an insight, when you really understand - to understand implies no illusion - when all that isn't there, what is there then?

S: (Inaudible)

K: Careful, careful. No you are missing something, go slowly.

S: There is a whole, one unit.

K: There is the whole. What do you mean by that? Do you mean there is sanity? Right? Which means there is no fragmentation. Right? Careful. Look what you are saying, observe it, don't just spin it out but watch it carefully. No fragmentation between the 'me' and the image, which are fragments, two fragments. So there is no fragmentation, therefore there is sanity. You are saying where there is sanity there is no fragmentation. So you are sane, therefore there is no insanity in you as a person. Yes. Wait. So I am asking you - don't let's accept the word 'whole' yet - I am asking you, what is there? You understand? We said the image and the 'me' is the name, the form and the psychological content of the image, all that is the 'me' and the image. Right? What is that? The name, the form, the content. Are they not just words? Are they not just memories? Are they not some things that you have remembered, past experiences? Is not all that the past?

S: I think that is all it is, because that is a fact.

K: So you are apart from your organic biological thing, what are you? Just a lot of words, memories?

S: It seems like it.

K: Not, 'seems like it', is it so? If it is so, if that is the truth, then how can words affect other words? You follow? You understand? So - you don't see it - therefore you are completely free, except biologically.

S: Physical things may hurt me but names will not.

K: Words will not.

S: If there is no I.

K: That's right, there is no I, therefore nothing can hurt you. Which doesn't mean you have become callous, indifferent, on the contrary you may become much more compassionate, tremendously affectionate. Right?

So what is right action then? If there is an image between you and me there is disorder in our relationship. Right? You talked about order, you wanted order. How can there be order in our relationship if we are constantly at battle with each other, because the images are fighting? Right? So there can only be order when there is no image. Right? And therefore when there is no image, in our relationship there is right action. You don't have to say, 'Well, what is right action', there is right action. You have understood it?

S: What is that which is doing the right action?

K: No, there is right action, not, "who is it that is doing right action".

S: What is doing the right action?

S: Are we just a bag of protoplasm?

K: I don't quite understand.

S: What is carrying out the action, the right action?

K: I get it! What do you think? Don't shrug your shoulders. You understand this is a very important question. And we have gone into it very deeply, if you have gone with it, shared it together. We said, we are name, form and psychological content, you follow, all that. Memories, brain, I remember my name, I identify the name with the form, and the name and the form carry on to the psychological thing, and they are the content of all that. All that is me, the image. Now what is all that, apart from the biological structure and nature and activity, which has, if one observes carefully, its own intelligence, if you have gone into it. That is, we have destroyed the organic intelligence. We have destroyed it by drink, by giving in to taste, "I like, it tastes better, therefore I am used to that", so gradually we have destroyed the biological, instinctive, its own intelligence.

Now we are saying, psychologically we have destroyed the deeper intelligence. Let me go into it slowly, slowly. I am investigating. Don't accept what I am saying, right? We are investigating, we are sharing together. I am saying all that psychological content is the 'me' and the image. What is that content - memories, past experience, knowledge, words - the past. Now when there is the realization that the whole thing is put together by thought - thought being the response of the past, because we said thought - now let's stop there. What is thought? What do you think is thought?

S: It's what you said, it's all from the past.

K: What is thought?

S: A movement in time.

S: The actual brain trying to balance itself.

K: Now just a minute. I ask you what is your name, you answer it very quickly, don't you? Why?

S: The memory responds.

K: Go slowly. I ask you, what is your name, you answer very quickly, don't you, why?

S: You are familiar with it.

K: She says, you are familiar with it, you have repeated it a hundred million times. So immediately you answer. Just a minute, go slow, go slow. I ask you, what is the distance between here and London - what takes place?

S: It takes longer.

K: What do you mean by longer?

S: It takes you a certain amount of time.

K: I know. What is happening in your mind?

S: You are searching in your memory.

K: Slowly. What is happening in your mind, in your brain?

S: Thinking it out.

K: Thinking, what does that mean?

S: You are searching out the right information.

K: Yes, thought is searching out information. Right? In a book, or trying to remember how many miles it is, or wait for somebody to tell you. Right? You follow this? So I ask you, what is the distance between here and London, and thought is immediately active, it says, "I have heard it, I have forgotten it, let me think for a minute. I don't know, but I will find out, I will ask somebody, I will look in that book." So thought is movement, searching in its own memory, or looking somewhere to find out. So thought is in action. Right? Are you sure?

Now I ask you something else. I ask you a question to which you say, "I really don't know" - which means what? You are not searching, thought is not in movement, thought then says, "I don't know, I can't answer you". You see the difference? Familiarity and quick answer, then time interval when thought is searching, looking, asking, expecting, and thought says, when you ask a question which it really doesn't know, in any book, nobody can tell, it says, "I don't know". Thought stops there. You understand? See the difference. Quick response because you are familiar, time interval when thought is in operation, and a question which nobody can answer thought says, 'I don't know'. Thought is then blocked.

So what is thinking? I have said it to you, come on.

S: Thought is the response of memory.

K: Memory is what?

S: Symbols.

K: Symbols, pictures, information - right? Pictures. We said thought is the response of memory. What is memory?

S: Knowledge.

