返回列表 回复 发帖



31STMARCH, 1934


Friends, I will just say a few words before I attempt to answer some of thesequestions.

First of all, I should like to say thatwhat I am going to say should not be taken in a partisan spirit. Most of youhere are probably Theosophists, with certain definite ideals and ideas,with certain definite teachings, and you think I hold contrary views and makeout that I belong to another camp with other ideals and beliefs. Let us ratherapproach the whole thing from the point of view of discovery rather than tryingto say, "We believe in this, and you don't; therefore, we are upholders ofcertain ideas which you are trying to destroy." Now that spirit, that kindof attitude, indicates opposition rather than understanding; that you havesomething which you desire to protect, and if anyone questions what you have,you immediately will say that he is attacking or I am attacking. It is not atall my intention to attack anything, but rather to help you to discover if whatyou are upholding is true. If it is true, then no one can attack it, and itdoes not matter if anyone attacks it, if what you hold is real; and youcan only find out what is real by considering it, not protecting it, not beingon the defensive.
You know, wherever I go Theosophists ask me, as do other organizations, tospeak to them; and Theosophists with whom I have lived for so long have takenup this unfortunate attitude, that I am attacking them, destroying their petbeliefs, which they must protect at all costs, and all the nonsense of it.Whereas, I feel if we can really consider together, reason together, and seewhat we have in our hands that we want to protect, then instead of belonging toany one particular camp, or particular section of thought, we shall naturallyunderstand what is true; and that which is true has no party. It is neitheryours nor mine. So that is my attitude in addressing you, and in talkinganywhere: to help you to discover - and I mean this honestly - if what you holdis really lasting, or a thing that you have built up out of conceit, out of self-protection,self-preservation, out of search for security. Such things have no value thoughthey may wear the clothing of surety, of certainty and of wisdom.
Now, sirs, I would like to say that, to me, truth has no aspects. We are in thehabit, especially Theosophists I think, and some others besides, of saying thattruth has many aspects: Christianity is one aspect, Buddhism another, Hinduismanother, and so on. This merely indicates that we want to stick to our ownparticular temperament and our own prejudices, and be tolerant to otherpeople's prejudices. Whereas, to me, truth has no aspects; it is one, and thatwhich is complete, whole, has no aspects. It is not like a light with manycoloured lamps. That is, you place coloured lamps over that light, and then tryto be tolerant to a red light if you are a green light, and invent thatunfortunate word tolerance, which is so artificial, a dry thing that has novalue. Surely you are not tolerant to your brother, to your children. Whenthere is real affection there is no tolerance, so, it is only when the hearthas withered, that we talk about tolerance. I, personally, do not care what youbelieve or do not believe, as my affection is not based on belief. Belief is anartificial thing; whereas affection is the innateness of things, and when thataffection withers, then we try to spread brotherhood through the world and talkabout tolerance, the unity of religions. But where there is real understandingthere is no talk about tolerance.

Understanding does not lie through books. You can be students of books for manyyears, and if you do not know how to live, then all your knowledge withers; ithas no substance, no value. Whereas, one moment of full awareness, fullconscious understanding, brings about real, lasting peace; not a thing that isstatic, but that peace which is continually in movement, unlimited.

Now I wonder how I am going to answer all these questions.

Question: Can a ceremony be helpful, and yet be not limiting?
Krishnamurti: Do you really want to go into the question, or do you just wantto deal with it superficially? How many of you really perform ceremonies? Ithas become, unfortunately, a subject over which you quarrel in the T. S.

