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


Ojai 1985

Ojai 1st Question & Answer Meeting 14th May 1985

K: I've got my own watch! (Laughter)

Many questions have been put, written down. Out of those some have been chosen. I haven't seen them personally. And one cannot possibly answer all those questions, they're too many. It would take a very long time.

I think we ought to ask ourselves why we ask questions and naturally we must ask questions, but why do we ask questions? From whom does one expect an answer? From the speaker? Or from someone who can explain things away? Or can we have a dialogue about a question? That is, you ask a question and the speaker replies to that question. Then you reply to the speaker's response. And then the speaker responds to that question. So it's like playing tennis, back and forth, until the question itself is suspended between the two of us. That is, you ask a question, then I reply to that question, the speaker. Then you reply or respond to my response, and we keep this going until your response and my response have no further activity. So the question is suspended, as it were.

If you try it, if you have ever done it, probably not, then the question begins to have its own vitality. Right? Its own urgency, its own capacity to answer itself. But when we answer a question, it's always from the background of memory. It may be prejudice, it may be some kind of conclusion, or some faith and so on. So if we could suspend all that, and look at the question itself, let the question evolve, grow, expand, then if you want an answer, it is in the question, not from your background. I wonder if I am making myself clear there. It's rather interesting if you go into it. It's very rarely that one has such a dialogue. Because we're so eager to find an answer we never look at the question, let the question evolve, expand, tell its story. And as you watch the question without any deviation, as it were, then the question itself has an extraordinary meaning. Is this clear?

So we are going to look at these questions that way. We're going to watch, listen to the question. As the speaker has not read these questions, you and the speaker can play this game, back and forth till the ball is suspended in the air. (Laughter) If we could do this, that's really the art of having a dialogue, a conversation, a communication in which the participants don't take part.

Will you do this for fun? Then you will see that the question begins to respond out of the very heart of the question? So let's try. That is, you and the speaker are going to have a dialogue in which you and the speaker are playing a part. They don't take the role of a questioner and a person who answers the question. But together we are going to put aside our backgrounds, if we have any, then the question itself begins to move; begins to have its own activity. Shall we do that?

You know, the speaker, fortunately or unfortunately, has talked all over the world, except behind the Iron Curtain or Bamboo Curtain. And questions are put to him of every kind. And if the speaker merely answers from memory, then it's no fun for him. It'll be like a gramophone repeating. But if one puts aside one's own inclinations and tendencies and one's own acquired knowledge, and looks at the question, and the person who is asking the question, looks at his face, his gestures, why he is asking the question, what is the expression on his face, then you can see either it's a very, very superficial question, just put either to catch you, or to see what your quick response would be and so on. But if we could do this, what we just now said, that is, back and forth, and let the question itself respond, then the answering the question becomes extraordinarily significant. Right? Can we do that.

1st QUESTION: Would you please explore further into the mechanism of guilt and its relation to the ego?

Ego being the person, the psyche, the subjective entity, right? That's what generally one calls the ego, the 'me', and the 'you'. The question is, what relationship has guilt, the mechanism of it, to the whole structure of the self.

Now, I am putting that question to you. And you're going to reply to that to me, to the speaker. And then I'll answer you. And then you'll answer me. So we keep this going 'til we have worn ourselves out, and we have no strength in the arm any more. So the question remains. The question is a challenge. Right? Question is a problem that you have to face and resolve. We never resolve any problem because we're always answering from our background. Right? So let's go into this question. You're playing the game, don't just listen to me, to the speaker.

What is guilt? And what is it's relationship to the ego, the whole consciousness of humankind, of man, of woman, and so on? What is guilt? Why does one have this enormous sense of guilt? It may be very, very superficial, or very, very deep, rooted from childhood, and allowed to grow as one gets older. And that feeling of guilt makes one either feel very empty - you know all this. Empty, a sense of not being able to do anything. And then out of that guilt he builds a wall round himself. And that wall prevents any further communication. Or he is frightened of that guilt: you have told me to do something from childhood, and I can't do it, but I feel I must do it; and if I fail I feel guilty. And the parents play a terrible role in this. Sorry! They encourage this guilt, consciously or unconsciously. So that this guilt becomes part of the ego, part of me.

