BANGALORE 5TH PUBLIC TALK 1ST AUGUST, 1948
In the last two talks we were considering the importance of individual action, which is not opposed to collective action. The individual is the world, he is both the root and the outcome of the total process, and without transformation of the individual, there can be no radical transformation in the world. Therefore, the important thing is not individual action as opposed to collective action, but to realize that true collective action can come about only through individual regeneration. It is important to understand the individual action which is not opposed to the collective. Because, after all, the individual, you and your neighbour, are part of a total process; the individual is not a separate, isolated process. You are, after all, the product of the whole of humanity, though you may be climatically, religiously and socially conditioned. You are the total process of man, and therefore, when you understand yourself as a total process - not as a separate process opposed to the mass or to the collective - , then through that understanding of yourself there can be a radical transformation. That is what we were talking about the last two times we met.
上两次谈话中，我们考虑了个人行动的重要性，个人行为和集体行为并不是对立的。个人即世界，个人既是整个过程的根源，也是其产物，没有个人的转变，就没有世界的根本转变。因此，个人行为和集体行为不是对立的，真正有效的集体行为只有个人觉悟后才会发生。了解到个人行为和集体行为不是对立的，这很重要。因为毕竟，个人 - 你和你的邻居 - 都只是整体过程的一部分；个人的过程不是孤立的，与集体过程不同的。毕竟，你是整个人类社会的产物，尽管你由于气候、宗教或社会是受到限制的。你的过程仍然是人类的整体过程，因此，当你了解作为整体过程的自我，而不是与大众或集体过程相反的一个单独的过程，这时通过了解自己，就会带来根本的转变，这是我们上两次的谈话。
Now, what do we mean by action? Obviously, action implies behaviour in relation to something. Action by itself is non-existent; it can only be in relation to an idea, to a person, or to a thing. And we have to understand action, because the world at the present time is crying for an action of some kind. We all want to act, we all want to know what to do, especially when the world is in such confusion, in such misery and chaos, when there are impending wars, when ideologies are opposing each other with such destructive force and religious organizations are pitting man against man. So, we must know what we mean by action; and in understanding what we mean by action, then perhaps we shall be able to act truly.
To understand what we mean by action - which is behaviour, and behaviour is righteousness - , we must approach it negatively. That is, all positive approach to a problem must of necessity be according to a particular pattern; and action conforming to a pattern ceases to be action - it is merely conformity, and therefore not action. In order to understand action, that is, behaviour, which is righteousness, we have to find out how to approach it. We must understand first that any positive approach, which is trying to fit action to a pattern, to a conclusion, to an idea, is no longer action; it is merely continuity of the pattern, of the mould, and therefore it is not action at all. Therefore, to understand action, we must go to it negatively, that is, we must understand the false process of a positive action. Because, when I know the false as the false, and the truth as the truth, then the false will drop away and I will know how to act. That is, if I know what is false action, unrighteous action, action that is merely a continuation of conformity, then seeing the falseness of that action, I shall know how to act rightly.
了解我们所指的行动 – 即正确的行为 – 我们必须采用否定的方法对待行动。也就是说，所有积极的方法必然是按照某种模式；而一旦符合了某种模式，行动不再是行动 – 只是认同。为了理解行动，即正确的行为，我们必须了解采用什么态度对待行动。我们必须首先认识到，任何积极的态度就是试图使行动符合某种模式、结论、观念，这不是行动；只是某种模式的延续，因此不是行动。为了了解行动，我们必须采用否定的方式，我们必须了解积极的行动的虚假。因为只有当我知道什么是假的，什么是真的，才能抛开假的，我才会知道如何行动。也就是说，如果我知道什么是假的行动，或者说不正确的行动，只是作为某种模式的延续的行动，那么看到该行动的虚假性，我才能采取正确的行动。
It is obvious that we need in everyday existence, in our social structure, in our political and religious life, a radical transformation of values, a complete revolution. Without laboring the point, I think it is obvious that there must be a change - or rather, not a change, which implies a modified continuity, but a transformation. There must be transformation, there must be a complete revolution, politically, socially, economically, in our relationship with each other, in every phase of life. Because, things cannot go on as they are - which is self-evident to any thoughtful person who is alert, watching world events. Now, how is this revolution in action to be brought about? - which is what we are discussing. How can there be action that transforms, not in time, but now? Is that not what we are concerned with? Because, there is so much misery, here in Bangalore as everywhere else throughout the world; there are economic slumps, there is dirt, poverty, unemployment, communal struggle, and so on and on, with the constant threat of a war in Europe. So, there must be a complete change of values, must there not? Not theoretically, because merely to discuss on the verbal level is futile, it has no meaning. It is like discussing food in front of a hungry man. So, we will not discuss merely verbally, and please don't be like spectators at a game. Let us both experience what we are talking about; because, if there is experiencing, then perhaps we shall understand how to act, and this will affect our lives and therefore bring a radical transformation. So, please do not be like spectators at a football game. You and I are going to take a journey together into the understanding of this thing called action, because that is what we are concerned with in our daily life. If we can understand action in the fundamental sense of the word, then that fundamental unrest and longing will affect our superficial activities also; but first we must understand the fundamental nature of action.