Now what is a ceremony? Not the putting onof a tie, cleaning yourself, eating, or the appreciation of beauty - because Ihave discussed with people, and they have trotted out all these arguments. Theysay, "We go to church because there is so much beauty in it. It is ourself-expression. Is not putting on a suit and cleaning your teeth, is that nota ceremony?" Surely this is not ceremony. The appreciation of beauty isnot ceremony. You do not attend church or attend a ceremony to self-express. Soceremony as you use it has a very definite meaning. A ceremony, as far as I canmake out, according to your own usage of that word, is where you either hope toadvance spiritually through its efficacy, or you attend it in order to spreadin the world spiritual forces. Shall we limit it to that, and not bring inextraneous arguments? Is that not so? Ceremony is only applicable where you arespreading spiritual force, and in which you hope to gain spiritual advancement.Let us examine these two things.
First of all, when you say you are spreading spiritual force in the world, howdo you know that you are doing this? Either it must be based on authority,acceptance of someone else's edicts or precepts, or you feel that you arespreading it. So let us put away the authority of another, because that ischildish. If someone else merely says, "Do that", and you do it, thenthere is no value; it does not matter who it is. Then we merely reduceourselves into children, and become the instruments of authority. Thereforethere is no vitality in our actions. We are merely imitative machines.


Now we might think that by attending achurch we feel elated, we feel full of vitality and a sense of well-being. I amnot insulting when I say that by taking to drink you feel the same, orattending a stimulating lecture; but why do you place ceremony as being muchmore important, more vital, more essential, than appreciation of somethingwhich really stimulates you? If you really examine it, it is much more thanappreciation of beauty which stimulates. You hope by attending a ceremony, bysome miraculous process your whole being is going to be cleansed. Now to me,such an idea is, if I may say so, really absurd. Such ideas are instruments oftrue exploitation. Whereas, really being integral, complete within oneself, youcannot look to someone else to cleanse your mind and heart. One has to discoverfor oneself. So, to me, this whole conception that ceremonies are going to giveyou spiritual understanding and attainment, is really the very thing whichevery so-called materialistic person thinks. He wants to be somebody in thisworld, he wants to have money, so he begins to accumulate, possess, exploit, tobe ruthless; and the man who wants to be somebody in the spiritual world doesexactly the same thing, only he calls it spiritual. That is, behind it all,there is this idea of gain; and to me such an idea, the desire to attain, is initself a limitation. And if you perform ceremonies as a means of gain, then allceremonies are but limitation. Or if you go and perform ceremonies asessential, as necessary, then you are merely accepting it on authority ortradition. Surely such a mind cannot understand what life is, what the wholeprocess of living is.

   I am surprised that thisquestion should arise wherever I go, especially among those who are supposed tobe a little more advanced, whatever that may mean, who have been students ofphilosophy for years, who are supposed to be thoughtful. It but indicates thatthey have really sought substitutes. You are fed up with your old churches andinstitutions, and you want some new toy to play with, and you accept that newtoy without finding out if it has any value; you cannot find out if anythinghas value so long as you are merely seeking substitutes.

     Have I dealt withthat question completely, comprehensively? I would really like to discuss this withpeople, this idea of ceremonies. I have discussed with those who have recentlybecome priests, and they give me, not some valid reason, but some reason basedon authority, as "We have been told", or some kind of excuse fortheir action.

     Now, there isanother aspect of it which is completely different. That is this idea that inceremony lies magic - not white and black magic, I am not talking about that -that the mystery of life is unfolded through a ceremony. You know, I havetalked with some Roman Catholics, and they will tell you that that istheir reason why they go to church. That is not the reason given by any of theceremonialists of the Theosophical bent, so do not use that club against meagain. Now life is mystery. There is something immense, magical, about life;but to pierce its veil is not to create spurious, unnatural things to discoverthe true mystery - and, to me, these sacerdotal ceremonies are unnatural. Theyare really a means of exploitation.

Question: It has been suggested that the power that speaks through you belongsto the higher planes, and cannot be sent below the intuitional, so that we mustlisten rather with our intuition if we would get your message. Is that correct?

