More Jiddu Krishnamurti Talks
Jiddu Krishnamurti on Discontent
Question: I am dissatisfied with everything. I have
read and thought a great deal but my discontent with the whole universe
is still there. What you talk about makes me more discontented, more
disturbed, more troubled. I now feel frustrated, antagonistic to you.
What is wrong with what you are saying? Or is something wrong with me?
Either that discontent becomes a consuming flame, or
it is dampened down by seeking some kind of satisfaction in various
activities of life. Instead of allowing discontent to become a consuming
flame, most of us almost destroy it. We are so easily satisfied, so
gullible, so ready to accept, that gradually our discontent withers away
and we become the normal mediocre human being, without any vitality,
without any energy, without any urge to do anything.
We have technologically evolved and developed but inwardly we are discontented. The questioner, listening to the speaker, is even more disturbed, more discontented and antagonistic and asks what is wrong with what the speaker is saying - or is there something wrong with himself? Instead of accepting and sitting quietly and saying yes, he is antagonistic to the speaker; he does not accept.
One must be very clear as to whether this discontent has a cause, because if it has a cause then it is seeking contentment, satisfaction, gratification. The discontent creates the opposite, the wish to be contented, to be satisfied, to be completely bourgeois. If what one wants, when one is discontented, is to find something with which one can be completely contented, so that one is never disturbed, then one will find a way to obtain contentment and discontent will wither and be gone.
Perhaps that is what most of us are doing. You have
been to this or to that talk, you come here wanting some kind of
satisfaction, some kind of certainty and assurance, some gratifying
truth. Most of us find satisfaction very easily; in the kitchen, in some
aspect of religion, or in politics. So gradually and inevitably the mind
is narrowed down, made small when its capacity is so immense.
So what shall he do when he is totally dissatisfied
with the whole structure of thought? He is in an immovable state. He is
not seeking, he is not wanting, he is not pursuing something or other;
he is aflame with this thing. And the speaker is also immovable. What he
says is so; not because he is dogmatic, superstitious, romantic or
self-assertive. He says that if you comprehend consciousness with its
content and the freeing of that consciousness of its content there is a
totally different dimension. He has said this for fifty years, not
because he has invented it, but because it is so.
This is not something romantic, invented out of imagination. This is so. But if one feels antagonistic to the other, then he has already moved. He has not remained completely dissatisfied. The moment he says, "I am antagonistic to you and to that of which you speak", he has moved away from what is burning. He has already softened. Still the other has no antagonism; he says, "It is so". When the first person meets the speaker without antagonism, without wanting something from him, he is alight. Then both are the same. Fire is fire. It is not your fire, my fire, it is fire. When the fire is dampened, the are different.