On Self Knowledge
Third Talk in Rajahmundry 1949
There will be a discussion tomorrow morning at 7:45, and also on
Tuesday at the same time; but there will be no talk next Sunday. This is
the last talk.
I have said that there is an art in listening,
and perhaps I can go a little more into it, because I think it is
important to listen rightly. We generally hear what we want to hear and
exclude everything that is disturbing. To any expression of a disturbing
idea we turn a deaf ear, and especially in matters that are profound,
religious, that have significance in life, we are apt to listen very
superficially. If we hear at all, it is merely the words, not the
content of the words, because most of us do not want to be disturbed.
Most of us want to carry on in our old ways because to alter, to bring
about a change, means disturbance: disturbance in our daily life,
disturbance in our family, disturbance between wife and husband, between
ourselves and society. As most of us are disinclined to be disturbed,
we prefer to follow the easy way of existence; and whether it leads to
misery, to turmoil and conflict, is apparently of very little
importance. All that we want is an easy life - not too much trouble, not
too much disturbance, not too much thinking; and so, when we listen, we
are not really hearing anything. Most of us are afraid to hear deeply,
but it is only when we hear deeply, when the sounds penetrate deeply,
that there is a possibility of a fundamental, radical change. Such
change is not possible if you listen superficially, and if I may
suggest, at least for this evening, please try to listen without any
resistance, without any prejudice - just listen. Do not make tremendous
effort to understand, because understanding does not come through
effort, understanding does not come through striving. Understanding
comes swiftly, unknowingly, when the effort is passive; only when the
maker of effort is silent does the wave of understanding come. So, if I
may suggest, listen as you would listen to the water that is flowing by.
You are not imagining, you are not making an effort to listen, you are
just listening. Then the sound conveys its own meaning, and that
understanding is far deeper, far greater, and more lasting than the mere
understanding of words that comes through intellectual effort. The
understanding of words which is called intellectual comprehension is
utterly empty. You say, "I understand intellectually, but I cannot put
it into practice," which means, really, that you do not understand. When
you understand, you understand the content; there is no intellectual
understanding. Intellectual understanding is merely a verbal
understanding. Hearing the words is not the understanding of their
content. The word is not the thing. The word is not understanding.
Understanding comes when the mind has ceased to make an effort, which
means, when it does not put up a resistance, when it is not prejudiced
but listens freely and fully. And, if I may suggest, that is what we
should try to do this evening, because then there is in listening a
great delight - like listening to a poem, to a song, or seeing the
movement of a tree. Then that very observation, listening, gives a
tremendous significance to existence.
Religion, surely, is the
uncovering of reality. Religion is not belief. Religion is not the
search for truth. The search for truth is merely the fulfillment of
belief. Religion is the understanding of the thinker; for what the
thinker is, that he creates. Without understanding the process of the
thinker and the thought, merely to be caught in a dogma is surely not
the uncovering of the beauty of life, of existence, of truth. If you
seek truth, then you already know truth. If you go out seeking
something, the implication is that you have lost it, which means you
already know what it is. What you do know is belief, and belief is not
truth. No amount of belief, no amount of tradition, none of the
religious ceremonies in which there are so many preconceptions of truth,
lead to religion. Nor is religion the belief, the God of the
irreligious, of the believer who does not believe.
Religion,
surely, is allowing truth to come into being, whatever that truth is -
not the truth that you want, for then it is merely the gratification of a
particular desire which you call belief. So, it is necessary to have a
mind that is capable of receiving whatever the truth is, and such a mind
is possible only when you listen passively. Passive awareness comes
into being when there is no effort, no suppression or sublimation,
because after all, to receive, there must be a mind that is not burdened
with opinion or busy with its own chatter. Out of an opinion or a
belief the mind can project an idea or an image of God; but it is a
projection of itself, of its own chatter, of its own fabrication, and
therefore it is not real. The real cannot be projected or invited, but
can come into being only when the mind, the thinker, understands
himself. Without understanding the thought and the thinker, there is no
possibility of receiving truth, because the maker of effort is the
thought, which is the thinker. Without thought, there is no thinker; and
the thinker, seeking further security, takes refuge in an idea which he
calls God, religion. But that is not religion, that is merely an
extension of his own egotism, a projection of himself. It is a projected
righteousness, a projected respectability, and this respectability
cannot receive that which is truth. Most of us are very respectable in
the political, economic, or religious sense. We want to be something,
here or in another world. The desire for existence in another world, in a
different form, is still self-projection; it is still the worship of
oneself, and such a projection is surely not religion. Religion is
something much wider, much deeper than the projections of the self, and
after all, your belief is a projection. Your ideals are
self-projections, whether national or religious, and the following of
such projections is obviously the gratification of the self and
therefore the enclosing of the mind within a belief; therefore, it is
not real. Reality comes into being only when the mind is still, not made
still. Therefore, there must be no disciplining of the mind to be
still. When you discipline yourself, it is merely a projected desire to
be in a particular state. Such a state is not the state of passivity.