Krishnamurti: What do you mean byintuition? What does intuition mean to you all? You say it is something whichwe feel instinctively without going through the process of logical reason: a"hunch", as the Americans would say. Now I really question whetheryour intuition is real or merely the glorified unconscious hopes; subtle,deceitful longings. You know, when you hear reincarnation spoken of, or youhear a lecturer talk about reincarnation, or you read of it in a book, and youjump to it and say, "I feel it is true, it must be", you call thatintuition. Is it really intuition, or is it the hope that you will have anotheropportunity to live next life; therefore you cling to it, and call itintuition? Wait a minute. I am not denying that there is intuition, but whatthe average person, what the usual person calls intuition, that is not true,that is something without reason, validity, without understanding behind it.
Now the questioner says that it has been suggested that the power that speaksthrough me belongs to the higher planes, and cannot be sent below theintuitional. Surely you understand what I am talking about. Don't you? Prettyobvious. Now wait a minute. It is easy to understand what I am talking about,but if you don't pursue it, carry it out in action, there is no understanding;and because you don't carry it out in action, you rather transfer it to theintuitional world, and therefore say it is suggested that I am speaking fromthe higher plane, and therefore you must go to your higher and try tounderstand what that means. In other words, although you understand what I amtrying to say, fairly well, it is difficult to put it into action; therefore,you say let us rather remove it to a higher plane, and from there we candiscuss. Is that not so? If you say, "I do not understand what you aretalking about", then there is a possibility of further discussion. I willthen try to explain it differently, so that we can discuss it, go into it,consider it together; but to start with the assumption that to understand meyou must go to the higher plane - surely there is something radically wrong inthat attitude.

What is the higher plane, except that whichis thought? Why go any further? But do you not see, my point is we are startingwith something mysterious, something far away, and from that we try to find outthe obvious, the realities, and, therefore, there are bound to be greatdeceptions, great hypocritical actions, falseness. Whereas, if we start withthings that we do know, which are very simple to find out if you give yourthought, then you can go really far, infinitely. But it is absurd to start fromthe mysterious, and then try to relegate life to that mystery, which may beromanticism, false, imaginative. Such an attitude of mind which says, "Tounderstand you we must listen with our intuition", may be false, so thatis why I said your intuitions may be utterly false. How can you listen withsomething which may be false, which may be your hopes, predilections, longingsor dreams? Why not listen with your ears, with your reason? From that, when youknow the limitation of reason, then you can go - that is, to climb high youmust begin low; but you have already climbed high, and you have no further togo. That is what is the trouble with all of you. You have climbed the heightsintellectually; naturally your beings are empty, arrogant. Whereas, if youbegin near, then you will know how to climb, how to move infinitely.
You know, all these are means and ways of real exploitation. It isthe way of the priests - to complicate matters, when things are infinitelysimple. I won't go into what I have to say, I have explained that over and overagain; but to make it complicated, to coat it with all kinds of traditions orprejudices and not recognize your prejudices, that is where the hideousnesslies.
Question: If a person finds the Theosophical Society a channel through which hecan express himself and be of service, why should he leave the Society?
Krishnamurti: First of all, let us find out if it is so. Don't say why heshould or should not leave; let us go into the matter.
What do you mean by a channel through which he can express himself?Don't you express yourself through business, through marriage? Do you or don'tyou express yourself when you are working every day for your livelihood, whenyou are bringing up children? And as it shows that you do not express yourselfthere, you want a Society in which to express yourself. Is that not it? Please,I hope I am not giving some subtle meaning to all this. So you say, "As Iam not expressing myself in the world of action, in the everyday world, whereit is impossible to express myself, therefore I use the Society to expressmyself." Is it so, or not? I mean, as far as I understand the question.
How do you express yourself? Now as it is, at the expense of others.When you talk about self-expression, it must be at the expense of others.Please, there is true expression, with which we will deal presently, but thisidea of self-expression indicates that you have something to give, andtherefore the Society must be, created for your use. First of all, have you somethingto give? A painter, or a musician, or an engineer, or any of these fellows, ifhe is really creative, does not talk about self-expression; he is expressing itall the time; he is at it in the outside world, at home, or in a club. He doesnot want a particular society so that he can use that society for hisself-expression. So when you say "self-expression", you do not meanthat you are using the Society for giving forth to the world a particularknowledge or something which you have. If you have something, you give it. Youare not conscious of it. A flower is not conscious of its beauty. Itsloveliness is ever present.
"Be of service to the world." Are you of service to theworld, really? Please, you know, I wish you could really think, honestly,frankly; then if you really think honestly, frankly, you will be of service tothe world - not in this extraordinary way. Let us find out if we are of serviceto the world. What is the world in need of at the present time - or at anytime, in the past or in the future? People who have the capacity to becompletely human; that is, people who are not bound up by their narrow circlesof thoughts and prejudices and the limitations of their self-consciousemotionalism.
Surely, if you really want to help the world, you cannot belong toany particular sect or society, any more than you can belong to any particularreligion. If you say all religions are one, then why have any religion?Religions and nationalities really encage people, trammel them. This is shownthroughout the world, throughout history; and the world has come now to moreand more sects, more and more bodies enclosed by walls of beliefs, with theirspecial guides; and yet you talk of brotherhood! How can there be realbrotherhood when this possessive instinct is so deep, and so must lead to warsbecause it is based on nationalism, patriotism.
Surely your talk of brotherhood shows that you are not reallybrotherly. A man that is really brotherly, affectionate, does not talk aboutbrotherhood; you do not talk about brotherhood to your sister, or to your wife,there is a natural affection. And how can there be brotherhood, real unity ofhumanity, when there is exploitation? So to really help the world - as you dotalk about helping the world - if you would really help it to be free of allits commitments, its vested interests, its environments, then you will see thatyou are never talking about helping the world; then you do not put yourself ona pedestal to help somebody at a distance, lower down.