I think it would be wrong to put the question, what is the relationship between the two. You understand how the question is evolving? It is not two separate things. It is the outcome of feeling guilt, with other factors, that constitute the ego. They are not two separate activities or two separate reactions. So guilt is part of the psyche, part of the ego, part of the me.

Now why does one feel guilt? Apart from people who make you feel guilty, and hold you in that state. Because it's very convenient for them, they like to bully you people, and bring about a sense of guilt, the feeling that you must submit, you must accept, you must obey. Though you revolt against it, you keep it underground and hold on to your guilt. Right? And other factors make up the ego; the 'me'. And guilt makes one feel terribly lonely. Are we talking to each other? A sense of depression and if that guilt is very, very deep and strong, I can't resolve it. Therefore I come to you and say, "Please help me to overcome this guilt." And then you impose, if you are the boss, another reaction of guilt. So it goes on.

I am asking - we are asking, why does this feeling exist at all? It is encouraged, is it not, in religions, orthodox religions. In Christianity there is the original sin and the saviour, and therefore I must feel guilty, and confession, and the whole circus begins. Forgive me if I use that word. It takes different forms. In the Christian world confession, absolution. And in the Asiatic world it has a different form: they go to temples - you know, all kinds of things they do.

But is it necessary to feel that? Can there be an education in which there is nothing of this? I wonder? Right? We are playing together, please. Is there a kind of bringing up a child in which there is not this encouragement or the feeling of guilt?

Guilt becomes a problem. Right? Then we have to understand what is a problem? You are following all this? Are you interested in all this?

Q: Can I say something?

K: Oui, madame.

Q: There is something I don't understand, and I want to ask you. How can I look at guilt if guilt is not happening in the moment, without looking in my background?

K: We're going to go into it in a minute. Let me finish. We are proceeding something, bring it in a little later. Where was I?

Q: Raising children without guilt.

Q: What is a problem?

K: Ah, yes. (Laughter)

Q: What is memory?

K: Guilt becomes a problem, how to resolve it; how to get over it, and all kinds of things begin with it. Then we make it into a problem. Now what is a problem? Human beings apparently have thousands of problems: political, religious, economic, sexual, relationship, you follow? Life, living becomes a problem, and generally associated with guilt, part of it. What is a problem?

The meaning of that word etymologically, if I may use a rather long word, means 'something thrown at you'. Like a challenge is thrown at you. And a problem means something hurled at you, thrown at you, which you have to face. And what happens? There are political problems; and so on. And these political problems are never solved. In the very solution of one problem other problems increase, develop. So first let's go into the question, why human beings have problems at all. You understand what I am asking?

You have problems, haven't you? Why do you have problems? And is it possible - we'll go into the question, answer it a little later - is it possible not to have a single problem - sexual, religious, political, economic, relationship, and so on? So let's find out - you are playing the game with me - let's find out why human beings have problems.

From childhood, when a child goes to the school writing becomes a problem to him. Right? Reading, spelling, then mathematics, geography, history, biology, chemistry, science, archaeology, and so on. So from the very beginning he is trained, or conditioned, to have problems. Right? This is obvious. So his brain is conditioned to have problems. Are you playing the game with me? And all his life from the moment he is born practically 'til he dies, the brain continues to live in problems, because he has been educated, cultivated, and the whole system of comparison, examinations, rewards, punishments, and so on. All that has made the brain not only receive problems but have its own problems, it's conditioned that way, therefore it can never solve any problem.

So is it possible from the very beginning not to give the child or ourselves problems? Which means, can the brain be free from its condition to live with problems? When the brain is free, then it can solve problems, it doesn't matter what they are. I wonder, are we together in this?