Religion is the understanding of the thinker and the thought, which
means the understanding of action in relationship. The understanding of
action in conduct is religion, not the worship of some idea, however
gratifying, however traditional, whoever has said it. Religion is
understanding the beauty, the depth, the extensive significance of
action in relationship. Because, after all, life is relationship; to be
is to be related - otherwise you have no existence. You cannot live in
isolation. You are related to your friends, to your family, to those
with whom you work. Even though you withdraw to a mountain, you are
related to the man who brings food; you are related to an idea which you
have projected. Existence implies being, which is relationship, and if
we do not understand that relationship, there is no understanding of
reality. But because relationship is painful, disturbing, constantly
changing in its demands, we escape from it to what we call God, which we
think is the pursuit of reality. The pursuer cannot pursue the real. He
can only pursue his own ideal, which is self-projected. So, our
relationship and the understanding of it is true religion and nothing
else is, because in that relationship is contained the whole
significance of existence. In relationship, whether with people, with
nature, with the trees, with the stars, with ideas, with the state - in
that relationship is the whole uncovering of the thinker and the
thought, which is man, which is mind. The self comes into being through
the focus of conflict; the focusing of conflict gives self-consciousness
to the mind. Otherwise there is no self, and though you may place that
self on a high level, it is still the self of gratification.
So,
the man who would receive reality - not seek reality - who would hear
the voice of the eternal, whatever that eternal is, must understand
relationship; because in relationship there is conflict, and it is that
conflict which prevents the real. That is, in conflict there is the
fixing of selfconsciousness, which seeks to eschew, to escape conflict;
but only when the mind understands conflict is it capable of receiving
the real. So, without understanding relationship, the pursuit of the
real is the pursuit of an escape, is it not? Why not face it? Without
understanding the actual, how can you go beyond? You may close your
eyes, you may run away to shrines and worship empty images; but the
worship, the devotion, the puja, the giving of flowers, the sacrifices,
the ideals, beliefs - all that has no meaning without understanding the
conflict in relationship. So, the understanding of conflict in
relationship is of primary importance and nothing else, for in that
conflict you discover the whole process of the mind. Without knowing
yourself as you are, not as you are technically supposed to be - God
enclosed in matter, or whatever the theory is - but actually, in the
conflict of daily existence, economic, social, and ideological - without
understanding that conflict, how can you go beyond and find something?
The search for the beyond is merely an escape from what is, and if you
want to escape, then religion or God is as good an escape as drink.
Don't object to this putting drink and God on the same level. All
escapes are on the same level, whether you escape through drink, through
puja, or whatever it be.
So, the understanding of conflict in
relationship is of primary importance and nothing else, because out of
that conflict we create the world in which we live every day - the
misery, the poverty, the ugliness of existence. Relationship is response
to the movement of life. That is, life is a constant challenge, and
when the response is inadequate, there is conflict; but to respond
immediately, truly, adequately to the challenge, brings about a
completeness. In that response which is adequate to the challenge there
is the cessation of conflict, and therefore it is important to
understand oneself, not in abstraction, but in actuality, in everyday
existence. What you are in daily life is of the highest importance; not
what you think about or what you have ideas about, but how you behave to
your wife, to your husband, to your children, to your employees.
Because, from what you are, you create the world. Conduct is not an
ideal conduct. There is no ideal conduct. Conduct is what you are from
moment to moment, how you behave from moment to moment. The ideal is an
escape from what you are. How can you go far when you do not know what
is near you, when you are not aware of your wife? Surely, you must begin
near to go far, but nevertheless, your eyes are fixed on the horizon,
which you call religion, and you have all the paraphernalia of belief to
help you to escape.