Question: Do you approve of our invokingthe aid of the angels of the angelic kingdom, such as the Angel Raphael insickness, the Angel of Fire in the ceremony of cremation? Are they props andcrutches? (Laughter)
Krishnamurti: Please, some of you laugh atit, but you have your own particular prejudices, superstitions. You may nothave this "angelic" superstition. You have some others.
Now, let us not look at it from the point of view of invoking aid. First ofall, if you are normal, then there is a normal miracle taking place in theworld; but we are so abnormal that we want abnormal actions to take place. Ihave answered the question so often. All right. First of all, suppose you aresuffering, and you are cured, it may be by a doctor, it may be by an angel; ifyou do not know the cause of suffering, you will again become ill. Personally,I have dabbled a little in healing, but I want to do something else in life, toreally heal the mind and heart; that is, to let you discover for yourself thecause of suffering; and I assure you, no calling on angels, continualattendance on the doctor, is ever going to show you the cause of suffering. Youmay be healed symptomatically for the moment, but unless you really find outfor yourselves - nobody else can find out for you - what is the cause ofsuffering, you will again be ill. In discovering the cause you will becomehealthy.


Question: Have you sympathy for those whoadmire your beauty, but ignore your wisdom?
Krishnamurti: It is the same thing as theother question. Let us listen to you intuitively, and ignore yourwords. Only this is put differently. You know, wisdom is not to bebought. You cannot buy it from books. You cannot get it by listening. You maylisten to me for hundreds of years, but you are not going to be wise. Whatbrings wisdom is action. Action is wisdom; it cannot be separated. And becausewe have divided action from our thought, from our emotions, from ourintellectual capacity of reasoning, we are carried away by superficial things,and thereby are exploited.

Question: Do you consider that theTheosophical Society has finished its work in the world, and ought to retireinto solitary confinement?
Krishnamurti: What do you think, you whoare its members? Is that not a much more apt question, than yours to me? Sirs,may I put it this way? Why do you belong to any Society? Why are youChristians, Theosophists, Christian Scientists, and God knows what? Why do youexclude and seclude yourselves? "Because", you say, "thisparticular form of belief, this particular form of expression, of ideas, appealsto me; therefore I am going to subscribe myself to it." Or you belong toit because you hope to get something out of it: happiness, wisdom, office,position.

