~Jiddu Krishnamurti
To stand alone in the world is one of the most difficult things: not to belong to any nation, except perhaps having a passport; not to belong to any ideology, any particular kind of activity of the left or right; not to repeat a single word that you yourself have not known, so that there is integrity. Because if you belong to any organization, any group, or follow any guru, anyone, you are not being honest. So, in a world that is so disorderly, divided, full of antagonism, bitterness, and falsehood, can you stand completely alone? Sorry, either you do this or you don’t. You can’t say, “Well, I do belong to a particular little group, but I am really free from all that.” You know, when there is no integrity, when there is no honesty and virtue, systems and organizations become tremendously important. Haven’t you noticed this? Then the organizations, systems, control the mind. But if the mind is really honest, straight, clear, then no system is required because it is totally virtuous. I wonder if you follow all this?
So we are faced with this problem: How is a mind that is so controlled, shaped by environment, conditioned by various influences, by the education that one has, by competition, aggression, violence, all that—how is such a mind to free itself, so that it is totally free and sane? Now, how would you, who are also very intellectual, who have read so much, solve this problem? Would you rely on someone else to solve it? That means on authority, right? Whether the authority of the analyst, the psychologist, the priest, or the authority of a savior, you know the whole business—would you put your faith, belief, in somebody else to solve this problem for you?
Go on, answer it for yourself. You see, unfortunately, we do rely on someone else, because we say, “I don’t know, I don’t know how to solve this problem. It is too complex. I haven’t given enough time to it, I haven’t really thought about it. And somebody has given time, gone into it greatly, and I will accept what he says.” And you add, “Why not? He knows, I don’t.” So you make him into the authority and are therefore living a secondhand life. And this is not a secondhand issue, it is your issue; you have to solve it, not through somebody else, not by having faith in something. We have played that game for thousands of years with our gurus, our saviors, our masters, our professionals, and we haven’t changed. So it is your problem, therefore you cannot possibly rely on anybody, especially on the speaker. Right? The speaker means me!
So can you discard what another says you should think or do, and come face to face with yourself, directly and firsthand? Then you put aside all authority, except the authority of law, which says keep to the right of the road and pay tax. I am not talking about that kind of authority, but the authority on which you depend for your beliefs, in which you have faith, when you acknowledge that someone else knows more than you do about yourself. So this brings you totally to yourself, and therefore you have tremendous energy. Because I waste energy in listening to somebody else, following somebody else, putting my faith in something, whether in a society, a community, a person, an idea, or some system. That is a waste of energy. Whereas when I totally discard dependence on another for my behavior, my integrity, my honesty, my sanity, then I have tremendous energy to look at what I am. Are you doing it? Do it. Then it is fun discussing with you.
So now we are asking, Can this mind that has been conditioned both superficially and also deeply unconsciously, the totality of it, can that be radically transformed? If you put that question seriously to yourself, then you and I have a relationship in investigating the question. You are not taking sides. It is you who are investigating, not through the eyes of somebody else. Now, how does one investigate? I cannot investigate it if I want to get through it to reach an end. If I say that I will investigate it to find a different state, in order to be free, then it is not investigation. You have already started with a motive, and that motive is going to direct your investigation.
So the mind must be free of all motive in order to investigate. Are you doing this? Because one sees so much suffering in the world, the poor, the starving, people who live in ghettos in the overpopulated, underdeveloped countries, where poverty is a curse, where there is so much physical illness. And there are other kinds of suffering—suffering created by the human being in his divisiveness, the wars. You know this sorrow, don’t you? One sees this, feels it, one is aware of it, both the inward sorrow as well as the outward sorrow. And one has to respond, one has to solve it; one can’t just say, well, it is part of existence, it is inevitable in human nature and so on. You have to solve it, you have to go beyond it. And we have the intelligence to do that. But that intelligence comes into being only when you don’t depend on anybody, when you are face to face with yourself and with the problem. Intelligence is, after all, the capacity of total energy in application.
So now I have the energy, because I don’t depend on anyone. Can you honestly, seriously say that you don’t depend on anybody, on your friend, your environment, your guru, your book? That you don’t have faith in something or a belief in something? This doesn’t mean that you become agnostic or all that silly stuff. You are a human being completely with yourself, resolving the human problem of existence, and not therefore having somebody else resolving your problems.
As we have said, investigation demands energy, energy that is the application of intelligence, and intelligence cannot be if you are looking to another. He may be intelligent, but if you look to him you are ignorant. Now, how do you investigate? Who is the investigator? It is no good saying to oneself, “I am going to investigate” without trying to find out who the investigator is. Sorry, is this becoming too complex?
Say I want to investigate this problem of the mind, which is “me,” my mind: why it is conditioned, how deeply it is conditioned, and whether it can be wholly free from that conditioning. Only then can I have a right relationship with another human being, because my conditioning divides me and brings about a division between you and me. My image of “me” is the dividing factor. So I must first find out who the investigator is. Is it one of the many fragments of the “me” that is investigating—one part, one fragment saying, “I will investigate the different fragments,” which is the “me” that is conditioned? So one part assumes the authority and capacity to investigate the other parts. One part is broken up and against the other parts. So is that investigation when one part assumes the authority to investigate the other fragments?
That is not investigation. It is a conclusion that says, “I will investigate.” Do you see this? It is a conclusion. And that conclusion brings about a division. So to investigate there must be no conclusion, no hypothesis. The meaning of hypothesis is foundation, and if you start from a foundation, which is inevitably a conclusion, and investigate with that conclusion, it brings about a division, and therefore it is not an investigation. If you see this clearly, you will proceed further.
So is my mind, which is investigating, free from a conclusion? Which is: “I will investigate.” A conclusion is the expression of will, right? When I say, “I will investigate myself,” it is a conclusion brought about by my desire to understand, to go beyond in order to reach a certain dimension in which all the present misery doesn’t exist. It is a conclusion. It is the action of will that says, “I will investigate.” So can my mind be free of that conclusion? Otherwise I cannot investigate. It is like a scientist: If he wants to investigate, he looks. He doesn’t start with a conclusion—then he is not a scientist, he is just a... I don’t know what he is!
So to investigate, to inquire, is to be free of any conclusion. Then the mind is clear, fresh. And then when you proceed, is there an investigator at all? Then there is only observation, not investigation. Therefore such a mind is not broken up, and only then is it capable of observing. Observing, which means having insight without a conclusion, and therefore continuous insight. Are you getting all this? So the mind is free to observe and therefore to act totally.