Q: Sir, how do you go about...

K: Don't go about. (Laughter)

Q: I'm talking about the organic causes like say, I have cancer, suppose, and I am dying.

K: Wait, sir, you are not dying, you are sitting there. (Laughter) Don't bring in the theories, just look, listen, sir, just listen. You see, we become theoretical immediately. That's not playing the game. You have the ball in front of you, you can't say, well, let's talk about the sun or the moon or death or this or that. Forgive me, sir.

So is it possible to have a brain that has no problems but can answer problems? Because there are problems. Now, is that possible, because as long as you have problems you must have the feeling that you must resolve them and if you can't resolve them, you feel guilty. And so we keep this going. Then others come and help us, and the whole thing beings again in a different form.

And another thing arises out of this question: why do we seek help? Are you trying to seek help from the speaker? Let's be a little honest about it. Are you trying to seek help from him? And he says, sorry, I am not helping you. That's a terrible thing to ask the help of another psychologically, for subjective states. We've asked help for thousands of years: god, the priest, and the cultivation of the priesthood; and then the psychologists, you know, we want leaders. Physically they'll tell you how to live, how to exercise, what to eat; how to comb your hair, and all the rest of that. So why do we ask for help at all? You understand the question?

Listen to the question, which is: go into the mechanism of guilt, its relation to the ego, and we said don't separate the two, because guilt is part of the ego, part of the 'me'. It's not separate. Therefore it's not something related to. It is in, it is there. So we have understood that, back and forth. Then we said, why do we have problems. Problems exist from childhood, from the child who goes to the school. He is educated to have problems. So his whole life becomes a problem: depression, anxiety, and so on, so on, and I go and ask another. Which means I am asking help from another. And the other is myself. He has problems. He gets depressed, he feels lonely, and he wants to be a guru, but poor chap, he can't. (Laughter) Right? He's burning with his own importance or with his own knowledge, with his own - all the rest of it. So the other is you. I wonder if you realize this. Therefore what's the good of asking him?

So we discover in the investigation or exploring into the question, and the question is beginning to answer all this. You follow? Not the speaker invented it; it's like a map, unfold it, you look at the whole of the map, not a particular part of the map. But when we look at the map, we want to go to a particular town or road, but we don't take the whole thing in. If you take the whole thing in and then come to the point, that's a different way of looking at it. Right? Are we together in this? Right.

Q: There's another kind of guilt that is due to an injury, an injustice to another person.

K: Ah, yes, of course, of course. Of course. Of course. You hit me, and I can't hit you back, but I feel - you know, all the rest of it, include all that. Don't take various parts and put them together. The parts don't make the whole. If you see the whole, you can see the parts. Right? And that's the importance of a question. And if you look at the question, not back and forth, add, add, the question itself covers the whole field. Right? Is this clear so far? Can we go to the next question?

Q: Would the root of guilt then be the difference between division, between what actually is and what you would like to be, the proposed ideal?

K: Are you asking, sir, can we look at the fact and not create out of the fact an ideal, an idea?

Q: Yes.

K: Now, just listen to the question. That is, there is the fact, and the ideal, or the ideal separate from the fact. Right? That's what he's asking. There is war, and the ideal is not to have war, peace. Right? The fact is war. Why do you create the ideal out of it? The idea. So the idea is not the fact. So can we remain with the fact, and not have ideals and all theories about the war? You kill me, during the war; you kill me, that's a fact. You are encouraged, patriotism, all the rest of it, you kill me. But there are those people who say, we have ideas about war; which is, you must not kill, you must be sane, you must be rational, you must be kind, you must be generous, but those are all meaningless. Actually you are killing me. So let's remain with the fact and look at the fact, then you can do something about it. Right? Let's move to the next.

2nd QUESTION: Evolution has brought about certain physical differences in racial groups. Are there also parallel psychological differences born into an infant of a particular race, or are they only acquired conditioning? And if the conditioning is inherited, can it really be changed or left behind?