K: Knowledge, experience stored up in the brain. So the brain retains the experience, the knowledge, how many miles between here and London, and responds. Right? So you have found out something: that thought is a response or movement of memory. Right? Response of memory. When I learn how to drive a car it is the response of knowledge, which is stored up and I drive. So thought has created the image and because thought is a fragment it has created the 'me', thinking the two are different. Thought has created the image, and thought says, "The image is very transient, it is always changing, but there is a 'me' which is permanent." Thought has created both. Right? So when thought sees this, that it has created both and therefore they are both the same, what happens?

S: Thought stops.

K: Thought is blocked, isn't it? It says, "I can't do anything." No? So what is there? You understand? Please understand this tremendously important thing in your life. For god's sake understand this. Get the principle of it, the truth of it, see the fact of it. Thought has created the image, thought has created the 'me', and thought says now, "I have created the two, battle". Right? And thought suddenly says, "By Jove, I see what I have done". Then what takes place?

S: You don't think about it.

K: There is no image at all. When thought stops, what is there? There is no illusion, there is no image, there is no me, therefore there is no hurt, and therefore out of that comes right action, which is intelligent, intelligence says, "This is right action". You understand this? Intelligence doesn't say it, intelligence is right action.

S: Don't you need thought for intelligence?

K: On the contrary. I have just shown it to you. Please listen carefully - listen, not to your opinions, not to your conclusions, not to what you have understood, just listen, find out. We said thought is the response of memory. Right? Thought has created the whole psychological structure, the 'me' and the image - the image that says, "I am good", "I am bad", "I am superior", etc., etc. And thought also has created the 'me', and says, "I am much more lasting, I will endure death", etc. So thought has created both. You come along and say, "Look at it carefully, thought has created both, so they are both the same. There is no division between the 'I' and the image. There is no division between the observer and the observed, there is no division between the thinker and the thought, there is no division between the experiencer and the experience." Sorry I am ramming all this into you.

So suddenly thought realizes how perfectly true this is. It is true, thought doesn't realize it, it is true. Right? The perception of the truth is intelligence, and that intelligence then says, 'Whatever I do is right action'. Because there is no image, there is no me, there is no psychological content, only intelligence operating. Do you get this?

S: If thought has stopped, or is blocked, then it is obvious that you don't use thought for your...

K: ...except to drive a car, to use a language, to do technical functions and so on. There is no psychological content. You understand this is a tremendous thing to discover for yourself. Therefore you can live a life without conflict, therefore live a life with tremendous compassion and all the rest of it.

S: I have the impression of using thought to discover all this.

K: No, we are using words to convey the meaning, which has thought has created. Look, I describe to you something. The description is the movement of thought. Right? The description is the movement of thought, but the description is not the described. The described is not thought. The tree is not thought, but I have described it. Get it?

So what is left is complete freedom from the image and me. You understand? This is what all the saints, the serious ones, and what all the great teachers have sought, so as to be in a state where there is only intelligence operating, which is the intelligence of perception of truth. Have you understood all this? Have you got an insight into it? Not a verbal description, you understand?

S: Is that why we call it 'holiness'?

K: That is holy, that is intelligence is sacred - not the things created by the hand or by the mind, the statues, the temples, the churches, that's not holy, it is the product of thought. The architect who had an image as a design and put it down on paper, or form, in design and then built it, it is all thought. That's a reality, you follow? This building has been put together by the architect and it's a reality, it is so, it is there. But the 'I', the image is not there.

S: What is the difference between reality and the 'I'?

K: Look, the organism - are you the body?

S: Yes.

K: You are. What do you mean by that?

S: Two arms, two legs.

K: Yes, and the name, Jean-Michel, the form, the shape of the head, the shape of the eyes, the shape of the nose, the height and breadth - right? That's a reality. The organism is a reality, but the psychological thing which thought has created is not a reality. Wait, wait, go slow.

S: (Inaudible)

K: Yes, the body, the organism, the biological structure is not the creation of thought.

S: No.

K: The tree is not the creation of thought. Right? Now thought has created the psychological structure. Right? That's also a reality. Wait. But it is an illusion.

S: Is the illusion in the fact that you don't realize it is created by thought?

K: Of course. Is not illusion created by thought, all illusions - I believe in perfect State, perfect government, the communists have the most perfect organized capacity, etc., etc., I believe. That's an illusion. But what they do is a reality. You have got it? I disagree with them, they send me to a mental hospital. The hospital and me in the hospital is a reality, but it is brought about by an illusion.

So we are going to find out - go slowly. That is, whatever thought has created, whatever, is a reality, though thought says, "I am Napoleon" it is an illusion, but it is a fact, I think so. But it is an illusion, you understand. But the tree is not an illusion, it is a fact, it is not created by thought. So intelligence is not created by thought.

S: That's what I was saying, if your thought stops how could it be.

K: Therefore it is intelligence that operates when there is a relationship which is not based on images. Right? Then that intelligence in relationship brings right action. Got it? You have understood a little bit of it? Hold on to the tail of the tiger, don't let it go, because you will see if you hold on you will enter into quite a different dimension. But if you let go it is like coming back to living with the beastly life of struggle and conflict and battle with each other. You understand? We had better stop.


Brockwood Park 1976

Brockwood Park Dialogue with Students and Staff 30th May 1976

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


the 48 laws of power