So, what is important is not how to escape
because any escape is as good as another - the religious escapes and the
worldly escapes are all the same - and escapes do not solve our
problem. Our problem is conflict, not only the conflict between
individuals, but the world conflict. We see what is happening in the
world - the increasing conflict of war, of destruction, of misery. That
you cannot stop; all you can do is to alter your relationship with the
world, not the world of Europe or America, but the world of your wife,
your husband, your work, your home. There you can bring change, and that
change moves in wider and wider circles, but without this fundamental
change there can be no peace of mind. You may sit in a corner or read
something to put yourself to sleep, which most people call meditation,
but that is not the uncovering, the receiving of the real. What most of
us want is a satisfying escape; we do not want to face our conflicts
because they are too painful. They are painful only because we never
look to see what they are all about; we seek something which we call God
but never look into the cause of conflict. But if we understand the
conflict of everyday existence, then we can go further, because therein
lies the whole significance of life. A mind that is in conflict is a
destructive mind, a wasteful mind, and those in conflict can never
understand; but conflict is not stilled by any sanctions, beliefs, or
disciplines, because the conflict itself has to be understood. Our
problem is in relationship, which is life, and religion is the
understanding of that life, which brings about a state in which the mind
is quiet. Such a mind is capable of receiving the real. That, after
all, is religion - not your sacred threads, your pujas, your repetition
of words, phrases, and ceremonies. Surely, all that is not religion.
Those are divisions, but a mind that is understanding relationship has
no division. The belief that life is one is merely an idea and,
therefore, has no value; but for a man who is understanding
relationship, there is no "outsider" or "insider," there is neither the
foreigner nor the one who is near. Relationship is the process of
understanding oneself, and to understand oneself from moment to moment
in daily life is self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is not a religion, an
ultimate end. There is no such thing as an ultimate end. There is such a
thing for the man who wants to escape, but the understanding of
relationship, in which there is ever-unfolding self-knowledge, is
immeasurable.
So, self-knowledge is not the knowledge of the self
placed at some high level; it is from moment to moment in daily
conduct, which is action, which is relationship; and without that
self-knowledge there is no right thinking. You have no basis for right
thinking if you do not know what you are. You cannot know yourself in
abstraction, in ideology. You can know yourself only in relationship in
your daily life. Don't you know that you are in conflict? And what is
the good of going away from it, of avoiding it, like a man who has a
poison in his system which he does not reject and who is therefore
slowly dying? So, self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom, and without
that self-knowledge you cannot go far; and to seek the absolute, God,
truth, or what you will, is merely the search after a self-projected
gratification. Therefore, you must begin near and search every word that
you speak, search every gesture, the way you talk, the way you act, the
way you eat - be aware of everything without condemnation; then in that
awareness you will know what actually is and the transformation of what
is - which is the beginning of liberation. Liberation is not an end.
Liberation is from moment to moment in the understanding of what is -
when the mind is free, not made free. It is only a free mind that can
discover, not a mind molded by a belief or shaped according to a
hypothesis. Such a mind cannot discover. There can be no freedom if
there is conflict, for conflict is the fixing of the self in
relationship.
Many questions have been sent in, and naturally it
is impossible to answer them all. We have therefore chosen some which
seem to be representative, and if your question is not answered, don't
feel that it has been overlooked. After all, all problems are related,
and if I can understand one problem in its entirety, then I can
understand all the related problems. So, listen to these questions as
you would listen to the talk, because questions are a challenge, and
only in responding to them adequately do we find the problems resolved.
They are a challenge to you as well as to me, and therefore, let us
think them out together and respond fully.
Question: What is right education? As teachers and as parents, we are confused.
Krishnamurti: Now, how are we going to find the truth of this matter?