Have you understood the question? Suppose I was born in China, with yellow skin, slanted eyes; I'm just observing, please, I'm not criticizing. I'm not saying the other is beautiful, the other is not. I'm born in China, with certain peculiar physiological, biological facts. Short, not so pinkish skin, which is fashionable, and slanted eyes and so on. That is a physical fact. The questioner asks: does that physical fact affect the psyche of the Chinese. Right? We are together in this? Are we together? Don't afterwards say, I'm not clear. That is, I'm born in China; I'm a Chinese. And I have certain physical and biological strains: face, limbs, hands, walk, and I can bear a great deal burden, and so on, physical burden. Does that outward biological, physiological fact affect the psyche, the structure of the psyche? Does the racial conditioning affect the psyche? Right? That's the question.

I don't know actually, theoretically, but suppose I am born in India which is, it comes to the same thing, I have a different colour, different - they are much more subtle, much more nervous, much more clever - sorry, excuse me! - much more theoretical, much more analytical. But they don't go beyond that. They are all up here; some of them. And they can argue back and forth, argue the hinds off a donkey. And go on and on and on and on. I have listened. All that capacity, all that intellectual training of three, five thousand years, does that affect the psyche? Does it affect the conditioning? I'm born black in this country, with all the peculiar physical phenomena, and does that outward structure of the organism affect the inner?

And do I inherit the physical, which will affect the psyche? Do you understand? Are we together in this? Is the psyche, the subjective state, is it different from the rest of mankind? You're white, you're tall, you can do certain things, and I born in India with a different biological and physiological conditioning, will that affect the psyche? Don't you suffer? I suffer? Right? Don't you go through various forms of fear? Which I do whether I live in China, here, or black, white, purple, whatever it is. And does the child inherit the biological conditioning? You are following all this?

I hope you listen to the question. Then you can answer the question if you really listen to the question. The questioner says, does the physical conditioning shape the psyche? Does it condition the childhood racially? If you treat me, born in this country as black, you would slightly push me aside, rather condemn me or look down upon me. And I feel inferior, guilty - follow all this - guilty, so you exploit me. This is happening the world over, this is not something only limited to this country. In India there is a great deal of colour prejudice. The more light you are the better you are. They would like to marry a girl or a boy who is light-skinned. You follow? It's the same the world over. It sounds funny, and rather silly, but it's a fact.

And the questioner says, does that racial biological condition affect the child, and that child as it grows up becomes biological exception. You understand? I should think not. This isn't a theory, I've watched this game being played all over the world. That is, those who consider themselves racially superior, because they are light-skinned or whatever it is, then they proceed to condition the other fellows who are not. And then they think it's a racial inheritance, and feel guilty and all the rest of it. But as one observes these things very closely, without studying, going into books and all that, when one travels, even living in this country, one observes all this. And one sees fundamentally we are the same, psychologically. You suffer, I suffer, the black, the white, al that, we suffer, we have agonies, we feel guilty, we feel anxious, insecure, confused, depressed and all the rest of it. Like you. But we don't recognize that because we are so inhuman. We are alike psychologically.

That means - please listen - that means you are the entire humanity. Because you suffer, you go through agonies, suffer; I do, he does, right? The Chinese, the Russians, and so on. So you are the entire humanity. That's a tremendous realization. Not individual American with all the rest of it. This is not a theory. It's not an ideal, something utopian. It's an actual daily fact. Are we playing the game? It's an actual daily fact.

Q: You're saying the conditioning only goes so deep.

K: Yes, conditioning is only skin deep. If you like to put it that way. Biological conditioning. There are all kinds of other forms of conditioning, which is not related to race, which is the conditioning of the psyche. In it's desire to be secure, I'm an American. I feel safe.

Q: That's still not....