显然，我们的日常的生存状态、社会结构、政治结构、宗教生活需要根本转变，彻底地转变。用不着多说，我认为显然必须有转变 – 不是对现有模式的修正，而是根本的转变。必须有彻底的革命，政治上、经济上、相互关系上、生活的每个方面。因为事情不能再这样下去 – 对于任何有思想的、具有觉察力的人，如果观察世界上发生的事件，这是显而易见的。怎么才能带来这种革命行动呢？ - 这是我们要讨论的内容。如何才有转变的行动，不是在以后某个时间，而是当下。这不正是我们关心的吗？因为有诸多痛苦，不但在班加罗尔，也在世界各地；有经济衰退，有肮脏、贫困、失业、地区冲突等，在欧洲有持续的战争威胁。因此，必须有价值观的彻底转变，是不是？不是理论上的转变，文字层面上的讨论是没有用的。就像在一个饥饿的人面前讨论食物一样是没有用的。因此我们不能仅仅口头上讨论；因为，如果有体验，可能我们就能理解如何行动，这将影响我们的生活，并带来彻底的转变。因此，请不要做足球比赛的观众。我们需要一起了解行动，因为这是我们生活中所关心的。如果我们对行动有根本的了解，那么这种对根本的渴望也会影响我们普通的行为，因此我们必须首先了解行动的本质。
Now is action brought about by an idea? Do you have an idea first, and act afterwards? Or, does action come first and then, because action creates conflict, you build around it an idea? That is, does action create the actor, or does the actor come first? This is not a philosophical speculation, it is not based on the Shastras, the Bhagavad Gita, or any other book. They are all irrelevant. Don't let us quote what other people say because as I have read none of the books, you will win. We are trying to find out directly whether action comes first, and the idea afterwards; or whether idea comes first, and then action follows. It is very important to discover which comes first. If the idea comes first, then action merely conforms to an idea, and therefore it is no longer action but imitation, compulsion according to an idea. It is very important to realize this; because, as our society is mostly constructed on the intellectual or verbal level, the idea comes first with all of us, and action follows. Action is then the handmaid of an idea, and the mere construction of ideas is obviously detrimental to action. That is, ideas breed further ideas, and when there is merely the breeding of ideas, there is antagonism, and society becomes top-heavy with the intellectual process of ideation. Our social structure is very intellectual, we are cultivating the intellect at the expense of every other factor of our being, and therefore we are suffocated with ideas.
All this may sound rather abstract, academic, professorial, but it is not. Personally, I have a horror of academic discussion, theoretical speculations, because they lead nowhere. But it is very important that we find out what we mean by an idea, because the world is dividing itself over the opposing ideas of the left and of the right, the ideas of the communists as opposed to those of the capitalists; and without understanding the whole process of ideation, merely to take sides is infantile, it has no meaning. A mature man does not take sides; he tries to solve directly the problems of human suffering, human starvation, war and so on. We take sides only when we are moulded by the intellect, whose function is to fabricate ideas. So, it is very important, is it not?, to find out for ourselves, and not go according to what Marx, the Shastras, the Bhagavad Gita, or any of them says. You and I have to find out, because it is our problem; it is our daily problem to discover what is the right solution to our aching civilization.
Now, can ideas ever produce action, or do ideas merely mould thought and therefore limit action? When action is compelled by an idea, action can never liberate man. Please, it is extraordinarily important for us to understand this point. If an idea shapes action, then action can never bring about the solution to our miseries; because, before it can be put into action, we have first to discover how the idea comes into being. The investigation of ideation, of the building up of ideas, whether of the socialists, the capitalists, the communists, or of the various religions, is of the utmost importance, especially when our society is at the edge of a precipice, inviting another catastrophe, another excision; and those who are really serious in their intention to discover the human solution to our many problems must first understand this process of ideation. As I said, this is not academic, it is the most practical approach to human life. It is not philosophical or speculative, because that is sheer waste of time. Let us leave it to the undergraduates to discuss theoretical matters in their unions or in their clubs.
So, what do we mean by an idea? How does an idea come into being? And can idea and action be brought together? That is, I have an idea, and I wish to carry it out, so I seek a method of carrying out that idea; and we speculate, waste our time and energies, in quarrelling over how the idea should be carried out. So, it is really very important to find out how ideas come into being; and after discovering the truth of that, we can discuss the question of action. Without discussing ideas, merely to find out how to act, has no meaning.
Now, how do you get an idea: - a very simple idea, it need not be philosophical, religious or economic. Obviously, it is a process of thought, is it not? Idea is the outcome of a thought process. Without a thought process, there can be no idea. So, I have to understand the thought process itself before I can understand its product, the idea. What do we mean by thought? When do you think? Obviously, thought is the result of a response, neurological or psychological, is it not? It is the immediate response of the senses to a sensation, or it is psychological, the response of stored up memory. There is the immediate response of the nerves to a sensation, and there is the psychological response of stored up memory, the influence of race, group, guru, family, tradition, and so on - all of which you call thought. So, the thought process is the response of memory, is it not? You would have no thoughts if you had no memory; and the response of memory to a certain experience brings the thought process into action. Say, for example, I have the stored up memories of nationalism, calling myself a Hindu. That reservoir of memories of past responses, actions, implications, traditions, customs, responds to the challenge of a Mussulman, a Buddhist or a Christian, and the response of memory to the challenge inevitably brings about a thought process. Watch the thought process operating in yourself and you can test the truth of this directly. You have been insulted by someone, and that remains in your memory, it forms part of the background; and when you meet the person, which is the challenge, the response is the memory of that insult. So, the response of memory, which is the thought process, creates an idea; therefore, the idea is always conditioned - and this is important to understand. That is, idea is the result of the thought process, the thought process is the response of memory, and memory is always conditioned. Memory is always in the past, and that memory is given life in the present by a challenge. Memory has no life in itself; it comes to life in the present when confronted by a challenge. And all memory, whether dormant or active, is conditioned, is it not?
