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

1985

Madras 1985

Madras 1st Public Question & Answer Meeting 1st January 1985

Krishnamurti: I wonder what we mean by a new year. Is it a fresh year, a year that is totally afresh, something that has never happened before? When we say something new, though we know that there is nothing new under the sun, when we talk about a happy new year, is it really a new year for us? Or is it the same old pattern repeated over and over again? Same old rituals, same old traditions, same old habits, a continuity of what we have been doing, still are doing, and will be doing this year.

So, is there anything new? Is there anything that is really afresh, something that you have never seen before? This is rather an important question, if you will follow it - to turn all the days of our life into something which you have never seen before. That means a brain that has freed itself from its conditioning, from its characteristics, from its idiosyncrasies and the opinions, and the judgements, and the convictions. Can we put all that aside and really start a new year? It would be marvellous if we could do that. Because our lives are rather shallow, superficial, and have very little meaning. We are born, whether we like it or not we are born, educated - which may be a hindrance too. Can we change the whole direction of our lives? Is that possible? Or are we condemned forever to lead rather narrow, shoddy, meaningless lives. We fill our brains and our lives with something which thought has put together. This is not a sermon. Probably in all the churches of the world, New Year will be - and in all the temples and the rest of it - they will continue in the same old way, the same old rituals, pujas and so on and so on. Can we drop all that and start anew with a clean slate and see what comes out of that, with out hearts and minds?

There are all these questions here. I haven't seen them. Why do you question somebody else? Why do we have problems which we cannot solve for ourselves? Why do we seek help from outside? Not that we should not put questions, we should put questions, we should demand, we should doubt and all the rest of it, but from whom do you expect an answer? There are these several questions here. But I don't know what they are. But can we not solve these questions, these problems, for ourselves?

What is a problem? A problem according to the dictionary meaning, is something thrown at you. The meaning of that word etymologically means something thrown at you, a problem. We never look at a problem anew because our brains are conditioned to the resolution of problems. May I go into it a little bit? From childhood, a child has a problem: how to read, to write, goes to school and there he is educated to resolve problems. You know all this, don't you? Don't look surprised. It is a rather rainy morning. You understand my question? From childhood, they are trained to have problems. They go to school and there are dozens of problems. They must learn how to read, and write, how to do mathematics. And later on geography and history, and the examinations. It all becomes a problem. And so the brain is conditioned to solve problems because it has been trained from childhood to have problems and to find answers to those. Do we understand each other, a little bit at least?

Suppose I have a problem. First of all, I never ask, 'Why do I have problems?' Whether it is problems of relationship, problems of occupation and so on and so on - specially psychological problems. My brain from childhood has been educated, conditioned, cultured, to have problems. Do look at this, please. And then, all life becomes a problem. What to do, how to act, what to think. About death, if there is life after death? Our whole brain is conditioned to not only having problems in itself but also problems put upon it. Right? So it is continuously having problems. So life as a whole, whether science, mathematics, or physics and so on, all becomes a problem because our brain is conditioned to problems.

It is not important to solve problems but to have no problems at all with regard to the psychological world and the brain. You understand? Am I making myself clear? If not I'll go into it very carefully. Only a brain that has no problems can solve problems. That is, only a brain that is free from problems can go into problems and resolve them, but if the brain itself is conditioned to live with problems then it can never solve any problem. Politically - look at the world - what is happening. They are solving one problem, in the very solution of that problem, another problem arises. Because the politician's mind is like ours, conditioned to problems. I wonder if you understand this? It is fairly clear. So the question then is, is it possible for the brain to uncondition itself and to have no problems at all. That is, if a problem arises, solve it, but not with a brain that is already conditioned to problems.

Suppose I have no problems - as a matter of fact, I don't have any. Not that I'm old, but I don't feel like having problems. It's as simple as that. So my brain - I'm not talking about myself, but I am taking about somebody else, I am talking about K, somebody outside sitting here. So it's not a personal worship. As long as I have problems, I can never solve any problem. Do we see that? Then my question is: can I be free of this condition of having problems first and then resolve problems? You follow? So my question is: can my brain uncondition itself so that it is free and being free it can solve problems. Not that in the solution of one problem, another problem arises. It is the end of a problem.