K: Please, sir, I can't answer every question. Or British or French, you know the whole thing. And the other question is: can this psychological conditioning or inherited conditioning, in the sense, my parents telling me, look, don't look over - I have been told as a boy when I first came to England, "You're an Indian, don't look over the hedge." You understand? Planted already guilt. Fortunately I never played that kind of game.

So is it possible to leave behind or be free of this psychological conditioning? You understand? Obviously if one gives one's attention to it, not analytically but just observes. As you observe in a mirror your face you observe your reactions, without any distortion. And that can only be done in a relationship with another. Relationship then becomes the mirror in which you see yourself exactly as you are. And if you like to keep that image, keep it! If you don't like it, break it! It isn't something tremendously arduous or difficult. You'd like to make it because in our deeper sense we are feeling guilty, we must do this and we must do that, we all must be noble; you follow? Courageous.

So that question, if we don't come to it without any prejudice, approach it without any conclusion, then the question covers a tremendous lot. You understand? Right? Can we go on to the next question? Have I answered this question, my lady, whoever put it? Right. Not answered it; you have resolved it.

3rd QUESTION: It is said that the income from your books does not go to you personally. May one ask how you live, sir?

Are you really interested in this? I'll answer it. It's very simple. Are you really concerned about this question? As it is put then, let's answer it. Let's go into it. Personally, I've no money. I don't want it. I've been offered castles, estates. I've been asked go into the cinemas, they've offered me a great deal of money. I don't like it. I've no money. So what has happened is, to put it very, very, very simply, when I go to India the Foundation there looks after me. For my clothes, laundry, food, doctor, if I am ill, and the travels there. I travel all over India. And I go to Europe, the European Foundation, that's English Foundation plus France and so on, they support K. And when I come here they do exactly the same thing. It's very simple. Is that answered? Right.

4th QUESTION: Why do you say there is no psychological evolution?

This is really a very serious question. Not as the previous one, but this is a very serious question.

What do we mean by evolution? I'm asking, you can't verbally answer it, because there are too many, but you must answer it. What do you mean by evolution? The oak tree here, it drops its acorn; out of that grows the tree. Right? That's to evolve, to grow, to multiply. Right? And also we have evolved from the most ancient of times until what we are now. Biologically, organically. Right? This has taken us two or three million years, psychologically, to grow into what we are now. Right? It's obvious. Do we play the game, you are playing the game? It's in your court.

So we have evolved not only biologically but also psychologically, inwardly, subjectively. We can't grow a third arm or a fourth arm. We can't, we have probably biologically reached the limit. But psychologically, subjectively we think we can grow; we can become something: more noble, more courageous, less violent, less brutal, less cruelty, you follow? To us the idea of psychological growth is tremendously important. Otherwise the ego has no meaning.

I don't know if you follow this. I meditate in order to become. I breathe in order to keep the brain quiet. You know. I am becoming all the time. Either in the business world, in the world of technology, in the world of skill, I am always becoming something better. I'm a better carpenter than I was two years ago, better electrician, better chemist, better this and better that. And I apply the same movement to the psyche. I don't know if you are following all this. That is, I am going to become something, psychologically. You're following this? Is that a fact? No, don't, please, this is very important, because if you really understand this, go into it, our whole life changes. You understand what I'm saying?

Is good the enemy of the better? Do you understand my question? Good; with all it's meaning, we'll go into it presently. And I will be better, I'll be good or I am good, but I'll be better tomorrow. Better good. So the better is the enemy of the good. I don't if you are following this. I'll go into this.

So is there psychological evolution? Or what I am today I'll be tomorrow. You understand? We have evolved psychologically five to three thousand years, more, much more. Eight thousand years, ten thousand years. If you've gone into it - I won't go into all the ancient movement of mankind. People who have studied this have told me, therefore I'll only repeat something they have told me. Which you can find out. But I am questioning, we are questioning whether there is the psychic growth at all, becoming better. And if it is that we are through time, million years, 50,000 years, we have become better. We are much more evolved. Is that a fact? Answer it.

