| |
Understanding the causes of psychological problems
#2
Question: Marriage is a necessary part of any organized society, but you
seem to be against the institution of marriage. What do you say? Please also
explain the problem of sex. Why has it become, next to war, the most urgent
problem of our day?
Krishnamurti: To ask a question is easy, but the difficulty is to look very
carefully into the problem itself, which contains the answer. To understand
this problem, we must see its enormous implications. That is difficult,
because our time is very limited and I shall have to be brief; and if you don't
follow very closely, you may not be able to understand. Let us investigate the
problem, not the answer, because the answer is in the problem, not away from
it. The more I understand the problem, the clearer I see the answer. If you
merely look for an answer, you will not find one, because you will be seeking
an answer away from the problem. Let us look at marriage, but not
theoretically or as an ideal, which is rather absurd; don't let us idealize
marriage, let us look at it as it is, for then we can do something about it.
If you make it rosy, then you can't act; but if you look at it and see it
exactly as it is, then perhaps you will be able to act.
Now, what actually takes place? When one is young, the biological, sexual
urge is very strong, and in order to set a limit to it you have the institution
called marriage. There is the biological urge on both sides, so you marry and
have children. You tie yourself to a man or to a woman for the rest of your
life, and in doing so you have a permanent source of pleasure, a guaranteed
security, with the result that you begin to disintegrate; you live in a cycle
of habit, and habit is disintegration. To understand this biological, this
sexual urge, requires a great deal of intelligence, but we are not educated to
be intelligent. We merely get on with a man or a woman with whom we have to
live. I marry at 20 or 25, and I have to live for the rest of my life with a
woman whom I have not known. I have-not known a thing about her, and yet you
ask me to live with her for the rest of my life. Do you call that marriage?
As I grow and observe, I find her to be completely different from me, her
interests are different from mine; she is interested in clubs, I am interested
in being very serious, or vice versa. And yet we have children - that is the
most extraordinary thing. Sirs, don't look at the ladies and smile; it is your
problem. So, I have established a relationship the significance of which I do
not know, I have neither discovered it nor understood it.
It is only for the very, very few who love that the married relationship
has significance, and then it is unbreakable, then it is not mere habit or
convenience, nor is it based on biological, sexual need. In that love which is
unconditional the identities are fused, and in such a relationship there is a
remedy, there is hope. But for most of you, the married relationship is not
fused. To fuse the separate identities, you have to know yourself, and she
has to know herself. That means to love. But there is no love - which is am
obvious fact. Love is fresh, new, not mere gratification, not mere habit. It
is unconditional. You don't treat your husband or wife that way, do you? You
live in your isolation, and she lives in her isolation, and you have
established your habits of assured sexual pleasure. What happens to a man who
has an assured income? Surely, he deteriorates. Have you not noticed it?
Watch a man who has an assured income and you will soon see how rapidly his
mind is withering away. He may have a big position, a reputation for cunning,
but the full joy of life is gone out of him.
Similarly, you have a marriage in which you have a permanent source of
pleasure, a habit without understanding, without love, and you are forced to
live in that state. I am not saying what you should do; but look at the
problem first. Do you think that is right? It does not mean that you must
throw off your wife and pursue somebody else. What does this relationship
mean? Surely, to love is to be in communion with somebody; but are you in
communion with your wife, except physically? Do you know her, except
physically? Does she know you? Are you not both isolated, each pursuing his
or her own interests, ambitions and needs, each seeking from the other
gratification, economic or psychological security? Such a relationship is not
a relationship at all: it is a mutually self-enclosing process of
psychological, biological and economic necessity, and the obvious result is
conflict, misery, nagging, possessive fear, jealousy, and so on. Do you think
such a relationship is productive of anything except ugly babies and an ugly
civilization? Therefore, the important thing is to see the whole process, not
as something ugly, but as an actual fact which is taking place under your very
nose; and realizing that, what are you going to do? You cannot just leave it
at that; but because you do not want to look into it, you take to drink, to
politics, to a lady around the corner, to anything that takes you away from the
house and from that nagging wife or husband - and you think you have solved the
problem.
