YKI - Indonesia
answers, conversations, and writings of J. Krishnamurti on the subject of relationship. Krishnamurti speaks from such a large perspective that his whole. Volume The Mirror of Relationship:: Volume dialogues with J. Krishnamurti available on J. Krishnamurti spoke to young people all over the. teachings of Jiddu Krishnamurti (), it is the event of "total insight into what-is" that . and its relationship to the pivotal event of total "insight" has been .
By seeking security in relationship you are hindering its function, which brings its own peculiar actions and misfortunes. Relationship is a process of self-revelation, of self-knowledge. This self-revelation is painful, demanding constant adjustment, pliability of thoughtemotion.
It is a painful struggle, with periods of enlightened peace… But most of us avoid or put aside the tension in relationship, preferring the ease and comfort of satisfying dependency, an unchallenged security, a safe anchorage.
Then family and other relationships become a refuge, the refuge of the thoughtless. When insecurity creeps into dependency, as it inevitably does, then that particular relationship is cast aside and a new one is taken on in the hope of finding lasting security; but there is no security in relationship, and dependency only breeds fear.
Without understanding the process of security and fear, relationship becomes a binding hindrance, a way of ignorance.
Table of Contents
Then all existence is struggle and pain, and there is no way out of it save in right thinking, which comes through self-knowledge. If we can understand fully, completely, relationship with the one, then perhaps there is a possibility of understanding relationship with the many, that is, with society. If I do not understand my relationship with the one, I certainly shall not understand my relationship with the whole, with society, with the many.
And if my relationship with the one is based on a need, on gratification, then my relationship with society must be the same…. Is it possible to live, with the one and with the many, without demand?
Surely, that is the problem—is it not? As long as we use relationship as a means of gratification, of escape, as a distraction that is mere activity, there can be no self-knowledge. But self-knowledge is understood, is uncovered, its process is revealed, through relationship; that is, if you are willing to go into the question of relationship and expose yourself to it. Because, after all, you cannot live without relationship. But we want to use that relationship to be comfortable, to be gratified, to be something.
As long as the mind merely uses relationship for its own security, that relationship is bound to create confusion and antagonism.
Is it possible to live in relationship without the idea of demand, of want, of gratification? You can think about the person whom you love, but thought is not love, and so, gradually, thought takes the place of love…. Can relationship be based on an idea? Love exists only when there is self-forgetfulness, when there is complete communion, not between one or two, but communion with the highest; and that can only take place when the self is forgotten.
This dependence creates fear, breeds in us possessiveness, results in friction, suspicion, frustration. Economic dependence on another can perhaps be eliminated through legislation and proper organization, but I am referring especially to that psychological dependence on another which is the outcome of craving for personal satisfaction, happiness, and so on.
Thus in this relationship of psychological dependence, there must always be conscious or unconscious fear, suspicion, which often lies hidden in pleasant-sounding words… Though one is dependent on another, there is yet the desire to be inviolate, to be whole. The complex problem in relationship is how to love without dependence, without friction and conflict; how to conquer the desire to isolate oneself, to withdraw from the cause of conflict.
If we depend for our happiness on another, on society, or on environment, they become essential to us; we cling to them and any alteration of these we violently oppose because we depend upon them for our psychological security and comfort. Though, intellectually, we may perceive that life is a continual process of flux, mutation, necessitating constant change, yet emotionally or sentimentally we cling to the established and comforting values; hence there is a constant battle between change and the desire for permanency.
Is it possible to put an end to this conflict? Life cannot be without relationship. But we have made it so agonizing and hideous by basing it on personal and possessive love. Can one love and yet not possess? You will find the true answer not in escape, ideals, beliefs, but through the understanding of the causes of dependence and possessiveness. If one can deeply understand this problem of relationship between oneself and another, then perhaps we shall understand and solve the problems of our relationship with society, for society is but the extension of ourselves.
The environment which we call society is created by past generations: In this illusion there cannot be unity or peace. Mere economic unity brought about through compulsion and legislation cannot end war. As long as we do not understand individual relationship, we cannot have a peaceful society. Since our relationship is based on possessive love, we have to become aware, in ourselves, of its birth, its causes, its action.
In becoming deeply aware of the process of possessiveness with its violence, fears, its reactions, there comes an understanding that is whole, complete. This understanding alone frees thought from dependence and possessiveness. It is within oneself that harmony in relationship can be found, not in another, nor in environment. In relationship, the primary cause of friction is oneself, the self that is the center of unified craving.