Q: I think we...

K: Attendez! If you all talk, madame, it's impossible. You'll ask, he'll ask; but just think, look at it, and then we'll communicate, not only verbally but non-verbally. Have I as a human being who have lived on this earth, two or three million years ago or 50,000 years ago, or even 8,000 years ago, have I progressed? Evolved? Have you? Psychologically? Aren't you as you were at the beginning? More or less. Less than more, but more or less. Brutal, violent, aggressive, insecure, wanting to kill for your tribe, for your god, for your country, it has existed the same phenomena from the beginning of time. There you clubbed a man or a woman. Then there was the archery. Then there was the simple gun. Now we have evolved to have neutron bombs. Think, tremendous progress! No sir, don't laugh. Look at it carefully. But behind the archer, behind the gun, the man behind the gun and the man who is up at 50,000 feet dropping a neutron bomb, the man is the same. Right? This is a fact. You may put a flag on the moon and he says, it's my country that's represented up there.

No, look at it, sir, carefully consider all this. I am not asking you to believe what I am saying. Look at it. So one asks, is there psychological growth? Or psychological ending? - not growth, becoming something. You understand what I'm saying?

Q: Yes.

K: If I don't end violence today, that violence has existed a million years ago, in the human being, then if I don't leave that violence behind or drop it or radically bring about a mutation, I'll be violent tomorrow. This is a fact. So, is there a progress, development of the psyche as evolution? For me personally there isn't. For me. Don't accept it. I'm playing, I'm returning the ball to you.

So the question then remains, I am what I am at present. Right? I have been what I have been. I am what I have been. I am all the memories, racial, religious, educational, travelling, all that is the past which is me. Right? My experience, my desire to be a great man, my desire to be important, my desire to be a guru, my desire to be somebody; I am not, but I'm just saying. All that is the past, which is me. If I don't drop all that, I'll be tomorrow exactly the same thing. From this statement arises the question, is that possible? You understand? Is it possible to let go all that? Not through effort, not through determination, desire, that becomes again another achievement. Can all that be dropped? Sir, it's in your court. Don't wait for me to answer it. It's in your court. You are asking that question. Realizing you are the background. You are all that accumulated racial, religious, economic, scientific, political; all that's your conditioning of the psyche. You've been programmed for two thousand years to be Christians. And the others are trained in their own way.

The other day somebody said they saw statue of the Buddha sitting in - you know, you've seen statues of Buddha. And somebody said, "What's the good of that man sitting like that all day long?" It was put by a Christian. Careful, careful, listen to it. There was somebody else beside me said, "What's the point of that man hanging on that cross all day?" No, no, don't laugh, please look at all this.

According to our prejudice, conditioning we act, think, feel. If I'm a Buddhist, if you said that to me, I would be terribly upset. I'll get angry, violent, because I worship that figure. But if I was a Christian and you said, what's the point of that man hanging on that wall - you follow? It shocks you, must shock you. So, can we look at all this without a single shadow of prejudice. You understand? Single shadow of opinion, conditioning, so that we realize that each person creates the image which he worships.

There was a man we used to know many, many, many years ago. He was walking along the beach, and picked up a branch, a piece of stick that long, and it had the shape of a human form. He brought it home - this is a fact - and put it on the mantelpiece. And one day he put a flower to it. And after several days he began to put a garland round it, worship it, you follow? Human beings create their own images out of their own conditioning.

So, is there psychological evolution at all, or is there only an ending, not becoming? That is, the ending of violence. I'm taking that as an example. Ending violence completely, not tomorrow, now. Understanding the whole implication of violence: aggressiveness, ambition, part of the feeling of guilt and I'm not wanted to be - you follow? This whole concept of growth, psychological growth. Of course the baby grows into an adult and old age and pops off. That's so. That's one irremediable fact, that we're all going to end up in the grave or be incinerated. So one has to look at this question and ask the question of ourselves and find out the truth of it, not just say, yes, I think so or not think so, but carry on day after day.