Suppose K hates somebody (I hope not) - hates somebody, that becomes a problem. And my brain being conditioned to problems, asks, 'What can I do about hate? How am I to stop it? Can I control it? Can I suppress it? Can I run away from it? I must be kind. I must be generous.' Which all becomes a problem. You follow? It goes round and round in circles with problems. But K is asking himself whether the brain can be free of all problems, sexual, relationship, problems of god, problems of rituals, problems of nations, war, peace. So that it is completely free of that. Is that possible? Please put that question to yourself. Is it possible to be so completely free of problems, in which there is no offence or defence?

K says it is possible. Don't accept it, because if has no meaning for you if you accept it, it is the assertion of some idiot, and may be utterly wrong. So you have to investigate your own brain so that it is really free of problems. Then the question arises: who is to free the brain from its conditioning? Then we say, it must be an external agency, god or a guru or some angel, or some ideology or an authority. In the very process of asking is it possible to free from its own conditioning, in that very asking of that question we invent a guru, an authority. So I won't ask that question. I wonder if you understand all this. I won't ask that question. I'll say, 'Who is it that is asking that question, whether it is possible for me to be free of my conditioning, who is it that is asking the question and who is it that is going to answer?' I've put aside all authority, all gurus, all books, all gods, all angels, all outside agency because they have no meaning. Then I ask myself, 'Who is it that is putting the question and who is it that is going to receive the answer?' We are working together in this, or are you just being silent?

Now comes the complication. If you are willing to be prepared for complication, we'll go into it. Now most of us put a question and then wait for an answer. And if the answer is not convenient or comfortable or if it makes one rather shy, we put it aside. So you ask a question and you wait for an answer. And the answer is according to your background. Right? That's clear.

Now, put the question and leave it alone. That is; I've put the question whether my brain can be free of all problems so that it can resolve any problem that comes. A problem is a challenge, challenge of death, challenge of grief, fear and so on. I've put a question and if the question is serious, as it is, any reply to it will be according to my conditioning. Right, sir? You are rather uncertain.

My brain has been educated to problems. Right? And if I put that question, is it possible for the brain to be free of all problems, the immediate response is, 'Oh, it is not possible', or 'It is possible'. Then 'how'? So asking the question 'how' is creating another problem. 'I prefer that guru instead of that guru', 'I prefer that book to that book.' So I am caught in that. So what I do is to put the question and it's a very serious question 'Is it possible for the brain to be totally free of all problems?' That's a tremendous question. And I won't seek an answer for it. That very question becomes tremendously important. Do you understand? That very question has its own vitality. I wonder if you understand all this? Are you doing that with me? That is, I have put the question, I don't seek an answer. Careful sir, this requires great attention; not just say, 'I have put the question' and just wait. I have put the question in all seriousness and therefore with all attention, and I leave the question alone. I'm not interfering with it, I am not saying, 'What is the answer?' If the question is serious, and has tremendous vitality, significance, then the question itself begins to answer. Not - I answer or you answer. Is this clear? Are you doing it now?

We are talking of psychological questions, not technological questions like, 'Will I have a job, will I pass my exams? and all that kind of thing. So the question is important. Not the answer. Because if the question has great urgency, great intensity, passion behind that question, then that very question will flower and answer, or wither away.

But what we do is, 'Can I uncondition my brain? Is that possible? Tell me how.' Then that becomes a problem. Have you understood? Can we go on?

There are several questions here. I don't know what they are. Serious or flippant or meaningless. Who is going to answer those questions? Have you put these questions in order that K should answer or you have put the question and the question must be investigated, not the answer, because in the question lies the answer, not outside the question. I wonder if you understand.

I want to know if god exists. Not I, K, somebody else wants to know if god exists. How will you find out? If you're really honest, if you are really serious, belief, faith has no place, or tradition, 'I believe in god.' 'I believe I should be very tall', is as good as that. I want to find out if god exists. Which means I must have a brain that is capable of putting aside all that has been said before, whether in the Upanishads, the Gita, or some other book, the Koran or the Bible. The brain must be totally free to find out. Like a scientist. If a scientist is investigating a hypothesis, he cannot say, 'I remember these things. I will find the answer.' He must be free to investigate. So, is my brain free? Not if there is god or not. Right? Is your brain free? Or frightened, anxious, lonely? As long as those factors exist, you will never find out. So god is not important at all. But whether there is freedom to find out. Can we go along together in this?

1st Question: I want to get at what you're saying without any stress, strain or effort. How can one do this?