That is your life, is it not? Therefore, you have to do something about
it, which means you have to face it, and that means, if necessary, breaking up;
because, when a father and mother are constantly nagging and quarrelling with
each other, do you think that has not an effect on the children? And we have
already considered, in the previous question, the education of children.
So, marriage as a habit, as a cultivation of habitual pleasure, is a
deteriorating factor, because there is no love in habit. Love is not habitual;
love is something joyous, creative, new. Therefore, habit is the contrary of
love; but you are caught in habit, and naturally your habitual relationship
with another is dead. So, we come back again to the fundamental issue,
which is that the reformation of society depends on you, not on legislation.
Legislation can only make for further habit or conformity. Therefore, you as a
responsible individual in relationship have to do something, you have to act,
and you can act only when there is an awakening of your mind and heart. I see
some of you nodding your heads in agreement with me, but the obvious fact is
that you don't want to take the responsibility for transformation, for change;
you don't want to face the upheaval of finding out how to live rightly. And so
the problem continues, you quarrel and carry on, and finally you die; and when
you die somebody weeps, not for the other fellow, but for his or her own
loneliness. You carry on unchanged and you think you are human beings capable
of legislation, of occupying high positions, talking about God, finding a way to
stop wars, and so on. None of these things mean anything, because you have not
solved any of the fundamental issues.
Then, the other part of the problem is sex, and why sex has become so
important. Why has this urge taken such a hold on you? Have you ever thought
it out? You have not thought it out, because you have just indulged; you have
not searched out why there is this problem. Sirs, why is there this problem?
And what happens when you deal with it by suppressing it completely - you know,
the ideal of Brahmacharya, and so on? What happens? It is still there. You
resent anybody who talks about a woman, and you think that you can succeed in
completely suppressing the sexual urge in yourself and solve your problem that
way; but you are haunted by it. It is like living in a house and putting all
your ugly things in one room; but they are still there. So, discipline is not
going to solve this problem - discipline being sublimation, suppression,
substitution - , because you have tried it, and that is not the way out. So,
what is the way out? The way out is to understand the problem, and to
understand is not to condemn or justify. Let us look at it, then, in that way.
Why has sex become so important a problem in your life? Is not the sexual
act, the feeling, a way of self-forgetfulness? Do you understand what I mean?
In that act there is complete fusion; at that moment there is complete cessation
of all conflict, you feel supremely happy because you no longer feel the need
as a separate entity and you are not consumed with fear. That is, for a
moment there is an ending of self-consciousness, and you feel the clarity of
self-forgetfulness, the joy of self abnegation. So, sex has become important
because in every other direction you are living a life of conflict, of
self-aggrandizement and frustration. Sirs, look at your lives, political,
social, religious: you are striving to become something. Politically, you want
to be somebody, powerful, to have position, prestige. Don't look at somebody
else, don't look at the ministers. If you were given all that, you would do
the same thing. So, politically, you are striving to become somebody, you are
expanding yourself, are you not? Therefore, you are creating conflict, there
is no denial, there is no abnegation of the `me'. On the contrary, there is
accentuation of the `me'. The same process goes on in your relationship with
things, which is ownership of property, and again in the religion that you
follow. There is no meaning in what you are doing, in your religious
practices. You just believe, you cling to labels, words. If you observe, you
will see that there too there is no freedom from the consciousness of the `me'
as the centre. Though your religion says, `Forget yourself', your very process
is the assertion of yourself, you are still the important entity. You may read
the Gita or the Bible, but you are still the minister, you are still the
exploiter, sucking the people and building temples.