5th QUESTION: To live peacefully needs great intelligence. Please enlarge on this.

The speaker said at the first talk or previously you need great intelligence to live peacefully. And the question is, go into it, discuss it, have a dialogue about it.

What is intelligence? I'm asking you the question, you must answer it. Not all of you, but answer it to yourself. What is intelligence? The meaning of that word, Latin and so on, means - the dictionary meaning - to read between the lines. To gather information. To acquire knowledge. To accumulate the experience of others and yourself, from which knowledge. And to gather information that gives you more knowledge. That's generally the meaning of that word in the dictionary. That is the common usage.

You need a great deal of intelligence to go to the moon. Right? Extraordinary kind of intelligence. Thousands of people, literally thousands of people co-operating. Every detail had to be perfect. I was told 3,000 or 300,000, I've forgotten the number who had to co-operate step by step, each one doing the perfect thing. And then they built it, all the rest of it, go to the moon. That requires intelligence. And also to build a computer, that requires intelligence. To programme it requires intelligence. To invent communication, rapid communication between here and New York and Delhi and Moscow, that requires a tremendous kind of intelligence. That intelligence - please listen, we are playing the game - that intelligence is based on knowledge, based on experience, based on skill. Right? Which is the extraordinary intelligence of thought. Right Are we clear on this?

The surgeon who operates, of course he must have very skilful hands, must have a great deal of experience, and tremendous control of his body at that moment, giving complete attention. All that is based on experience, knowledge, memory, skill. And that's called intelligence. Right? We are together? Whether the intelligence of an idiot, or the intelligence of a very great mathematician or biologist and the archaeologist and so on, scientists, painters. So that's limited intelligence. Isn't it? Are you sure? Don't agree, please, it's in your court, therefore you are in a game with yourself. If you see it, it's so. Because all that kind of intelligence is based on experience, knowledge, memory, thought. And thought is limited, as we went into it the other day. Because thought is based on memory; memory is the outcome of knowledge; knowledge is the outcome of experience. And experience is always limited. There is no complete experience, because there is always the experiencer saying I'm experiencing. I don't know if you are following all this. And therefore as long as there is the experiencer who is the background of memory, you follow, which makes him recognize the experience - I don't know if you are following all this - that experience is limited, therefore all thinking is limited. And out of that limitation there is a certain kind of intelligence. And that intelligence is applied to kill others, to control others, to deny freedom to others, to send them to the camp, concentration camp, which is happening now; not only the abnormal Germans, it's happening now. We don't make a lot of noise about that. We make a tremendous noise about something that happened 40 years ago.

So. We understand this intelligence with which we operate daily, you couldn't drive a car if you haven't intelligence. And that intelligence is based on learning how to drive a car. Which is, you have practice, your parents or a specialist taught you how to drive a car, it had to become automatic, you follow? Experience, knowledge, memory, thought. That is limited. So we are asking, is there an intelligence which is not limited? You understand? Not in opposition to the limited intelligence? I wonder if you understand. Do you get this? I understand very clearly the limited intelligence; it's obvious. And we live within that narrow limited intelligence. We invent gods out of that intelligence; we invent all the rituals all the paraphernalia of rituals, the medieval dresses of the priests and the hierarchy of priests, all that is connived at, to impress the people, to hold them together in a particular belief, and so on, so on. All that is a form of limited intelligence. This is in your court. And you ask naturally, if you are alert, aware of all this, is there an intelligence which is not limited? You only ask that question when you see, actually observe in yourself and in others, the activity of limited intelligence. Otherwise you can't ask that question. The limited intelligence, which is to kill each other. It's so obvious, so impractical. So... you understand? I can think of nothing more horrible than to kill animals and all the rest of it and human beings, purposely, deliberately organized killing which is not called murder. It is called whatever you like to call it, give it a noble name. But it's still killing. And that's intelligence, part of intelligence, to invent modern machinery. You understand, sir? The material for wars, that requires a great deal of thought, great deal of experiment. Of centuries of killing each other, they have reached this point. Vaporize human beings by the million.