那么观念是怎么形成的呢？ - 一个简单的观念，不必是哲学观念、宗教观念或经济观念。显然是个思维过程，不是吗？观念是思维过程的产物。没有思维过程，就没有观念。因此我在了解作为思维过程的产物的观念之前，必须了解思维过程本身。思维指的是什么呢？你什么时间思维？显然，思维是神经或心理反应的结果，是不是？有神经系统对感受生起的反应，有心理储存记忆的反应，有种族、团体、上师、家庭、传统等的反应 － 我们称这些为思维。因此，思维过程是记忆的反应，是不是？如果你没有记忆，就没有思维，对某种经历的记忆的反应就产生了思维过程。例如，我储存了民族主义的记忆，我称自己为印度人，储存的过去的经历、行为、关联、传统、习惯在面对穆斯林、佛教徒、基督徒时引起反应，这种反应必然导致思维过程的产生。观察这个思维过程在你自己心中的运作，你可以直接对思维过程的产生过程进行验证。如果有人侮辱了你，你保有这个记忆，因此形成一部分背景；当你遇到这个人，就会引起这个记忆的反应。因此，记忆生出的反应制造了观念；因此观念总是受到局限的－理解这点很重要。也就是说，观念是思维过程的结果，思维过程是记忆的反应，记忆总是受到局限的。记忆总是过去，记忆由于面临挑战在当前恢复了生命。记忆本身没有生命，它只有面对挑战才具有生命。所有的记忆，不论是潜伏的，还是活跃的，都受到局限，是不是？
What, then, is memory? If you observe your own memory and how you gather memory,you will notice that it is either factual, technical, having to do with information, with engineering, mathematics, physics, and all the rest of it? or, it is the residue of an unfinished, uncompleted experience, is it not? Watch your own memory and you will see. When you finish an experience, complete it, there is no memory of that experience in the sense of a psychological residue. There is a residue only when an experience is not fully understood; and there is no understanding of experience because we look at each experience through past memories, and therefore we never meet the new as the new, but always through the screen of the old. Therefore, it is clear that our response to experience is conditioned, always limited.
So, we see that experiences which are not completely understood leave a residue, which we call memory. That memory, when challenged, produces thought. That thought creates the idea, and the idea molds action. Therefore, action based on an idea can never be free; and therefore there is no release for any of us through an idea. Please, this is very important to understand. I am not building up an argument against ideas, I am painting the picture of how ideas can never bring about a revolution. Ideas can modify the present state, or change the present state, but that is not revolution. A substitution, or a modified continuity, is not revolution.
As long as I am exploited, it matters very little whether I am exploited by private capitalists or by the state; but exploitation by the state we consider better than exploitation by the few. Is it any better? I am not talking of the top-dogs. Is it any better for the man who is exploited? So, mere modification is not revolution, it is merely reaction to a condition. That is, the capitalistic background may produce a reaction in the form of communism, but that is still on the same level. It is the modified continuity of capitalism in a different form. I am not advocating either capitalism or communism. We are trying to find out what we mean by change, what we mean by revolution. So, an idea can never produce revolution in the deepest sense of the word, in the sense of complete transformation. An idea can bring about a modified continuity of what is, but that is obviously not revolution. And we need a revolution, not a modified continuity; we need, not a substitution, but a complete transformation.
So, to bring about revolution, that complete transformation, I must first understand ideas and how they arise; and if I understand ideas, if I see the false as the false, then I can proceed to enquire what we mean by action, if thought creates idea - or, if thought itself, put in verbal form, is what I call idea and if that thought is always conditioned because it is the response memory to a challenge which always new, then an idea can never bring about revolution in the deeper sense of the word; and yet that is what we are trying to do. We are looking to an idea to bring about transformation. I hope I am making myself clear.
因此，为了带来革命，即彻底的转变，我必须首先了解观念，以及观念是如何产生的；如果我了解观念，看到观念的局限，就能进一步了解什么是行动了，如果思维制造了观念 - 或者说思维本身，以文字的形式表现出来，就是观念，而如果思维总是受到局限，因为它只是记忆面临新挑战时的反应，那么观念永远也不会带来根本意义上的革命，可是这就是我们所做的。我们寄希望于观念带来根本的转变。我希望我说明白了。
So, our problem is this: If I cannot look to an idea, which is a thought process, then how can I act? Please, before I can find out how to act, I must be completely sure that action based on an idea is utterly false; I must see that ideas shape action, and that action which is shaped by ideas will ever be limited. Therefore, there is no release through action based on an idea, on an ideology, or on a belief, because such action is the outcome of a thought process which is but the response of memory. That thought process must inevitably create an idea which is conditioned, limited, and an action based on a limitation can never free man, Action based on an idea is limited action, conditioned action, and if I look to that action as a means of freedom, obviously I can only continue in a conditioned state. Therefore, I cannot look to an idea as a guide to action. And yet that is what we are doing, because we are so addicted to ideas, whether they are other people's ideas or our own.
So, what we have to do now is to find out how to act without the thought process - which sounds quite loony; but is it? Just see our problem, it is quite interesting. When I live and act within the thought process, which gives rise to idea, which in turn molds action, there is no release. Now, can I act without the thought process, which is memory? Please, don't let us be confused: by memory I do not mean factual memory. It would be absurd to talk of throwing away all the technical knowledge - how to build a house, a dynamo, a jet plane, how to break the atom, and so on and so on - that man has acquired through centuries, generation after generation. But can I live, can I act, be in relationship with another, without the psychological response of memory which results in ideation, and which in turn controls action? To most of us this may sound very odd, for we are accustomed to having an idea first, and then conforming action to the idea. All our disciplines, all our activities, are based on this - the idea first, and then conformity to the idea; and when I put the question to you, you have no answer, because you have not thought about it in this direction at all. As I say, it will sound crazy to many of you; but if you really examine the whole process of life very closely and seriously because you want to understand and not just throw words at each other, then this question as to what we mean by action is bound to arise.