K: First of all, this is a wrong question because you are asking 'how'. In so-called ethical, moral and if one can use the word 'spiritual' questions when you ask the question 'how' then you become immoral. When you ask 'how', what is implied in the 'how'? Please, I am asking you. When you ask 'how', either you are asking for a technological skill, then there is an instructor, there is a professor, there is a mathematician who has gone into it for many years, and so on, you can ask him 'how'. But when you ask 'how' about psychological matters whom are you asking 'how'? That means you are asking somebody outside of you, a guru, a poor chap like K, or somebody like that. You are asking something from somebody else, and the somebody else is like you, full of opinions, full of achievements, success, spiritually he has meditated for fifty years, and he has kept silent for ten years. But he writes.

So if we don't ask 'how' at all, which is really important, then you have to find out for yourself. Right? The man who knows more psychologically is still seeking the more. You understand? I wonder if you get this? Is it too early in the morning? Or is it too late in the evening? You see, you are all wanting 'the more', 'the better', which is, measurement. And can we be free of measurement, which means comparison, which means time and so on. The 'more' involves a great deal, not just achieving more, but the implications of 'the more'. So the brain is caught in measurement - psychologically. You must have measurement technologically otherwise you couldn't do anything. Psychologically demanding the 'more' implies still 'more'. So there is always the 'more', the 'more'. That means, the whole process of time, evolution, measurement. To be free of all that. Because there is no 'more'. This is too complicated, I won't go into it.

So the questioner asks, he wants to understand K without any stress, strain or effort. A lovely question. What K is saying is not something different from what you are. He is saying, 'Look at yourself, not at the speaker', not what he says. What he is saying is only a description of what is happening in you; a description, an explanation, a verbal picture, a verbal outline. Right? But you don't look at yourself, you say 'How can I listen to you?' And I say 'Do not bother to listen to K. It's not worth it.' But listen to yourself very carefully. And to listen to yourself don't have any prejudices about what is going to come out, don't say this is bad, this is good, this is no good, this is a lovely thought, I must keep it. Just watch yourself. And you say, 'I have no time. I have to go to the office. I come back, there is the wife, the children. I have no time to look at myself', which is nonsense. You have got plenty of time if you want to look at yourself. When you get into the bus, going from your house to the bus, you have got plenty, or sitting in the bus, or cycling along the road - one has plenty of time if you want to do something serious. But there are thousands of excuses for not being serious. So to listen or to observe yourself, and yourself is not different from the thousand, million other selves. I know we are educated to individuality. We are all separate, little bodies, separate entities, separate souls, separate atmans. Right?

I am questioning whether we are separate at all. You are brown, black, pink or blue or white. I speak one language, you speak another language. And that gives us not only a linguistic, separative feeling. "I'm a Telegu, you're a Tamilian" and all that nonsense that goes on. But are you different from anybody else? You may be tall, you may be short, you may be better employed, have better skill, those are all outward frills. You may put on a blue shirt, I may put on a white shirt. That white shirt and blue shirt make you think you are different. But are we actually different? Think it out, sirs. Are we actually different? We suffer. The American, the Russian, the Chinese, the French suffer. They are anxious as you are, as insecure as you are, seeking security, as they are. Psychologically, inwardly, we are all similar. Right? So, we are humanity. Not, 'I am K'. That is such nonsense. We are humanity. Do you know the implication of saying we are humanity? Either you say it verbally or turn it into an ideological concept, or it is an actual fact. I don't know which it is with you. Is it a concept, is it an ideal to be achieved? But the fact is you are like the rest of humanity: you go through great travail, boredom, loneliness, despair, tremendous self-interest as each one of you has. So do the Russians, so do the Americans, so do the Chinese, French and Germans, and Dutch. Right? So you are the rest of humanity. If it is not verbal or an intellectual concept, if it is not a theory, then it's an actual fact, which it is. And when it's a fact, it has tremendous significance. Then you will not kill another, for your country, for your god, for your... Because then you are killing yourself. I don't know if you follow all the implications of realizing deeply that you are the rest of mankind, you are mankind. It's not an ultimate goal, it's a fact. And can one live with that fact? That means, there's great compassion. When there is compassion, there is intelligence. Then you wipe away all nationalities, all wars. I can't kill you because you're me. I don't know if you understand all this. It has tremendous importance. Not only importance, it's a fact, and one has to live with something that has tremendous, deep significance.

So, can we go on to the next question?