Merely forcing the mind into a system, a pattern, is obviously not
education. So, to discover what is right education, we must find out
what we mean by "education." Surely, education is not to learn the
purpose of life, but to understand the meaning, the significance, the
process of existence; because if you say life has a purpose, then the
purpose is self-projected. Surely, to find out what is right education,
you have first to inquire into the whole significance of life, of
living. What is present education? Learning to earn a few rupees,
acquiring a trade, becoming an engineer, a sociologist, learning how to
butcher people, or how to read a poem. If you say education is to make a
person efficient, which means to give him technical knowledge, then you
must understand the whole significance of efficiency. What happens when
a person becomes more and more efficient? He becomes more and more
ruthless. Don't laugh. What are you doing in your daily life? What is
happening, now in the world? Education means the development of a
particular technique, which is efficiency, which means
industrialization, the capacity to work faster and produce more and
more, all of which ultimately leads to war. You see this happening every
day. Education as it is leads to war, and what is the point of
education? To destroy or be destroyed. So, obviously, the present system
of education is utterly futile. Therefore, what is important is to
educate the educator. These are not clever statements to be listened to
and laughed off. Because, without educating the teacher, what can he
teach the child except the exploiting principles on which he himself has
been brought up? Most of you have read many books. Where are you? You
have money or can earn it, you have your pleasures and ceremonies - and
you are in conflict; and what is the point of education, of learning to
earn a few rupees, when your whole existence leads to misery and war?
So, right education, surely, must begin with the educator, the parent,
the teacher; and inquiry into right education means inquiry into life,
into existence, does it not? What is the point of your being educated as
a lawyer if you are only going to increase conflict and maintain
litigation? But there is money in that, and you thrive on it. So, if you
want to bring about right education, you must obviously understand the
meaning, the significance, of existence. It is not only to earn money,
to have leisure, but to be able to think directly, truly - not
"consistently," because to think consistently is merely to conform to a
pattern. A consistent thinker is a thoughtless person; he merely repeats
certain phrases and thinks in a groove. To find out what is right
education, there must be the understanding of existence, which means the
understanding of yourself, because you cannot understand existence
abstractly. You cannot understand yourself by theorizing as to what
education should be. Surely, right education begins with the right
understanding of the educator. Look at what is happening in the world.
Governments are taking control of education - naturally, because all
governments are preparing for war. Your pet government, as well as the
foreign government, must inevitably prepare for war. A sovereign
government must have an army, a navy, an air force; and to make the
citizens efficient for war, to prepare them to perform their duties
thoroughly, efficiently, ruthlessly, the central government must control
them. Therefore, they educate them as they manufacture mechanical
instruments, to be ruthlessly efficient. If that is the purpose and end
of education - to destroy or be destroyed - then it must be ruthless,
and I am not at all sure that that is not what you want. Because, you
are still educating your children in the same old fashion. Right
education begins with the understanding of the educator, the teacher,
which means that he must be free of established patterns of thought.
Education is not merely imparting information, knowing how to read,
gathering and correlating facts; but it is seeing the whole significance
of education, of government, of the world situation, of the
totalitarian spirit which is becoming more and more dominant throughout
the world. Being confused, you create the educator who is also confused,
and through so-called education you give power to destroy the foreign
government. Therefore, before you ask what right education is, you must
understand yourself, and you will see that it does not take a long time
to understand yourself if you are interested to find out. Sir, without
understanding yourself as the educator, how can you bring about a new
kind of education? Therefore, we come back to the eternal point - which
is yourself - and you want to avoid that point; you want to shift the
responsibility onto the teacher, onto the government. The government is
what you are, the world is what you are; and without understanding
yourself, how can there be right education?
Question: What do you mean by living from moment to moment?
Krishnamurti: A thing that continues can never be new. Just think it
out and you will see - it is not a complicated problem. Surely, if I can
complete each day and not carry over my worries, my tribulations, to
the next, then I can meet tomorrow afresh. Meeting the challenge afresh
is creation, and there can be no creation without ending. That is, you
meet the new with the old; therefore, there must be an ending of the old
to meet the new. There must be an ending every minute, so that every
minute is a new one. That is not a poetical imagination or indulgence.
If you try, you will find out what happens. But, you see, we want to
continue. We want to have continuation from moment to moment, from day
to day, because we think without continuation we cannot exist.