因此，我们现在要做的就是了解如何进行没有思维过程的行动 – 这听起来很奇怪，是不是？观察我们自己的问题非常有趣。当我带着思维过程生活和行动，就会产生各种观念，这些观念同时会把我们的行动限制在固定的模式里，这时是无法解脱的。那么现在，我是否能够不加任何思维地行动，因为思维就是记忆？请注意，不要搞混了：我说的记忆不是说实际的记忆本身。如果说要是把所有的技术知识都抛开，这样说就太荒谬了 – 如何盖房子，制造发电机、喷气式飞机，以及如何分裂原子等等，一代一代人经过了很多世纪才获得了这些知识。而是说，我的行动是否可以不受心理反应，即记忆的影响，因为这些只会导致思维过程的形成，并限制行动。对于大部分人来说，这听起来有点奇怪，因为我们已经习惯于先有观念，然后作出符合观念的行动。我们所有的纪律、活动都是基于此的 – 先有观念，然后有符合观念的行动；当我问你们这个问题时，你们没有回答，因为你们从来没有在这个方向上进行过思考。正如我说的，这听起来对于很多人来说很奇怪；但是如果你确实仔细并认真地检查整个生命过程，因为你想了解，而不是谈论，那么行动是什么的问题自然就会产生。
Now, is action really based on idea, or does action come first and the idea afterwards? If you observe still more closely, you will see that action comes first always, and not the idea. The monkey in the tree feels hungry, and then the urge arises to take a fruit or a nut. Action comes first, and then the idea that you had better store it up. To put it in different words, does action come first, or the actor? Is there an actor without action? Do you understand? This is what we are always asking ourselves: Who is it that sees? Who is the watcher? Is the thinker apart from his thoughts, the observer apart from the observed,the experiencer apart from the experience, the actor apart from the action? Is there an entity always dominating, overseeing observing action - call it Parabrahman, or what you will? When you give a name, you are merely caught in the idea, and that idea compels your thoughts; and therefore you say the actor comes first, and then the action. But if you really examine the process, very carefully, closely and intelligently, you will see that there is always action first, and that action with an end in view creates the actor. Do you follow? If action has an end in view, the gaining of that end brings about the actor. If you think very clearly and without prejudice, without conformity, without trying to convince somebody, without an end in view, in that very thinking there is no thinker - there is only the thinking. It is only when you seek an end in your thinking that you become important, and not thought. Perhaps some of you have observed this. It is really an important thing to find out, because from that we shall know how to act. If the thinker comes first, then the thinker is more important than thought, and all the philosophies, customs and activities of the present civilization are based on this assumption; but if thought comes first then thought is more important than the thinker. Of course they are related - there is no thought without the thinker, and there is no thinker without the thought. But I do not want to discuss this now, because we will get off the point.
观察，你会看到总是先有行动，而不是观念。树上的猴子感到饥饿，然后会产生取得水果或坚果的动机。行动在前，然后才是你储存的观念。换句话说，行动先产生，还是行动者先产生？有不存在行动的行动者吗？你明白吗？我们常常问自己：看的人是谁？观察的人是谁？思维者和他的思维是分开的吗？观察者和所观之物是分开的吗？经历者和经历是分开的吗？行动者和行动是分开的吗？难道有一个实体总是控制、监视、观察行动吗？- 超梵等？当你称呼这个实体为超梵时，你陷入了观念里，这个观念又限制你的思想；因此，你说先有行动者，然后有行动。但是如果你确实检查这个过程，非常仔细地检查，用智慧检查，你会看到，总是先有行动，而行动加上结果制造了行动者。你明白吗？如果行动带来结果，行动加结果制造了行动者。如果你细想，不带任何偏见，不受任何限制，也不用试图让他人相信，不带任何目的，你会看到只有思维，没有思维者。只有当你带着目的思维，你才变得重要，这时就有了思考者。或许你们有些人观察到了这一点。看到这一点非常重要，因为我们从这里了解到如何行动。如果先有思考者，那么思考者就比思想重要，所有的哲学、习俗、现代文明的所有活动都是基于这个假设的；但是如果先有思想，思想就比思想者更重要。当然，他们是相关联的 – 既没有不带思维者的思维，也没有不带思维的思考者。这点我现在还不想详细讨论这一点，免得离题。
So, can there be action without memory? That means, can there be action which is constantly revolutionary? The only thing that is constantly revolutionary is action without the screen of memory. An idea cannot bring about constant revolution, because it always modifies action according to the background of its conditioning. Our question is, then, can there be action without the thought process which creates the idea, which in turn controls action? I say there can be, and that it can take place immediately when you see that idea is not a release, but a hindrance to action. If I see that, my action will not be based on any idea, and therefore I am in a state of complete revolution; and therefore there is the possibility of a society which is never static, which never needs to be overthrown and rebuilt. I say you can live with your wife, with your husband, with your neighbour in that state of action which does not conform to an idea; and that is possible only when you understand the significance of idea, how idea is brought about and molds action. The idea that molds action is detrimental to action, and a man who looks to an idea as a means of bringing about a revolution either in the mass or the individual, is looking in vain. Revolution is constant, it is never static. Ideas create, not a revolution, but merely a modified continuity. Only that action which is not based on an idea can bring about revolution which is constant and therefore ever renewing.
There are many questions and I shall answer as many of them as possible.
Question: What is the place of power in your scheme of things? Do you think human affairs can be run without compulsion?
Krishnamurti: Now, what do you mean by "your scheme of things"? Obviously, you think I have a pattern in which I am putting life, (Laughter). Please, this is important, don't laugh it off. Most of us have a scheme, a blue print of how life should be according to Marx, Buddha, Christ or Sankara, or according to the United Nations, and we force life into that mould. We say, "It is a marvellous scheme, let us fit into it" - which is absurd. Beware of the man who has a scheme of life; anyone who follows him, follows confusion and sorrow. Life is much bigger than any scheme that any human being can invent. So, that is out.
"What is the place of power? Do you think human affairs can be run without compulsion?" Now, what do we mean by power? There is the power that wealth gives, the power that knowledge brings, the power of an idea, the power of the technician. Which power do we mean? Obviously, the power to control, to dominate. That is what we mean by power, isn't it? The power that each one wants is the power which we exercise at home over the wife or the husband - only we want greater power to control, to dominate others. Also, there is the power which you give to the leader. Because you are confused, you hand over to the leader the reins of authority, and he guides and controls you; or you yourself would like to be the leader, and so on and on. And there is the power of love, of understanding, of kindliness, of mercy, the power of reality. Now, we have to be very clear which power we are referring to. There is the power of an army, that enormous power to destroy, to maim, to bring horror to mankind; and there is the power of a strong government, or of a strong personality. Merely to be in power is comparatively easy. Power implies domination; and the more power you have, the more evil you become - which is shown over and over again throughout history. The power to dominate, a mould, to shape, to control, to force others to think what the authorities want them to think - surely, this is a power which is utterly evil, utterly dark and stupid. So also is the power of the rich man swaggering in his factory, and the power of the ambitious man in government affairs. Obviously, all that is power in its most stupid form, because it dominates, controls, shapes, warps human beings.
