| |
Jiddu
Krishnamurti discourse on Unconditioning the Mind
Jiddu Krishnamurti : If you are at all serious, the question whether it
is possible to uncondition the mind, must be one of the most
fundamental. One observes that man, in different parts of the world,
with different cultures and social moralities, is very deeply
conditioned; he thinks along certain lines, he acts and works according
to pattern.
He is related to the present through the background of the past. He has
cultivated great knowledge; he has millions of years of experience. All
this has conditioned him - education, culture, social morality,
propaganda, religion - and to this he has his own particular reaction;
the response of another form of conditioning.
One has to be sufficiently attentive to see the whole significance of
this conditioning, how it divides people, nationally, religiously,
socially, linguistically. These divisions are a tremendous barrier, they
breed conflict and violence.
If one is to live completely at peace, creatively - we will go into the
words `peace' and `creatively' presently - if one is to live that way,
one must understand this conditioning which is not only peripheral or
superficial; but also very deep, hidden. One has to discover whether the
whole structure of this conditioning can be revealed. And when that is
discovered, what is one to do, to go beyond it?
If one observes that one is conditioned and says, `One can never
possibly uncondition the mind', the problem ends. If you start out with
a formula that one will never be unconditioned, all enquiry ceases, one
has already resisted and answered the problem and there it ends; then
one can only further decorate the conditioning. But if one goes into
this fairly deeply and one becomes aware of the whole problem, then what
is one to do? How does one respond if this is a very, very serious
challenge and not something that one just brushes aside? If it is
something vital and tremendously important in one's life, what is one's
response?
If you have discovered this conditioning then what is the manner of your
observation? Have you observed it for yourself or has somebody told you
about it? This is really quite an important question to answer. If you
have been told about it and you say, `Yes, I am conditioned', then you
are responding to a suggestion; it is not real, it is only a verbal
concept which you have accepted, with which you agree; that is quite
different from the discovery of it for yourself, for then it is
tremendously vital and you have the passion to find the way out of it.
Have you discovered that you are conditioned because you have enquired,
searched and looked into it? If so: `who' has discovered it? - the
observer, the examiner, the analyser? - `who' is observing, examining,
analysing the whole mess and the madness that this conditioning is
causing in the world? `Who' by observing has discovered the structure of
this conditioning and its result?
By observing what is happening,
outwardly and inwardly - the conflicts, the wars, the misery, the
confusion in oneself and outside oneself (the outside is part of what
one is) - by observing this very closely (all over the world this thing
is happening) I have discovered that I am conditioned and have found the
consequence of this conditioning.
So: there is the `observer' who has discovered that he is conditioned,
and the question arises: is the `observer' different from that which he
has observed and discovered, is that something separate from himself? If
there is separation, then again there is division and therefore conflict
as to how to overcome this conditioning, how to free oneself from this
conditioning, what to do about it and so on. One has to discover whether
there are two separate things, two separate movements, the `observer'
and that which is observed.
Are they separate? Or is the `observer' the observed? It is tremendously
important to find this out for oneself; if one does, then the whole way
one thinks undergoes a complete change. It is a most radical discovery
as a result of which the structure of morality, the continuation of
knowledge, has, for oneself, quite a different meaning.
Find out if you
have discovered this for yourself, or whether you have accepted what you
have been told as fact, or whether you have discovered this for yourself
without any outside agency telling you `It is so'. If it is your
discovery, it releases tremendous energy, which before had been wasted
in the division between the `observer' and the observed.
The continuation of knowledge (psychological conditioning) in action is
the wastage of energy. knowledge has been gathered by the `observer' and
the `observer' uses that knowledge in action, but that knowledge is
divided from action; hence here is conflict. And the entity that holds
this knowledge - which is essentially his conditioning - is the
`observer'. One must discover this basic principle for oneself; it is a
principle, not something fixed; it is a reality which can never be
questioned again.
What happens to a mind that has discovered this truth, this simple fact,
that the `observer' is the observed - psychologically speaking? If this
is discovered, what takes place to the quality of the mind - which has
for so long been conditioned by its concepts of the `Higher Self' or the
`Soul' as something divided from the body? If this discovery does not
open the door to freedom it has no meaning; it is still just another
intellectual notion, leading nowhere.
But if it is an actual discovery, an actual reality, then there must be
freedom - which is not the freedom to do what you like or the freedom to
fulfil, to become, to decide, or the freedom to think what you like and
act as you wish. Does a free mind choose? Choice implies decision
between this and that; but what is the need of any choice at all?
(Please, sirs, these are not verbal statements; we have to go into it,
we have to live it daily and then will be found the beauty of it, the
vigour, the passion, intensity of it.)
Choice implies decision; decision is the action of will; who is the
entity that exercises will to do this or that? Please follow this
carefully. If the `observer' is the observed, what need is there for
decision at all? When there is any form of decision (psychologically),
depending on choice, it indicates a mind that is confused.
A mind that
sees very clearly does not choose, there is only action - the lack of
clarity comes into being when there is division between the `observer'
and the observed.
^Top
Back to Krishnamurti Meditation
|
 |