2nd Question: What is myself and what is its relationship to the cosmos?

K: First of all, let's look at what is the self. What are you? Don't be frightened. We are going to strip naked, understand what the self is. The self is the name, the form, the reactions, the responses; these are biological facts, and the professions, the vocation which you would like and can't have, marriage, sex, children, the responsibility of children, the responsibility of going to the office for fifty years and earning a footling little sum and being ambitious, to have more - a better house, car, and all the rest of it. That's only the outward signs. Then inwardly, what are you? Actually what are you? Don't theorize. You can say, 'I am god', or you can say, 'There is a light in me, the atman light'. If you brush aside all that nonsense, then what are you? If you have no identification with your country, with roots in your family, roots in your knowledge (which is the most dangerous root) - if you have roots in a belief, a faith, a continuity, all that is the activity of thought. Right?

So, what are you? Memories? Be honest and deeply ruthless with yourself. Don't play tricks. What are you? You are memories. Be honest with yourself, really deeply ruthlessly honest with yourself, not with somebody else. And you're the past. Right? You are the past. That means you are the story, the history story of mankind. Which is memory. Alright, sir, can we go on? You are the past which is memory. You remember your grandmother, or grandfather, you remember your chemistry, you remember the various authors, musicians, the songs. Right? The brain is memory. So you are memory. I know it sounds terrible. You are the past and the past is all the time updating which is memory. You need memory to drive a car, for you to go from here to your house, or to your office, to recognize your poor unfortunate wife or husband - there you need memory. But why carry this immense memory which has accumulated for a thousand years or one day? As long as this memory is operating, which is the past, the self - and therefore self-interest which is the beginning of all corruption - not passing the money under the table. And in this country, especially, they are talking about eradicating corruption. Lovely, isn't it? All the politicians are going to work at it. And it is there, self-interest, in each one of us.

So the self is put together by thought which is memory. Then the question arises, if there is no memory, which is no knowledge, then what else is there left? So we begin to invent: the self being reborn, higher self, lower self, higher consciousness, lower consciousness, how to join both of them together, how to... - all self-interest, prayers, rituals, going to temples. God, what a country!

Then the question is, 'What is the relationship of the self to the cosmos?' What is cosmos? Not the astro-physicist's cosmos, or the cosmos of some great philosopher or some petty little guru. But what is the meaning of that word? Cosmos means 'order', from the Greek and so on, it is order. Chaos is the opposite. Cosmos and chaos. There is a relationship only when there is complete order in you, because that is supreme order. Universe is in supreme order, which is cosmos: sun rises, sun sets, stars, clouds, the beauty of the sunset. All that is order. And I, who live in disorder with my self-interest, want to find out my relationship to order. We are so.... First, can I put my house in order? Not, 'What is my relationship to the cosmos?' I can never find out if my house is in disorder. But once there is complete order then.... I won't go into it. It will just be theory to you.

Then my question is, 'Can I put my house in order?' Then I have to discover what is order. Order according to politicians, according to law, according to the judge, a clever lawyer, or is order something definite? Please ask these questions. Don't go to sleep. Is order a discipline? Is order a habit? Or when there is no disorder, there is order. I don't have to seek order, but I will try to understand, go into what is disorder. Are we moving together, or am I just talking? What then is disorder? Disorder basically means conflict. As long as there is conflict, psychologically, there must be disorder. Conflict exists apart from Vedantists and all the rest, put all those people aside, conflict exists when there is duality. I want this, and I don't want that. I must be this, I am this.

I am questioning, what is duality? Is there a duality at all? Except man, woman, dark, light, all that. Is there duality at all? Or is there only one thing? I am anger. Duality arises when I must not be angry. So there is only the fact and not its opposite. I wonder if you understand. The fact has no opposite. I can invent an opposite. I am angry - that is a fact. Then arises 'How to end it'. So I invent, 'I must not be'. Can I live with the fact? That is, I am angry. I'll find no excuses, no rationalizations. I am angry. I am not different from anger. I am anger. So, there is no duality. Do you understand this? If you really understand this, conflict ends and you are what you are - not what you should be. And what you are can never be changed by thought, by circumstances. You are that. You may have a different shirt tomorrow, but what is inside the shirt is always the you.

So, disorder exists when there is conflict, when there is the more, when there is the better. Violence and non-violence. Non-violence is not the fact. You can use it as a political stick, but the fact is that you are violent. To remain with the fact, let the fact answer - not you answer. I wonder if that is clear. I have explained that before. All right, you don't understand this. I'll explain it again.