“权力的地位？你认为人们的事务可以不通过强制力来管理吗？”。你指的权力是什么？有财富产生的权力，知识带来的权力，某个观念的权力，技术人员的权力。你说的权力是哪一个？显然，是说控制、支配的权力。这是我们所说的权力，是不是？我们每个人要的权力就是我们在家里对妻子、丈夫使用的权力 – 只是我们要的是比这大得多的控制、支配他人的权力。还有，有你给领导人的权力。因为你困惑，因此你把权威的缰绳让给了领导人，而他引导和控制你；或者你自己想成为领导人，等等。也有爱的力量、了解的力量，慈悲的力量，同情的力量，实相的力量。那么我们就需要非常明确我们指的是哪一个权力（力量）。有军队的力量，巨大的毁灭、破坏、恐怖的力量；也有强大的政府的力量，强大的个人的力量。拥有权力相对容易。权力意味着支配；你的权力越大，你变得越坏 – 整个历史都是如此。支配、控制、塑造的权力，迫使他人想你让他们想的事情 – 当然这种权力是邪恶的、黑暗的、愚蠢的。富人在自己的工厂里耀武扬威，政府事务里野心勃勃的人也都是如此。显然，这些都是权力的最愚蠢的形式，因为这些权力支配人、控制人、强制塑造人，扭曲他人。
Now, there is the so-called power of love, the power of understanding. Is love a power? Does love dominate, twist, shape the human heart? If it does, it is no longer love. Love, understanding, truth, has its own quality; it does not compel, therefore it is not on the same level as power. Love, truth, or understanding comes when all these ideas of compulsion, authority, dogmatism, have ceased. Humility is not the opposite of authority or of power. The cultivation of humility is merely the desire for authority, for power, in a different guise.
So, what is happening in the world? The power of governments, of States, the power of leaders, of the clever orators and writers, is used more and more for the shaping of man, compelling man to think along a certain line, teaching him, not how to think, but what to think. That has become the function of governments, with their enormous power of propaganda - which is the ceaseless repetition of an idea; and any repetition of an idea or of truth, becomes a lie. Because there is confusion, misery in our minds and hearts, we create leaders who control us, shape us, and so do our governments. All over the world there is conformity to the dictates of the military, the social environment is influencing us to conform; and do you think that understanding or love comes through compulsion? Do you have goodwill through compulsion? If I am the dictator can I compel you to have goodwill? So, the compulsion which comes with placing enormous power in the hands of those who can wield it, does not bring men together.
那么，世界上正在发生什么？政府的权力、国家的权力、领导人的权力、聪明的演说家和作家的权力越来越多地用来塑造人，迫使别人按照某种信条思考，教他们不是如何思考，而是思考什么。这已经成为政府的功能，政府的强大的宣传机器都是为了这件事 – 这是某种观念的不断重复，而任何观念或“真理”的不断重复就是谎言。因为有困惑、有痛苦，我们制造了领导人，他们控制我们、塑造我们，我们的政府也是如此。全世界都有对军事独裁的顺从，社会环境对我们产生影响，使我们顺从；你认为了解或爱，来自强制力吗？强制力会产生善意吗？如果我是独裁者，我能强制你具有善意吗？因此，强大的强制力不会使人类凝聚在一起。
As I was explaining in my talk compulsion is the outcome of an idea. Surely, a man who is drunk with ideology is intolerant, he creates the torture of compulsion. Obviously, there can never be understanding, love, communion with each other, when there is compulsion; and no society can be built on compulsion. Such a society may for a time succeed technically, superficially; but inwardly there is the agony of being compelled, and therefore, like a prisoner kept within four walls, there is always the seeking for a release, for an escape, a way out. So, a government or a society that compels, shapes, forces the individual from the outside, will eventually create disorder, chaos and violence. That is exactly what is happening in the world.
Then, we compel ourselves to conform to a pattern, calling it discipline, which is suppression, and suppression gives you a certain power. But in either extreme, in either opposite, there is no stability, and human minds go from one to the other, evading the quiet stability of understanding. A mind that is compelled, a mind that is caught in power, can never know love; and without love, there is no solution to our problems. You may postpone understanding, intellectually you may avoid it, you may cleverly build bridges, but they are all temporary; and without goodwill, without mercy, without generosity, without kindliness, there is bound to be ever increasing misery and destruction, because compulsion is not the cement that brings human beings together. Compulsion in any form, inward or outward, only creates further confusion, further misery. What we need in world affairs at the present time is not more ideas, more blue prints, bigger and better leaders, but goodwill, affection, love, kindliness. Therefore, what we need is the person who loves, who is kind; and that is you, not somebody else. Love is not the worship of God; you may worship a stone image, or your conception of God, and that is a marvellous escape from your brutal husband or your nagging wife, but it does not solve our difficulty. Love is the only solvent, and love is kindness to your wife, to your child, to your neighbour.
Question: Why are we so callous to each other in spite of all the suffering it involves?