So, in every field, in every activity, you are indulging and emphasizing
yourself, your importance, your prestige, your security. Therefore, there is
only one source of self-forgetfulness, which is sex, and that is why the woman
or the man becomes all-important to you, and why you must possess. So, you
build a society which enforces that possession, guarantees you that possession;
and naturally sex becomes the all-important problem when everywhere else the
self is the important thing. And do you think, Sirs, that one can live in that
state without contradiction, without misery, without frustration? But when
there is honestly and sincerely no self-emphasis, whether in religion or in
social activity, then sex has very little meaning. It is because you are afraid
to be as nothing, politically, socially, religiously, that sex becomes a
problem; but if in all these things you allowed yourself to diminish, to be the
less, you would see that sex becomes no problem at all.
There is chastity only when there is love. When there is love, the problem
of sex ceases; and without love, to pursue the ideal of Brahmacharya is an
absurdity, because the ideal is unreal. The real is that which you are; and
if you don't understand your own mind, the workings of your own mind, you
will not understand sex, because sex is a thing of the mind. The problem is
not simple. It needs, not mere habit-forming practices, but tremendous
thought and enquiry into your relationship with people, with property and
with ideas. Sir, it means you have to undergo strenuous searching of your
heart and mind, thereby bringing a transformation within yourself. Love is
chaste; and when there is love, and not the mere idea of chastity created
by the mind, then sex has lost its problem and has quite a different
meaning.
Question:
In my view, the guru is one who awakens me to truth, to reality.
What is wrong in my taking to such a guru?
Krishnamurti: This question arises because I have said that gurus are an
impediment to truth. Don't say you are wrong and I am right, or I am wrong and
you are right, but let us examine the problem and find out. Let us enquire
like mature, thoughtful people, without denying and without justifying.
Which is more important, the guru or you? And why do you go to a
guru? You say, `To be awakened to truth'. Are you really going to a guru to
be awakened to truth? Let us think this out very clearly. Surely, when you go
to a guru you are actually seeking gratification. That is you have a problem
and your life is a mess, it is in confusion; and because you want to escape
from it, you go to somebody whom you call a guru to find consolation verbally,
or to escape an ideation. That is the actual process, and that process you
call seeking truth. That is, you want comfort, you want gratification, you
want your confusion cleared away by somebody; and the person who helps you to
find escapes you call a guru. Actually, not theoretically, you look to a guru
who will assure you of what you want. You go guru-hunting as you go
window-shopping: you see what suits you best, and then buy it. In India, that
is the position: You go around hunting for gurus, and when you find one you
hold on to his feet or neck or hand till he gratifies you. To touch a man's
feet - that is one of the most extraordinary things. You touch the guru's
feet and kick your servants, and thereby you destroy human beings, you lose
human significance. So, you go to a guru to find gratification, not truth.
The idea may be that he should awaken you to truth, but the actual fact is
that you find comfort. Why? Because you say, `I can't solve my problem,
somebody must help me'. Can anybody help you to solve the confusion which you
have created? What is confusion? Confusion with regard to what, suffering with
regard to what? Confusion and suffering exist in your relationship with things,
people and ideas; and if you cannot understand that confusion which you have
created, how can another help you? He can tell you what to do, but you have to
do it for yourself, it is your own responsibility; and because you are unwilling
to take that responsibility, you sneak off to the guru - that is the right
expression to use, `sneak off' - and you think you have solved the problem. On
the contrary, you have not solved it at all; you have escaped, but the problem
is still there. And, strangely, you always choose a guru who will assure you of
what you want; therefore you are not seeking truth, and therefore the guru is
not important. You are actually seeking someone who will satisfy you in your
desires; that is why you create a leader, religious or political, and give
yourself over to him, and that is why you accept his authority. Authority is
evil, whether religious or political, because it is the leader and his position
that are all-important, and you are unimportant. You are a human being with
sorrow, pain, suffering, joy, and when you deny yourself and give yourself over
to somebody, you are denying reality; because it is only through yourself that
you can find reality, not through somebody else.