When you begin to answer the fact as though you were separate from the fact then the problem arises. 'I am violent'. That is a fact. Not only physical violence - violence of hate, anger, jealousy, obedience, imitation, conformity, all that is violence, and remain. You are that violence, you can't do anything about it, therefore hold it quietly. Do you understand what I am saying? Don't move away from it. It is so. That means that you are giving entire attention to that and then when there is that complete attention, that violence is gone. You can test this out for yourself. Put your heart into it. So can there be order, not in society, but in yourself first? Because you as a human being have made this society. There is no getting away from that. With your greed, your ambition, aggression, with your self-interest, seeking power, to be at the centre of things. Don't you want to be in the centre of things, next to the Prime Minister? We are all rather childish, aren't we?

So, disorder comes to an end and then there is order. When there is that complete order you will never ask, 'What is my relationship to the cosmos?'

3rd Question: Is not psychological time a fact? While there may be no gradation for the attainment of truth, how do you question the usefulness of self-preparation for establishing a right kind of body, mind, harmony. Surely this must be a gradual process.

K: Are you really asking this question seriously? Sir, this is a very complicated question and the question reveals in itself a much more complex state. First of all, the questioner says, 'Is not psychological time a fact?' Now, question it, doubt it. Why accept it? Is there psychological time as a fact? What do you mean by time? It is now half-past eight. There is tomorrow, sun rises, sun sets, twenty four hours, and tomorrow is another morning. That is not psychological time, surely. That is ordinary chronological time. Twenty four hours a day. Right? Now what is psychological time? Of which you say 'Is it a fact'? What do you mean by psychological time? I will be there tomorrow. I hope to meet you tomorrow. Hope. I want to be beautiful. I'm not, but I want to be. The want implies time. I don't know if you understand this. Hope implies time. I must attain Nirvana, or truth. Time. I must discipline myself. Time. All those are factors involving time and more, and the questioner says, 'Is it not a fact?' An illusion can be a fact. I believe I am Napoleon. I'm convinced I'm Napoleon. And you all think I'm a crazy man. But I live in that illusion. As you do. Not Napoleons, but you have your own illusions, of grandeur, of belonging to a certain state, with a garland, a photo. You belong. So you live in illusion; god, rituals, nationality. They are all illusions. Do you question that? What is an Indian? What is India? A geographical description of a sub-continent. And you have given to that group of people living within the borders of that country tremendous importance: ancient culture 5,000 years old. Gone to smithereens now. And you take pride in all that. So does the Frenchman, the Englishman. And this is called 'factual, psychological time'. And I say there is no psychological time at all, except that thought has invented all this. I have invented, "I'm an Indian". Born in this community, in this particular part of the world. Brahmin, Non-Brahmin fighting each other, and all the rest of it.

So, I'm questioning, K is questioning this whole psychological time as evolution. I am this, I will be that next life. Or I am this, I will be different tomorrow. I've taken a resolution for a new year and I'm going to stick to it. If I can. And so on and so on. So time is a movement, as thought is a movement. So time is thought. They are not two separate processes. Time is thought. And thought and time says, I will be, I must attain Nirvana, attain Moksha, or attain illumination, liberation. And somebody says 'I have attained'. And we are gullible enough to say 'My god, what a marvellous man he is', and then worship him, or kill him. Which is the same thing. When you worship somebody, you have killed him.

So, there is no psychological time at all as evolution. Psychologically, there is no you becoming something else, or better, more. We went into that. Because the self is put together by memory. Self is the process, the centre of all thought. Right? If I had no memory, I wouldn't call myself 'self'. But to go beyond memory, beyond knowledge, is something entirely different. I won't go into that, this is not the occasion for it. And for the attainment of truth the question says, time is necessary. Clever people have invented paths to truth. You have your path, I have my path, you've a devotional path, I've a ritualistic path, paths of various kinds, Christian path, Islamic path, Hindu path, Tibetan path. Which means path leading to a goal. The goal you call truth or the Buddha or some other. A path implies a goal which is fixed. Is truth fixed, stationary, non-dynamic, static, or something tremendously alive? That which is greatly alive has no path. How can you have a path for something which moves, lives, changes, vital, full of something else? Therefore there are no paths to truth. Be clear about it, then you won't be caught in a trap. The goal is the means. The goal is not separate from the means. The communists say, some of the communists, that the means doesn't matter, get to the goal. We want a marvellous state, it doesn't matter if we kill thousands of people, or millions. We must have the goal. You understand all this?