Krishnamurti: Why am I or why are you callous to another man's suffering? Why are we indifferent to the coolie who is carrying a heavy load, to the woman who is carrying a baby? Why are we so callous? To understand that, we must understand why suffering makes us dull. Surely, it is suffering that makes us callous; because we don't understand suffering, we become indifferent to it. If I understand suffering, then I become sensitive to suffering, awake to everything, not only to myself, but to the people about me, to my wife, to my children, to an animal, to a beggar. But we don't want to understand suffering, we want to escape from suffering; and the escape from suffering makes us dull, and therefore we are callous. Sir, the point is that suffering, when not understood, dulls the mind and heart; and we do not understand suffering because we want to escape from it, through the guru, through a saviour, through mantras, through reincarnation, through ideas, through drink and every other kind of addiction - anything to escape what is. So, our temples, our churches, our politics, our social reforms, are mere escapes from the fact of suffering. We are not concerned with suffering, we are concerned with the idea of how to be released from suffering. We are concerned with ideas, not with suffering; we are constantly looking for a better idea and how to carry it out, which is so infantile. When you are hungry, you don't discuss how to eat; you say, "Give me food", you are not concerned with who will bring it, whether the left or the right, or which ideology is the best. But when you want to avoid the understanding of what is, which is suffering, then you escape into ideologies; and that is why our minds, though superficially very clever, have essentially become dull, rude, callous, brutal. To understand suffering requires seeing the falseness of all the escapes, whether God or drink. All escapes are the same though socially each may have a different significance. When I escape from sorrow, all escapes are on the same level - there is no "better escape.
克：为什么我或你对人类的痛苦如此冷酷？为什么我们对负重的苦力，对怀抱婴儿的女人如此冷漠？为什么我们冷酷？了解这一点，我们必须了解为什么痛苦让我们迟钝。当然，是痛苦让我们冷漠；因为我们不了解痛苦，我们对它漠不关心。如果我了解了痛苦，那么我就会对痛苦敏感，对一切保持清醒，不仅仅是对自己，还对周围的人，对我的妻子、孩子，对动物，对乞讨者。但是我们不想了解痛苦，我们想要逃避痛苦；而逃避使我们迟钝，因此我们才变得冷漠。先生，关键是当痛苦不被了解时，我们的心意就变得迟钝；而我们不了解痛苦，因为我们要逃避它，通过上师、救世主、咒语、轮回、观念、饮酒等让我们逃避真相。因此，我们的寺院、教堂、政治、社会改革都只是对痛苦的逃避。我们不关心痛苦，我们只关心如何从痛苦中逃避的念头。我们关心想法，而不是痛苦；我们不断寻找更好的办法，可是这是很幼稚的。当你饥饿时，你不必讨论怎么吃；你说，“给我食物”，不用管是谁给的食物，左派或右派，或者什么意识形态是最好的。但是当你想要逃避真相的时候，而痛苦就是真相，你就逃避到意识形态中去；因此我们的心意，尽管表面上看起来很聪明，本质上确实很迟钝、粗鲁、冷漠、残酷。了解痛苦需要看到所有逃避的虚假性，不论是上帝还是酒精。所有的逃避都一样，尽管每一种的影响不同。当逃避痛苦时，所有的逃避手段没有分别 – 没有“更好的”逃避方法。
Now, the understanding of suffering does not lie in finding out what the cause is. Any man can know the cause of suffering; his own thoughtlessness, his stupidity, his narrowness, his brutality, and so on. But if I look at the suffering itself without wanting an answer, then what happens? Then, as I am not escaping, I begin to understand suffering; my mind is watchfully alert, keen, which means I become sensitive, and being sensitive, I am aware of other people's suffering. Therefore I am not callous, therefore I am kind, not merely to my friends - I am kind to everyone, because I am sensitive to suffering. We are callous because we have become dull to suffering, we have dulled our minds through escapes. Escape gives a great deal of power, and we like power, we like to have a radio, a motor car, an airplane, we like to have money and enjoy immense power. But when you understand suffering, there is no power, there is no escape through power. When you understand suffering, there is kindliness, there is affection. Affection, love, demands the highest intelligence, and without sensitivity there is no great intelligence.
Question: Can you not build up a following and use it rightly? Must you remain a voice in the desert?
Krishnamurti: Now what do you mean by a following, and what do you mean by a leader? Why do you follow, and why do you create a leader? If you are interested, please consider this closely. When do you follow? You follow only when you are confused; when you are unhappy when you feel torn down, you want someone - a political, a religious, a military leader - to help you to take you out of your misery. When you are clear, when you understand, you do not want to be led. You want to be led only when you are yourself in confusion, with all its implications. So, what happens? When you are confused, how can you see clearly? Since you cannot see clearly, you will choose a leader who is also confused. (Laugher) Don't laugh. This is what is happening in the world, and it is disastrous. It may sound very clever, but it is not. How can a blind man choose a leader? He can only choose those around him. Similarly a confused man can only choose a leader who is as confused as himself. And what happens? Being confused, your leader naturally leads you to further confusion, further disaster, further misery. That is what is taking place all over the world. For God's sake, Sirs, look at it - it is your misery? You are being led to the slaughter because you refuse to see and clear away the cause of your own confusion. And because you refuse to see it, you are creating out of your confusion the clever, the cunning leaders who exploit you because, the leader, like you, is seeking self-fulfilment. Therefore you become a necessity to the leader, and the leader becomes a necessity to you - it is a mutual exploitation.
克：你所说的追随者指的是什么？你为什么要追随？你为什么要制造一个领导者？如果你有兴趣，请仔细考虑。你什么时候追随？只有你感到混乱时才追随；当你不幸福，当你感到疲惫，你需要别人 – 不论是政治家，还是宗教或军事领导人 – 帮助你解脱痛苦。当你清楚了解时，你不需要被领导。只有当你混乱时，不论何种混乱，你才需要被领导。此后会发生什么呢？当你混乱时，你怎么才能清楚看见？既然你不能清楚看见，你也会选择一个同样混乱的领导人。（笑）不要笑。这正是世界上发生的事，而且这是灾难。这听起来很聪明，可是不是。盲目的人如何选择领导？他只能从他周围选择。类似地，一个混乱的人也只能从和他一样混乱的人当中选择领导人。会发生什么呢？因为混乱，你的领导人自然把你带入更大的混乱，更大的灾难，更大的痛苦。世界正在发生这件事。上帝保佑，先生，观察这些 – 这是你自己的痛苦？你被引导到屠宰场，因为你自己拒绝清楚地看见自己的混乱的根由。而因为你拒绝看清楚，你受到欺骗，那些聪明、狡猾的领导人会剥削你，因为这些领导人和你一样追求自我的成就。因此，领导人需要你，你也需要你的领导人 – 这是一种相互的剥削。
So, why do you want a leader? And can there ever be a right leadership? You and I can help each other to clear up our own confusion - which does not mean that I become your leader and you become my follower, or I am your guru and you are my pupil. We simply help each other to understand the confusion that exists in our own hearts and minds. It is only when you do not want to understand the confusion that you run away from it, and then you will turn to somebody, to a leader or a guru. But if you want to understand it, then you must look to the common misery, the aches, the burdens, the loneliness; and you can look only when you are not trying to find an answer, a way out of the confusion. You look at it because confusion itself leads to misery, therefore you want to understand it; and when you understand, clear it up, you will be free as the air, you will love, you will not follow, you will have no leaders; and then will come the society of true equality, without class or caste.