So instead of asking me if the Society shouldretire, ask yourselves why you belong to it. Why do you belong to anything?There is this horrible idea that we want to be exclusive - the Western Club,the Eastern Golf Course, and all the rest of it. Exclusive hotels - you know.So likewise, we say we have something special, so do the Hindus, so do RomanCatholics. Every person in the world talks about having something special, sothey exclude themselves, and become the owners of that special thing, and sothereby create more divisions, more conflicts, more heartaches.

Besides, who am I to tell you if theSociety should retire into confinement? I wonder how many of you have reallyasked why you belong to it. If you are really a social body, not a religiousbody, not an ethical body, then there is some hope for it in the world. If youare really a body of people who are discovering, not who have found, if you area body of people who are giving information, not giving spiritual distinctions,if you are a body of people that have a really open platform, not for me or forsomeone special, if you are a body of people among whom there are neitherleaders nor followers, then there is some hope.

But I am afraid you are followers, andtherefore you all have leaders. And such a society, whether it is this oranother, is useless. You are merely followers or merely leaders. In true spiritualitythere is no distinction of the teacher and the pupil, of the man who hasknowledge and the man who has not. It is you that are creating it, because itis this that you are seeking - continually to be distinctive. You cannot all ofyou be Sir Richard Something-or-other, so you want to be somebody in thisSociety, or in another society, or in heaven. Don't you see, if you reallythought about these things and were honest, you could be an extraordinarilyuseful body in the world. You could then really work for the intrinsic merit ofits ideas - not for some phantasy and emotionalism of your leaders. Then youwould examine any idea, and find out its true significance and work it out, andnot depend on the honours conferred for your services, on the enticement towork. That way leads to narrowness, bigotry, to more divisions and cruelties,and ultimately to utter chaos of thought.
Question: What is your attitude to the early teachings of Theosophy, theBlavatsky type? Do you consider we have deteriorated or advanced?
Krishnamurti: I am afraid I do not know, because I do not know what MadameBlavatsky's teachings are. Why should I? Why should you know of someone else'steachings? You know, there is only one truth, and therefore there is only oneway, which is not distant from that truth; there is only one method to thattruth, because the means are not distinct from the end.
Now you who have studied Madame Blavatsky's and the latest Theosophy, orwhatever it is, why do you want to be students of books instead of students oflife? Why do you set up leaders and ask whose teachings are better? Don't yousee? Please, I am not being harsh, or anything of that kind. Don't you see? Youare Christians; find out what is true and false in Christianity - and you willthen find out what is true. Find out what is true and false in your environmentwith all its oppressions and cruelties, and then you will find out what istrue. Why do you want philosophies? Because life is an ugly thing, and you hopeto run away from it through philosophy. Life is so empty, dull, stupid,ignominious, and you want something to bring romanticism into your world, somehope, some lingering, haunting feeling; whereas, if you really faced the worldas it is, and tackled it, you would find it something much more, infinitelygreater than any philosophy, greater than any book in the world, greater thanany teaching or greater than any teacher.
We have really lost all sense of feeling, feeling for the oppressed, andfeeling for the oppressor. You only feel when you are oppressed. So graduallywe have intellectually explained away all our feelings, our sensitiveness, ourdelicate perceptions, till we are absolutely shallow; and to fill thatshallowness, to enrich ourselves, we study books. I read all kinds of books,but never philosophies, thank goodness. You know, I have a kind of shrinkingfeeling - please, I put it mildly - when you say, "I am a student ofphilosophy", a student of this, or that; never of everyday action, neverreally understanding things as they are. I assure you, for your happiness, foryour own understanding, for the discovery of that eternal thing, you mustreally live; then you will find something which no word, no picture, nophilosophy, no teacher can give.
Question: Are the teachings which Theosophy gives concerning evolution of anyconsequence for the purpose of the growth of the soul?
Krishnamurti: What do you mean by evolution, sirs? As far as I can make out,growing from the unessential to the essential. Is it? Growing from ignorance towisdom. Is that not so? Nobody shakes his head. All right. What do you mean byevolution? Gaining more and more experience, more and more wisdom, more andmore knowledge, more and more and more and more; infinitely more and more. Thatis, you go from the unessential to the essential; and that essential becomesthe unessential the moment you have attained, you have reached it. Is that notso?
Are you too tired? Is it too late? Please, you have to think with me. This ismy second talk during the day; but if you do not think with me, it will berather difficult for me. I have to push against a wall.
You consider something as essential today, and go after it, and get it; andtomorrow that thing becomes unessential, and you say, "I have learntthat." That which you had thought essential has become the unessential, soyou go on and on and on, and you call that growth, evolution; getting more andmore, discerning more and more between the essential and the unessential - andyet there is no such thing as the essential and the unessential. Is there?Because that which you think is the essential today becomes the unessential tomorrow,for you want something else.
Let me put it differently. You see some pleasurable object you think you wantto possess, and you possess it: then satisfied, you move to another thing. Itmay be some emotional craving, desire, and you get that. You want an idea, andyou pursue that, and get it. And ultimately you want to reach God, truth,happiness; and the man who wants happiness, God, truth, you consider spiritual,and the man who wants a hat or a tie, or whatever it is, you call mundane,materialistic. The unessential is the hat, and the essential is the God ortruth. What have we done? We have merely changed the object of our desires. Wehave said, "Well, I have had enough hats, enough cars, enough houses, andI want something else", and you go after that and get that, and then youfinish with it and want something else; so you proceed gradually till youultimately want something which you call God, and then you think you havereached the ultimate. All you have done is played with your desires, and thisprocess of continual choosing you call evolution. Is it so or not?