When one realizes this, not intellectually or verbally, in your heart, not romantically, but fact. Then you can ask the other question: Is there an intelligence which is not limited? Find out, sir. You can't have one foot in this and one foot there. You can have one foot there in that intelligence which is not limited and then you can come to the other. But you can't go from the limited to that. I don't know if you are understanding all this. You can meditate, you can stand on your toes or on your head, do whatever you will, from the limited you can't go to the unlimited. So we are asking, not in opposition to the limited because then if you are asking from the limited to find out the other, you can never find out. So is there an unlimited intelligence?

And to find that out you have to give your life to it, not just one morning sitting here. You have to give your energy, your austerity, your heart, your brain, everything to find that out. And that can exist only when there is love and compassion, nothing else.

6th QUESTION: You have large audiences the world over. What is it that all of us desire?

Will you answer it? What is it, the question is put most respectfully, and humanly, which is humbly, what is it you all want? What is it you're longing for? What is it that makes people go to church, you follow? What is it you all desire?

Can you answer it seriously and honestly? Not one moment I want this, next moment I want that and third moment, third year something else, you know, as is happening in this country. One thing after the other. A new latest guru comes and you all... So what is it, when you sit down quietly as you are doing now, what is it we all want? Is there a common urge, common desire, common longing? Or is it all separate, each person wanting something totally different from another? Probably one has never even put that question to oneself seriously. If you put that question really seriously, what is it? Is it happiness? And is happiness the end of life? Is it security, to be safe? To be completely safe in that freedom which you want. Safe, safety and freedom. Security in a club, in a society, in a group, in a country, in a belief, and be free at the same time.

Please look at it most seriously, for your own sake look at it. To have better relationship with somebody, to live with husband, wife, or whatever it is, completely without conflict? Is it that you want to be completely free of your conditioning? Or not to be afraid of death? When you look at all this, various forms of our desires, our longings, our escapes and our attachments, what is it out of all that we want? Somebody to lean on? I am getting old, I must have somebody I can lean on. And I live with that person happily, but I can't live with others. Please assure me that person and I will get on well together for the rest of our life. You follow? You are following all this? I have complexes or values, conditioning, I want to get rid of them all. If one looks at it all, learned, even if we are, great intellectuals if we are, and romantics if we are, and so on, scientists, politicians, what is it out of our heart we want? Would one answer cover the whole lot? You understand? If I can find the root of something, of all this, then I can let everything go. You understand? Is it freedom? Not to do what one likes, that's too childish, too immature, too limited. Freedom. That word itself contains love. Is that what you want? Or to have no responsibility at all? Like a soldier who is sent to war, he is perfectly happy because he has no responsibility. Is that what you want? No responsibility whatsoever? That's why, is it, that you take drugs? Or to have more excitement, you want more excitement, more sensation. Sir, put all this together and add more to it. There must be a root to all this. You understand? One question that will answer all questions. Is there such thing?

Is it that you want the increase of self-interest? To stabilize, to strengthen, to have deep roots in self-interest? I can answer that, but it's in your court. You must return the ball, you can't just say, "Well, I'll hold the ball for a while." You're playing the game. What is it that will answer all these questions? Would not all these questions be answered when you have absolute unconditional psychological freedom? And freedom means love, not anything else. Love is not desire, pleasure, sensation, attachment. And where there is love, there's compassion and that unlimited intelligence. When it's there, you've answered everything. I don't know if you understand this. Then there'll be no war, no conflict. In relationship there'll be no conflict when there is love; not the image of each other, fighting each other. You understand my question? Is that the answer? Is that the root of all our desires, wants, longings, prayers, worship?

The question is answered, sir.


Ojai 1985

Ojai 1st Question & Answer Meeting 14th May 1985

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


the 48 laws of power