那么，为什么需要领导人呢？会有一个正确的领导人吗？你和我能互相帮助澄清我们的混乱 – 这不意味着我成为你的领导人，你成为我的追随者，或者我是你的上师，而你是我的学生。我们只是相互帮助，了解我们心意当中存在的混乱。只有当你不想了解你心意中存在的混乱，你才会逃避，你会求助于某人，一个领导者或上师。但是，当你想要了解，你就必须观察普遍的痛苦、负担、孤独；你需要观察混乱，是因为混乱导致痛苦，因此你必须了解它；当你了解混乱，澄清混乱时，你就像空气一样自由了，你就会去爱，不追随别人，你不再有领导人；这时会产生真正平等的，没有阶级或等级的社会。
Sirs, you are not seeking truth, you are trying to find a way out of some difficulty; and that is your misery. You want leaders to direct you, to pull you along, to force you, to make you conform -and that inevitably leads to destruction, to greater suffering. Suffering is what is happening directly in front of us, yet we refuse to see it and we want "right" leaders - which is so immature. To me, all leadership indicates a deterioration of society. A leader in society is a destructive element. (Laughter.) Don't laugh it off, don't pass it by: look at it. It is very serious, especially now. The world is on the verge of a catastrophe, it is rapidly disintegrating; and merely to find another leader, a new Churchill, a greater Stalin, a different God, is utterly futile; because, the man who is confused can choose only according to the dictates of his own mind, which is confusion. Therefore, it is no good seeking a leader, right or wrong. There is no "right" leader - all leaders are wrong. What you have to do is to clear your own confusion. And confusion is set aside only when you understand yourself; with the beginning of self-knowledge, there comes clarity. Without self-knowledge, there is no release from confusion; without self-knowledge, confusion is like a wave eternally catching you up. So, it is very important for those who are really serious and in earnest to begin with themselves, and not seek release or escape from confusion. The moment you understand confusion, you are free of it.
先生们，你不去发现真理，你试图逃避困难，这是你的困难。你想要领导人指引你，拉你一起前进，驱使你，让你顺从 – 这些注定会导致毁灭，导致更大的痛苦。痛苦是我们面前直接发生的，可是我们拒绝观察它，我们却想要“正确的”领导人 – 这是很不成熟的。对我来说，所有的领导人都表示社会的恶化。社会中的领导人是一种毁灭性的因素。（笑）不要一笑了之，不要得过且过：观察它。这个问题很严重，尤其是现在。世界在灾难的边缘了，正在迅速解体；仅仅找到另一个领导人，一个新的丘吉尔、斯大林，或另一个上帝完全是无用的；因为一个混乱的人只能按照自己的心意选择，而他的心意是混乱的。因此寻求领导人，不论是好的领导人还是坏的领导人，都是没有用的。没有“正确的”领导人 – 所有的领导人都是错误的。你必须做的就是澄清自己的混乱。只有当你了解自己的时候，混乱才可能澄清；只有有了自知之明，才会有澄清。没有自知之明，就不会解脱混乱；没有自知之明，混乱就像是波浪，一波一波地困住你。对于真正认真的人，真正从我做起，而不是寻找或逃避混乱的人，这是很重要的。你了解混乱的时候，你就从混乱中自由了。
Question: Grains of truth are to be found in religions, theories, ideas, and beliefs. What is the right way of separating them?
Krishnamurti: The false is the false, and by seeking you cannot separate the false from the truth, you have to see the false as the false, and then only is there the cessation of the false. You cannot seek the truth in the false, but you can see the false as the false, and then there is a release from the false. Sir, how can the false contain the truth? How can ignorance, darkness, contain understanding, light? I know we would like to have it so; we would like to think that somewhere in us there is eternity, light, truth, piety all covered over with ignorance. Where there is light, there is no darkness; where there is ignorance, there is always ignorance, but never understanding. So, there is release only when you and I see the false as the false, that is, when we see the truth about the false, which means not dwelling in the false as the false. Our seeing the false as the false is prevented by our prejudice, by our conditioning. With that understanding, let us proceed.
Now, the question is, is there not truth in religions, in theories, in ideals, in beliefs? Let us examine. What do we mean by religion? Surely, not organized religion, not Hinduism, Buddhism, or Christianity - which are all organized beliefs with their propaganda, conversion, proselytism, compulsion, and so on. Is there any truth in organized religion? It may engulf, enmesh truth, but the organized religion itself is not true. Therefore, organized religion is false, it separates man from man. You are a Mussulman, I am a hindu, another is a Christian or a Buddhist - and we are wrangling, butchering each other. Is there any truth in that? We are not discussing religion as the pursuit of truth, but we are considering if there is any truth in organized religion. We are so conditioned by organized religion to think there is truth in it that we have come to believe that by calling oneself a Hindu one is somebody, or one will find God. How absurd! Sir, to find God, to find reality, there must be virtue. Virtue is freedom, and only through freedom can truth be discovered - not when you are caught in the hands of organized religion, with its beliefs. And is there any truth in theories, in ideals, in beliefs? Why do you have beliefs? Obviously, because beliefs give you security, comfort, safety, a guide. In yourself you are frightened, you want to be protected, you want to lean on somebody, and therefore you create the ideal, which prevents you from understanding that which is; Therefore, an ideal becomes a hindrance to action. Sir, when I am violent, why do I want to pursue the ideal of non-violence? For the obvious reason that I want to avoid violence, escape from violence. I cultivate the ideal in order not to have to face and understand violence. Why do I want the ideal at all? It is an impediment. If I want to understand violence, I must try to understand what it is directly, not through the screen of an ideal. The ideal is false, fictitious, preventing me from understanding that which I am. Look at it more closely, and you will see. If I am violent, to understand violence I do not want an ideal; to look at violence, I do not need a guide. But I like to be violent, it gives me a certain sense of power, and I will go on being violent, though I cover it up with the ideal of nonviolence. So, the ideal is fictitious, it is simply not there. It exists only in the mind; it is an idea to be achieved, and in the meantime I can be violent. Therefore, an ideal, like a belief, is unreal, false.