Comment from audience: At one time one individual is satisfied with one thingand another individual with another.
Krishnamurti: But surely the desire is the same thing. Desire is the samewhether it is the desire for a hat or for God. There is the desire behind it;wanting, until we have gone through the range of our desire; whereas, if wereally understood the significance of each object which desire is runningafter, that it is neither essential nor unessential, we would then understandthe true significance of that object; and evolution then has a differentmeaning - not this perpetual attainment, gaining, all the time succeeding.
Comment: Will we stop desire?
Krishnamurti: Surely not. If you stop desire, then - goodbye! It is death. Howcan you stop desire? It is not a thing you turn off and on. Why do you want tostop desire? Because it gives you pain. If it gives you pleasure you continue,you don't ask me; but the moment it gives you pain you say, "I had betterstop it." Why do you have pain? Because there is no understanding. If youunderstand a thing, then there is no pain.
Comment: Can you give an illustration of that point? That pain stops when youunderstand it.
Krishnamurti: Cannot you think it out? Perhaps I will give it later. Let me putit all differently. We are used to this idea of killing out desire,disciplining desire, controlling it, subjugating it. To me, this way ofthinking is unhealthy, unnatural. You desire a hat or a coat or something - Ido not know what - and you multiply desires because the object which the desireis pursuing does not give you satisfaction. Is that not so? So you pursue it,but you change to another object. Now, why is your desire pursuing one thingafter another? Because you do not understand the very object which the desireis pursuing; you do not see the full significance of the desire for an object.You are more concerned with the gain and with the loss, rather than with thesignificance of this pursuit. Am I explaining? Please, one must think about it.
Question: Does what you wrote in "At the Feet of the Master" stillhold good?
Krishnamurti: All right, sirs. What does the question imply? What are theimplications in that question? Do I still believe in the Masters, eh? Isn'tthat so? And naturally, if I believe in them, I must still believe in theteachings, and so on. Let us find out. Let us look at it quite openly, not asif I were attacking your Masters, whom you have to protect.
Now, why do you want a Master? You say we need him for a guide - the same thingwhich the spiritualists say - the same thing the Roman Catholics say - the samething everybody says in the world. This applies to everyone, not to youparticularly. To guide you to what? That is the next question, obviously, isn'tit? You say, "I must have a guide to happiness, to truth, to liberation,to nirvana, to heaven" - you must have somebody to lead you to that.(Please, I am not a clever lawyer trying to browbeat you; I am trying to helpyou to find out for yourselves. I am not trying to convert you to anything.)