But the goal is the means. They are not separate. And where is the goal? There? Somewhere in the distance, or is there no goal at all? I wish you would ask these questions. The moment you have a goal, a purpose, you are ambitious to achieve. Of course. But the achievement is the basis of self-interest - 'I have achieved'. Like a soldier in the army, he has achieved, he has become a general. And generals are tremendously important. So in the same way, our whole idea is to achieve - 'I have achieved Nirvana'. What a horrible statement to make. You understand? As though Nirvana, or heaven, or something immense, is to be achieved by a petty little mind - by a brain that is conditioned, frightened, anxious, limited, fearful, sorrowful - all the rest of it. How can such a brain achieve anything? It can only end all the fears, all its loneliness, it can only end all that. That's all it can do. It can't achieve something immense. Where there is self-interest, all achievement is disorder.

And the questioner says 'Is not self-preparation for the establishment of a right kind of body, mind, heart - surely this must be a gradual process.' I wonder if you can put away the whole concept of gradation which is really measurement. You can measure good cloth against bad cloth, a good car against a bad car. In this country, there are only bad cars. Sorry! May I tell a joke?

A car manufacturer of this country, a great man and fearfully rich, and all that, he goes to heaven. He goes to the gates of heaven, and the angel that is there says, 'Hey!' He says 'I'm so and so. I've built churches, temples, hospitals, schools.' The angel at the gate says, 'We know all that. All rich people do that. That's their concession to their ego. We know all that'. And the great man says, 'What am I to do now?' Each time they get into my car which I've produced they say, 'Oh, my god!' Have you got the joke? Sorry!

So, body and brain - mind to the speaker is entirely different, I won't go into that now - between the brain and the body, not the mind. Is body different from the brain? It's one instrument, isn't it? An organic whole. But we have separated the body and the brain. Then we try to establish harmony, or conflict. Why do we divide, why do we separate, break up things? As Indians, as Arabs, as the Jews. Why do we do all this? Constant separation, constant division: my family opposed to your family; I'm nearer to the centre and you're not. Why do we do all this? Answer this question to yourself, sir. Why do we break up? Everything we touch, we break up. My wife against... Go right through life. God and good and evil and you follow. There is this process of division going on all the time. We and they.

Who is creating this division? Is it thought? Of course, there is division between woman and man, that is natural. But who is creating this psychological division? The brain and the body. How absurd to divide the two. And why do we divide? That is the fundamental question. Is it thought? Of course it is thought. Apart from man, woman, light and dark, better car and worse car and so on, better material, there there must be choice, there must be measurement, there must be consideration and all the rest of it. But otherwise, why is the brain dividing? Or is the brain itself divided in itself and therefore it divides everything? Are you asking this question?

So who is responsible for this division of mankind? Outwardly, Europeans, Americans, Russians, Super-powers, lesser powers. Who is dividing all this and therefore creating tremendous chaos in the world? War is an ultimate chaos. Chaos in the sense of total disorder. Who is doing all this? Is it thought? Because thought itself is limited, because thought is based on knowledge, memory and knowledge is never complete about anything now or in the future. Knowledge can never be complete about anything. All the scientists are adding more and more and more, their knowledge is more and more, accumulating. Where there is a process of accumulation there is limitation. Knowledge is a process of accumulation and knowledge is limited. And thought is limited. And so thought is breaking up everything because thought in itself is limited: the Hindu, the Brahmin, the non-Brahmin, this political party, that political party. Nobody considers humanity as a whole. There are economic divisions, social divisions, religious divisions: I believe in Jesus, you believe in Allah. I believe in nothing, you believe in everything. And this goes on. And therefore, my ideal opposed to your ideal. And we fight and kill each other.

So thought is responsible for all this division because it wants security. You all want security, physical as well as psychological. And you have invented god, the ultimate security, which is an invention. Thought has done it because you're frightened.

So can thought end? Thought is necessary in a technological world, but thought has no place in the psychological world. That is a tremendous discovery and depth to that. Then there is no division - then you're humanity, and when you're humanity, there is compassion.

1985

Madras 1985

Madras 1st Public Question & Answer Meeting 1st January 1985

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

suntzuart

the 48 laws of power