那么，问题是，在宗教、理论、观念、信仰当中是否有真理？让我们检查一下。我们所说的宗教是什么？当然，不是有组织的宗教，不是印度教、佛教、基督教 – 这些都是有组织的宗教，有宣传、有皈依、有改宗、有强制等等。在有组织的宗教里是否有真理？它可能包含，编织了真理，但是有组织的宗教本身不是真理。因此，有组织的宗教是假相，它使人与人分裂。你是穆斯林，我是印度教徒，他是基督徒或佛教徒 – 我们争论不休，互相屠杀。这里有真相吗？我们不是说作为追求真理的宗教，而是说有组织的宗教。我们受到宗教的如此局限，因而我们相信称呼我们为印度徒，我们就是获得了某种地位，就能够发现上帝。多么荒谬！先生，发现上帝，实相，必须具有美德。美德即自由，只有通过自由，才能发现真相 – 不是当你受到有组织的宗教的信仰的束缚的时候。那么在理论、观念、信仰当中有真理吗？你为什么要有信仰？显然，因为信仰给你一种安全感、舒适感、指引的道路。当你一个人的时候，你感到恐惧，你想要得到保护，你想要依赖某人，因此你制造了理想，而理想使你无法了解真相；因此理想会妨碍行动。先生，当我充满了暴力，我为什么要追求非暴力的理想？显然是因为我想要避免暴力，逃避暴力。我制造了这个理想，是因为我不想面对和了解暴力。为什么我需要这个理想呢？它是有害的。如果我想要了解暴力，我必须直接了解真相，不是通过理想的局限。理想是假相、虚幻的，使我无法了解我的本质。仔细观察它，你会看到。如果我是充满暴力的，为了了解暴力，我不需要理想；观察暴力，我不需要引导。但是我想要充满暴力，因为这给我力量，我会继续充满暴力，尽管我用非暴力掩盖这个实相。因此，理想是虚幻的，是不存在的。它只存在在心意当中；这是一个将要实现的目标，而同时我仍然是暴力的。因此，理想和信仰一样，都是不真实的，虚妄的。
Now, why do I want to believe? Surely, a man who is understanding life does not want beliefs. A man who loves, has no beliefs - he loves. It is the man who is consumed by the intellect that has beliefs, because intellect is always seeking security, protection; it is always avoiding danger, and therefore it builds ideas, beliefs, ideals, behind which it can take shelter. What would happen if you dealt with violence directly, now? You would be a danger to society; and because the mind foresees the danger, it says, "I will achieve the ideal of non-violence ten years later, -which is such a fictitious, false process. So, theories - we are not dealing with mathematical theories, and all the rest of it, but with the theories that arise in connection with our human, psychological problems - theories, beliefs, ideals, are false, because they prevent us from seeing things as they are. To understand what is, is more important than to create and follow ideals; because ideals are false, and what is is the real. To understand what is requires an enormous capacity, a swift and unprejudiced mind. It is because we don't want to face and understand what is that we invent the many ways of escape and give them lovely names as the ideal, the belief, God. Surely, it is only when see the false as the false that my mind is capable of perceiving what is true. A mind that is confused in the false, can never find the truth. Therefore, I must understand what is false in my relationships, in my ideas, in the things about me; because, to perceive the truth requires the understanding of the false. Without removing the causes of ignorance, there cannot be enlightenment; and to seek enlightenment when the mind is unenlightened is utterly empty, meaningless. Therefore, I must begin to see the false in my relationships with ideas, with people, with things. When the mind sees that which is false, then that which is true comes into being; and then there is ecstasy, there is happiness.
那么，我为什么需要信仰呢？当然，一个了解生命的人不需要信仰。一个懂得爱的人不需要信仰，他就只是去爱。只有那些被智力困惑的人才需要信仰，因为智力总是寻求安全感，想得到保护；智力总是想要逃避危险，因此，才制造了观念、信仰、理想、寻求在信仰的后面得到庇护所。那么，现在如果你直接面对暴力，会发生什么呢？你会成为社会的危险因素；因为心意遇见到危险，所以它说，“我会在十年后实现非暴力的理想” – 这是多么虚幻的、虚假的过程啊。理论，不是指数学定理等，而是指和人类的心理问题相关的理论 – 理论、信仰、观念都是虚假的，因为他们使我们无法看清真相。了解真相比制造和遵循理想更重要；因为理想是虚假的，而实相是真实的。了解实相需要巨大的容量，敏锐和不带偏见的心意。因为我们不想面对和理解实相，我们发明了很多逃避的办法，并为他们起了好听的名字如理想、信仰、上帝。当然，只有如实见到假相的本质的时候，我们才能看清真相。被假相迷惑的心意永远不能发现真相。因此，我必须了解我的关系、观念、我周遭事物中的假相；因为觉察真相需要了解假相。不消除无明的根源，就不会觉悟；而未觉悟的心意追去觉悟是毫无意义的。因此我必须从如实了解我和观念、人、事物的关系的假相开始。当心意看到假相时，真相会形成；这时会有狂喜和幸福。
August 1, 1948