Now, if you are interested in the discoveryof truth, then guides are of no importance, are they? It does not matter - youwould pick anybody. How do you know he is going to help you to truth? It may bethat the man who sweeps the road will help you - your sister, neighbour,brother, anybody; so why do you pay particular attention to your guides? Oh,don't shake your heads. I know all about it. You say, "Oh yes, quiteright, it is so; and yet you are all seeking probationary discipleship,distinctions, initiations. So to you what matters is, not truth, but who is theguide who will lead you. Isn't that it? No? Then please tell me what.

Comment: You said in "At the Feet of the Master" we had to bedesireless, and now you say we have...
听众意见:你在《在大师脚下》中说,我们必须是无欲无求的,而现在你说,我们… …
Krishnamurti: Wait a minute sir. Yes, it is a contradiction. I hope there willbe lots of contradictions. There is a lady who said "No." She shookher head. I would like to find out.
Comment: I forget exactly what your question was with regard to the Master. Ifeel it is not the way I personally look to the Master. I feel that just as Ilook to you to help me to understand and discover, so the Master will help usto understand and discover.

Krishnamurti: That is, to most of you theMaster is the guide. You cannot deny that, can you? You cannot say, "No, Ido not care who will lead us to it."
Comment: I don't think the important thing is the guide; not the special guide.
Krishnamurti: You don't have special guides?
Comment: That is why we come to hear you.
Krishnamurti: Please, try to find out what I am talking about. Do not say,"We don't want Masters, guides", and all that; let us find out. Sodon't say, "This does not apply to me." If you really think about thething I am talking about, it will apply to you, because we are all in the samecircle.
So, if you want to find out what truth is, as I said this morning, if you ask aguide, then you must know, and he must know, both of you must know what truthis. But if you know what truth is, and you have a dim perception of it, thenyou will ask nobody. Then you are not concerned whether you are a probationarypupil, or an initiate with special honours, and all the rest of it. You wanttruth, not distinctions. What do you say to that?
Comment: I would say that it is with many not the desire for distinction, butthe desire for understanding.
Krishnamurti: You are not trying to protect. I am not trying to knock down.Please, let us discuss together with that attitude. How can you haveunderstanding when you are a pupil, a distinguished person, a distinctiveentity with more special privileges than someone else?
Comment: I do not feel that I have any special privileges; only what I make myself. I donot feel that anyone confers privileges upon me.
Krishnamurti: I am sorry I am not explaining fully. All right. What is it butdistinction, self-aggrandizement, when you are somebody's special pupil? Youwill say, "No. That will help me to truth. That step is necessary towardstruth." Is that not so? So that step is merely the accentuation andexaggeration of self-consciousness. To understand, there must be less and lessof the "I" consciousness, not more and more. Is that not so? Tounderstand anything there must be no prejudice; there must be no consciousness of"my path" and "your path", "my" this and"your" that. Anything that accentuates the "my" idea mustbe a hindrance. Must itnot?
Comment: We are taught there are Masters.
Krishnamurti: Well, I cannot enter into that. If you say, "It isauthority; we are told", then there is nothing more to be said; but doesthat satisfy you all?
Comment: No.
Krishnamurti: For the moment, forget everything you have learned here about theMasters, disciples, initiation. If you were really frank, you would see it. Itis merely that everyone wants to be something, and this process of wanting tobe somebody is used and exploited.
What is this consciousness which we call the "I"? When are youconscious of it? (Please, I must be brief, because I must stop.) What is thisconsciousness? When are you conscious of yourself? When there is this conflict,when there is a hindrance, a frustration. Remove all frustration, remove allhindrances, then you do not say "I". Then you are living. It is onlywhen you are conscious of pain that you are conscious of the body. So whenthere is pain, emotionally or intellectually, then you are conscious assomething separate.