Now, that which is capable of continuing, can that renew itself? Can
that be new? Surely, there can be a new thing only when there is an
ending. Your thought is continuous. Thought is the result of the past,
thought is founded upon the past; it is a continuance of the past, which
in conjunction with the present creates, modifies, the future. But the
past, through the present to the future, is still a continuity. There is
no break. It is only when there is a break that you can see something
new. Merely to continue the past, modified by the present, is not to
perceive the new. Therefore, thought cannot perceive the new. Thought
must end for the new to be. But, you see what we are doing. We are using
the present as a passage from the past to the future. Are we not doing
that? To us, the present is not important. Thought, which is the present
action, which is the present relationship, we do not think is
important. We think what is important is the outcome, the result of
thought, which is the future or the past. Have you not noticed how the
old look to the past, and also how the young sometimes look to the past
or to the future? They are occupied with themselves in the past or in
the future but never give their full attention to the present. So, we
use the present as a passage way to something else, and therefore there
is no consideration, no observation of the present; and to observe the
present, the past must end. Surely, to see what is, you cannot look
through the past to the present. If I want to understand you, I must
look at you directly, I must not bring up my past prejudices and through
those prejudices look at you. Then I am only looking at my prejudices. I
can look at you only when the prejudices are not; therefore, there must
be an end to prejudices.
So, to understand what is, which is
action, which is relationship at every moment, there must be a
freshness; therefore, there must be an ending of the past, and this is
not a theory. Experiment with it, and you will see that this ending is
not as difficult as you think. While you are listening, try it, and you
will see how easily and completely you can end thought and so discover.
That is, when you are not induced, when you are interested in something
vitally, profoundly, you are looking at it anew. The very interest
drives away the past. You are only concerned to observe what is and to
allow what is to tell its story. When you see the truth of this, your
mind is emptied from moment to moment. Therefore, the mind is
discovering everything anew, and that is why knowledge can never be new.
It is only wisdom that is new. Knowledge can be taught in a school, but
wisdom cannot be taught. A school of wisdom is nonsense. Wisdom is the
discovery and the understanding of what is from moment to moment, and
how can you be taught to observe what is? If you are taught, it is
knowledge, then knowledge intervenes between you and the fact.
Therefore, knowledge is a barrier to the new, and a mind full of
knowledge cannot understand what is. You are learned, are you not? And
is your mind new? Or is it filled up with memorized facts? And a mind
which becomes more and more a mere accumulation of facts - how can such a
mind see anything new? To see what is new, there must be an emptiness
of past knowledge. Only in the discovery of what is from moment to
moment is there the freedom which wisdom brings. Therefore, wisdom is
something new, not repetitive, not something which you learn out of a
school book or from Shankara, the Bhagavad-Gita, or Christ.
So,
knowledge which is continued is a barrier to understanding the new. If
in listening you bring in your previous knowledge, how can you
understand? First you must listen. Sir, an engineer has knowledge of
stresses and strains, but if he comes to build a bridge, he must first
study the location and the soil. He must look at it independently of the
structure which he is going to build, which means he must regard it
anew, not merely copy from a book. But there is a danger in similes, so
use it lightly. What is important is that there be a renewal in which
there can be creation, that creative impulse, that sense of constant
rebirth, and that can come into being only when there is death every
minute. Such a mind can receive that which is truth. Truth is not
something absolute, final, far away. It is to be discovered from moment
to moment, and you cannot discover it in a state of continuity. There
can be no freedom in continuity. After all, continuity is memory, and
how can memory be new? How can memory, which is experience, which is the
past, understand the present? Only when the past is wholly understood
and the mind is empty is it capable of seeing the present in all its
significance. But most of our minds are not empty. They are filled with
knowledge, and such a mind is not a thinking mind. It is only a
repetitive mind, a gramophone changing the records according to
circumstances. Such a mind is incapable of discovering the new. There is
the new only in ending, but you are afraid of that. You are afraid of
ending, and all your talk, your accumulation of facts, is merely a
safeguard, an escape from that. Therefore, you are seeking continuity,
but continuity is never new; in it there can be no renewal, no emptiness
in which you can receive. So, the mind can renew itself only when it is
empty, not when it is filled with your worries from day to day, and
when the mind has come to an end, there is a creation which is timeless.
Question: The more I listen to you, the more I feel the truth of the
ancient teachings of Christ, Shankara, the Bhagavad-Gita, and Theosophy.
Have you really not read any of them?
Krishnamurti: I will first
answer the second part of the question and then take up the first part.
"Have you really not read any of them?" No, sir, I have not read any of
them. What is wrong with that? Are you surprised? Are you shocked? And
why should you read them? Why do you want to read others' books when
there is the book of yourself? Why do you want to read the Bible or
Shankara? Surely, because you want confirmation, you want to conform.