Now, you say that you accept a guru as one who awakens you to reality. Let
us find out if it is possible for another to awaken you to reality. I hope you
are following all this, because it is your problem, not mine. Let us find out
the truth about whether another can awaken you to reality. Can I, who have been
talking for an hour and a half, awaken you to reality, to that which is real?
The term `guru' implies, does it not?, a man who leads you to truth, to
happiness, to bliss eternal. Is truth a static thing that someone can lead you
to? Someone can direct you to the station. Is truth like that, static,
something permanent to which you can be led? It is static only when you create
it out of your desire for comfort. But truth is not static, nobody can lead you
to truth. Beware of the person who says he can lead you to truth, because it is
not true. Truth is something unknown from moment to moment, it cannot be
captured by the mind, it cannot be formulated, it has no resting place.
Therefore, no one can lead you to truth. You may ask me, `Why are you talking
here?' All that I am doing is pointing out to you what is and how to understand
what is as it is, not as it should be. I am not talking about the ideal, but
about a thing that is actually right in front of you, and it is for you to look
and see it. Therefore, you are more important than I, more important than any
teacher, any savior, any slogan, any belief; because you can find truth only
through yourself, not through another. When you repeat the truth of another,
it is a lie. Truth cannot be repeated. All that you can do is to see the
problem as it is, and not escape. When you see the thing as it actually is,
then you begin to awaken, but not when you are compelled by another. There is
no savior but yourself. When you have the intention and the attention to
look directly at what is, then your very attention awakens you, because in
attention everything is implied. To give attention, you must be devoted to
what is, and to understand what is, you must have knowledge of it. Therefore,
you must look, observe, give it your undivided attention, for all things are
contained in that full attention you give to what is.
So, the guru cannot awaken you; all that he can do is to point out what
is. Truth is not a thing that can be caught by the mind. The guru can give you
words, he can give you an explanation, the symbols of the mind; but the symbol
is not the real, and if you are caught in the symbol, you will never find the
way. Therefore, that which is important is not the teacher, it is not the
symbol, it is not the explanation, but it is you who are seeking truth. To seek
rightly is to give attention, not to God, not to truth, because you don't know
it, but attention to the problem of your relationship with your wife, your
children, your neighbor. When you establish right relationship then you love
truth; for truth is not a thing that can be bought, truth does not come into
being through self-immolation or through the repetition of mantras. Truth comes
into being only when there is self-knowledge. Self-knowledge brings
understanding, and when there is understanding, there are no problems. When
there are no problems, then the mind is quiet, it is no longer caught up in its
own creations. When the mind is not creating problems, when it understands each
problem immediately as it arises, then it is utterly still, not made still.
This total process is awareness, and it brings about a state of undisturbed
tranquility which is not the outcome of any discipline, of any practice or
control, but is the natural outcome of understanding every problem as it arises.
Problems arise only in relationship; and when there is understanding of one's
relationship with things, with people and with ideas, then there is no
disturbance of any kind in the mind and the thought process is silent. In that
state there is neither the thinker nor the thought, the observer nor the
observed. Therefore, the thinker ceases, and then the mind is no longer caught
in time; and when there is no time, the timeless comes into being. But the
timeless cannot be thought of. The mind, which is the product of time, cannot
think of that which is timeless. Thought cannot conceive or formulate that
which is beyond thought. When it does, its formulation is still part of
thought. Therefore, eternity is not a thing of the mind; eternity comes into
being only when there is love, for love in itself is eternal. Love is not
something abstract to be thought about; love is to be found only in relationship
with your wife, your children, your neighbor. When you know that love which is
unconditional, which is not the product of the mind, then reality comes into
being, and that state is utter bliss.
1948 3rd Public Talk, New Delhi, India, Available as: Report - 'Poona, Delhi
& Madras 1948, Verbatim Report' and in book form: 'The Collected Works of
J.Krishnamurti, Vol V'
Next>>
|
|