Now we have accentuated it, brought about acondition in the mind that we call the "I", and we take that as afact and desire to proceed with the expansion of that consciousness into truth- enlarge that consciousness more and more, through probation and initiationsand all the rest of it, which indicates you have a false cause. That is, the"I" is not reality. You have a false cause, and you have the falseanswers, as initiations, as expansion of consciousness of the "I; andhence you say somebody is necessary to help you to realize truth, to expandyour consciousness; or you say, "The world needs a plan, and there arewiser people than I; therefore I must become their instrument to help theworld." Therefore you establish a mediator between them and yourself -somebody who knows and somebody who does not know. And therefore, you merelybecome an instrument of exploitation. I know you all smile and disagree withme; but please, it does not matter. I am not here to convince you, or you toconvince me. If you look at it with reason you will see.
So you establish a plan known to the few, and you merely become an instrumentof action, to carry out orders. Take, for instance, if the Masters said,"War is right." I am not saying that they have said it. You know inthe last war how everybody said, "God is on our side", and we alljumped at it. Now, if you, as an individual, begin to really think, you willsee war is a pernicious thing, And if you really thought of it, you could notjoin a war. But you say, "I do not know. The plan says there must be a warand good will come out of evil, so let me join." In other words, youreally cease to think. You are merely instruments to be driven, cannon fodder.Surely that is not spiritual, all those things. So please, with regard towhether I believe in Masters or not, to me it is of very little importance.Whether you believe in a Master or not has nothing to do with spirituality.What is the difference between a medium that gets messages, and you that getmessages from the Masters?
Comment: Are we to believe in nothing?

Krishnamurti: Please, just a minute. Please, you see I have been talking aboutthis. Why do you want belief? (Laughter) Please do not laugh, because everybodyis in that position. We all want beliefs as props, as something to sustain us.Surely, the more and more you have beliefs, the less and less you have ofstrength, of inward richness. I am so sorry I cannot go into all this. It ishalf-past eight, but I would like to say this. Wisdom, or understanding, is notto be got at by holding on to things; holding on to your beliefs or ideas.Wisdom is born when you are really moving, not anchored to any particular formof belief; and then you will discover that it does not matter whether theMasters exist or do not exist, whether your Society is essential to the worldor not. These things are of very little importance. Then you are bringing abouta new civilization, a new culture in the world.
You know, it is most extraordinary! Dr. Besant said to all the members, and Iused to hear this very often, "We are preparing for a World Teacher. Keepan open mind. He may contradict everything you think, and say itdifferently." And you have been preparing, some of you, for twenty yearsor more; and it does not matter whether I am the Teacher or not. No one cantell you, naturally, because no one else can know except myself; and even thenI say it does not matter. I have never contradicted it. I say, "Leave it.That is not the point." You have been preparing for twenty years or more,and very few of you have really an open mind. Very few have said, "Let usfind out what you are talking about. Let us go into it. Let us discover if whatyou say is true or false, irrespective of your label." And after twentyyears you are in exactly the same position as you were before.

You have innumerable beliefs, you havecertainties, and your knowledge, and you are not really willing to examine whatI am saying. And it seems such a waste of time, such a pity that these twentyyears and more should go wasted, and you find yourselves exactly where youwere, only with new sets of beliefs, new sets of dogmas, new sets ofconditions. I assure you, you cannot find truth, or liberation, or nirvana, orheaven, or whatever you like to call it, by this process of attachment.
That does not mean that you all must becomedetached, which only means you become withered, but try to find out frankly,honestly, simply, whether what you are holding with such grim possessivenesshas any significance, whether it has any value; and to find out if it has anyvalue there cannot be the desire to cling to it. And then when you really lookat it in that way, you will find something which is indescribable. Then youwill discover something real, lasting, eternal. Then there will be no necessityfor a teacher and a pupil. It will be a happy world when there are no pupilsand no teachers.