That is why most people read - to be confirmed in what they believe or
what they express, to be sure, to be safe, to be certain. Can you
discover anything in certainty? Obviously not. A man who is certain
psychologically can never discover. So, why do you read? You may read
for mere amusement or to accumulate facts; or you read to acquire what
you call wisdom, and you think you have understood everything because
you can quote Shankara; you think by quoting Shankara you have got the
full significance of life. The man who quotes is a thoughtless man
because he is merely repeating what somebody has said. Sirs, if you had
no book, no Bhagavad-Gita, no Shankara, what would you do? You would
have to take the journey by yourself into the unknown, you would have to
venture out alone. When you discover something, what you discover is
yours; then you need no book. I have not read the Bhagavad-Gita nor any
of the religious, psychological, or philosophical books, but I have
discovered something, and that discovery can come only in freedom, not
through repetition. That discovery is far greater than the experience of
another, because discovery is not repetition, not copy.
Then,
the first part of the question. Sir, why do you compare? What is the
process of comparison? Why do you say, "What you say is like Shankara"?
Whether it is or is not is unimportant. Truth can never be the same; it
is ever new. If it is the same, it is not truth because truth is living
from moment to moment; it cannot be today what it was yesterday. But why
do you want to compare? Don't you compare in order to feel safe, in
order to feel that you do not have to think, since what I say is what
Shankara said? You have read Shankara, and you think you have
understood; so you compare and relax, which is all very quick and
effortless. In fact, you have not understood, and that is why you
compare. When you compare, there is no understanding. To understand, you
must look directly at the thing that is presented to you, and a mind
that compares is a sluggish, wasteful mind; it is a mind that lives in
security, that is enclosed in gratification. Such a mind cannot possibly
understand truth. Truth is a living thing, not static, and a thing that
is living is incomparable; it cannot be compared with the past or with
the future. Truth is incomparable from moment to moment, and for a mind
that tries to compare it, weigh it, judge it, there is no truth. For
such a mind there is only propaganda, repetition; and repetition is a
lie, it is not truth. You repeat because you are not experiencing, and a
man who is experiencing never repeats, because truth is not repeatable.
You cannot repeat truth, but your conclusion, your judgment about it
can be repeated. Therefore, a mind that compares, that says, "What you
are saying is exactly what Shankara said" - such a mind merely wants to
continue and so is enervated, dead.
Sir, there is no song in your
heart if you merely repeat a song and therefore follow the singer. What
is important is not whether I have read sacred books, or whether what I
say is comparable to Shankara, the Bhagavad-Gita, or Christ, but what
is important is why you repeat, why you compare. Understand why you
compare, then you will be understanding yourself. The understanding of
yourself is far more important than your understanding of Shankara,
because you are far more important than Shankara or any ideology. It is
only through you that you discover truth. You are the discoverer of
truth, not Shankara, not the Bhagavad-Gita, which has no meaning - it is
only a means of hypnotizing yourself, like reading the newspaper. So, a
mind that is capable of receiving truth is a mind that does not
compare, for truth is incomparable. To receive truth the mind must be
alone, and it is not alone when it is influenced by Shankara or Buddha.
Therefore all influence, all conditioning must cease. Only in that state
when all knowledge has ceased is there an ending and therefore the
aloneness of truth.
Question: What exactly do you mean by meditation? Is it a process or a state?
Krishnamurti: Though I talk and you listen, let us experience and
discover together what is meditation. I am not going to teach you how to
meditate, but together let us find out what is meditation. So, listen
and experience as we go along, for words have meaning only when we move,
when we journey together.
What is -meditation? Meditation is the
understanding of the meditator; the meditator is the meditation.
Meditation is not exclusion, concentration. What do you mean by
concentration? I am going to explain. We are taking a journey together.
You are discovering and I am discovering, and the important thing is to
discover, not merely to copy, to follow. Most of us consider that
concentration is meditation, but it is not, and I will show you why it
is not. Concentration means exclusion - focusing on one interest to the
exclusion of other interests. You concentrate and resist, so
concentration is the focusing of resistance. You try to concentrate on a
picture, on an image, on an idea, and your mind wanders to other
interests; and the exclusive resistance of the various interests you
call meditation. Surely, that concentration is not meditation, because
in that effort there is conflict between that which resists and that
which encroaches. That is, you spend your time in resisting, in
battling, in disciplining against something. You spend days and years in
this battle until at last you can focus your mind on the object of your
desire. The object of your desire is self-projected, it is part of the
thought process, it is of your own creation, and on that you try to
focus; so, you are concentrating upon yourself, though you call it the
ideal. Therefore it is an enclosing, exclusive process.
Now,
meditation is not exclusion. We are discovering what meditation is
interrogatively; to say what it is, is merely to copy. Only when you say
what it is not, you say what it is. So, concentration is not
meditation. When a schoolboy is interested in a toy, he has
concentration. Surely, that is not meditation. The toy is not God, and
the pursuit of virtue is not meditation. Let us see then what that
means. The cultivation of virtue - is that virtue? To cultivate goodness
- is that virtue? To say "I am going to be brotherly" and meditate upon
brotherliness - is that virtue? Such meditation upon virtue is merely
self-calculation. Virtue implies freedom, and you are not free when you
are plotting to become virtuous. So, the man who meditates daily to
become virtuous is not virtuous. It is a cloak, which is mere
respectability. Sir, when you talk of humility, are you really humble,
or are you only taking the cloak of humility? Do you know what it is to
be humble? You cannot cultivate it. You cannot cultivate non-greediness.
Because you are greedy, you want to be nongreedy. How can stupidity
become intelligence? Where there is stupidity, there is no intelligence.
Stupidity is what it is under all circumstances. Only with the ending
of stupidity is there intelligence; only with the ending of greed is
there freedom from greed. Therefore, virtue is freedom, not becoming
something, which is endless continuity.
So, we see that
concentration is not meditation, that pursuit of virtue is not
meditation. Devotion obviously is not meditation, for the object of your
devotion is self-projected. Your ideal is the outcome of your own
thinking. Obviously, sir, your ideal is self-projected, is it not? You
are this, and you want to become that. The that of your becoming is out
of yourself, out of your own desire. You are violent, and you want to
become nonviolent. The ideal is within yourself. Therefore, your ideal
is homemade. Therefore, when you give your devotion to the ideal, you
are giving devotion to the thing which you have created. So, your
devotion is self-gratification. You are not devoted to something which
you do not like, which is painful. You are devoted to something which
gives you pleasure, which means, obviously, that it is self-created, and
therefore that is not meditation. And it is not meditation to search
for truth, because you cannot search for something which you do not
know. You can only search for that which you know. If you know truth, it
is no longer truth. What you know is the outcome of the past, of
memory, therefore it is not truth. Therefore, when you say, "Through
meditation I am seeking truth," you are merely burdening the mind with
your own creation, which is not truth. So, concentration, devotion, the
pursuit of virtue, the search for truth, is not meditation. Then, what
is meditation? The things that we have been doing regularly, practicing,
disciplining, forcing the mind - obviously all that is not meditation
because in it there is no freedom, and only in freedom can truth come
into being. Nor is prayer meditation, as we have discussed previously.
When all that superstructure is removed from the mind - the pursuit of
the ideal, the search for truth, the becoming virtuous, the
concentration, the effort, the discipline, the condemning, the judging -
when all that is gone, what is the mind? When that is not, the
meditator is not; therefore, there is meditation. When the meditator is
not, there is meditation, but the meditator can never meditate. He can
only meditate upon himself, project himself, think about himself, but he
knows no meditation. When the meditator understands himself and comes
to an end, only then is there meditation, for the ending of the
meditator is meditation. Concentration, seeking truth, becoming
virtuous, condemning, judging, disciplining - all that is the process of
the meditator, and without understanding the process of the meditator,
there is no meditation. Therefore, without self-knowledge there is no
meditation. There is no meditation without tranquillity of mind, but
tranquillity does not come about through the seeking or the directing of
the meditator. When the whole, total process of the meditator is not,
then there is a silence that is not brought about by the mind as an
idea, as an ideal, which is self-projected gratification. But when the
projector, the meditator, the self, is completely absent, wholly ended,
then there is silence which is not the product of the mind. Meditation
is that silence which comes into being when the meditator and his
processes are understood. That silence is inexhaustible; it is not of
time, therefore it is immeasurable. Only the meditator compares, judges,
measures; but when the measurement is not, the immeasurable is.
Therefore, only when the mind is completely silent, completely still,
tranquil, not projecting, not thinking - only then does the measureless
come into being. But that measureless is not to be thought of. What you
think about is the known, and the known cannot understand the unknown.
Therefore, only when the known ends does the unknown come into being.
Then only is there bliss.
December 4, 1949