If we can but realize that it is not how another acts that is of primary importance, but how each one of us acts and reacts, and if that reaction and action can be fundamentally, deeply understood, then relationship will undergo a deep and radical change. In this relationship with another, there is not only the physical problem but also that of thought and feeling on all levels, and one can be harmonious with another only when one is harmonious integrally in oneself.
In relationship the important thing to bear in mind is not the other but oneself, which does not mean that one must isolate oneself but understand deeply in oneself the cause of conflict and sorrow. So long as we depend on another for our psychological well-being, intellectually or emotionally, that dependence must inevitably create fear from which arises sorrow. I am not talking about physiological interdependence, which is entirely different. I depend on my son because I want him to be something that I am not.
He is the fulfillment of all my hopes, my desires; he is my immortality, my continuation. So my relationship with my son, with my wife, with my children, with my neighbors, is a state of psychological dependency, and I am fearful of being in a state in which there is no dependence.
I do not know what that means, therefore I depend on books, on relationship, on society, I depend on property to give me security, position, prestige. And if I do not depend on any of these things, then I depend on the experiences that I have had, on my own thoughts, on the greatness of my own pursuits.
Psychologically, then, our relationships are based on dependence, and that is why there is fear. The problem is not how not to depend, but just to see the fact that we do depend. Where there is attachment there is no love. Because you do not know how to love, you depend, and…where there is dependency there is fear.
I am talking of psychological dependency, not of your dependence on the milkman to bring you milk, or your dependence on the railway, or on a bridge. It is this inward psychological dependency—on ideas, on people, on property that breeds fear. So, you cannot be free from fear as long as you do not understand relationship, and relationship can be understood only when the mind watches all its relationships, which is the beginning of self-knowledge. Now, can you listen to all this easily, without effort?
Effort exists only when you are trying to get something, when you are trying to be something. There can be no freedom from fear as long as there is no understanding of relationship, which means, really, as long as there is no self-knowledge.
The self is revealed only in relationship.
In observing the way I talk to my neighbor, the way I regard property, the way I cling to belief or to experience or to knowledge; that is, in discovering my own dependency, I begin to awaken to the whole process of self-knowledge.
So, how to overcome fear is not important. You can take a drink and forget it. You can go to the temple and lose yourself in prostration, in muttering words, or in devotion, but fear waits around the corner when you come out.
There is the cessation only when you understand your relationship to all things, and that understanding does not come into being if there is no self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is not something far away; it begins here, now, in observing how you treat your servants, your wife, your children. Relationship is the mirror in which you see yourself as you are. If you are capable of looking at yourself as you are without any evaluation, then there is the cessation of fear, and out of that comes an extraordinary sense of love.
Love is something that cannot be cultivated; love is not a thing to be bought by the mind. Love comes into being darkly, unknowingly, fully, when we understand this whole process of relationship. Then the mind is quiet, it does not fill the heart with the things of the mind, and therefore that which is love can come into being. The one is an abstract idea, the other is an actual daily biological urge—a fact that exists and cannot be denied. Let us first find out what love is, not as an abstract idea, but what it actually is.
Is it merely a sensuous delight, cultivated by thought as pleasure, the remembrance of an experience which has given great delight or sexual enjoyment? Does it exist without the object? Or does it come into being only because of the object?On relationships and conflict - J. Krishnamurti
Or is love a state in you…? Can we understand it verbally and intellectually, or is it something that cannot be put into words? What is it that each one of us calls love? Can love be divided as divine and human? Is there love when there is jealousy or hatred or competitive drive? Is there love when each one of us is seeking his own security, both psychological as well as worldly, outwardly?
We are not talking of some love that is abstract; an abstract idea of love has no value at all. You and I can have a lot of theories about it, but actually, what is the thing that we call love? There is pleasure, sexual pleasure, in which there is jealousy, the possessive factor, the dominating factor, the desire to possess, to hold, to control, to interfere with what another thinks.
Knowing all the complexity of this, we say that there must be love that is divine, that is beautiful, untouched, uncorrupted; we meditate about it and get into a devotional, sentimental, emotional attitude, and are lost.
So what is love? Is it pleasure and desire? Is it love of the one and not of the many? To understand this question—what is love? Is love personal or impersonal? This all indicates, does it not, that we have ideas about what love should be? This is again the pattern, the code developed by the culture in which we live, or the pattern that one has cultivated for oneself. So for us, ideas about love matter much more than the fact; we have ideas of what love is, what it should be, what it is not.
The religious saints, unfortunately for mankind, have established that to love a woman is something totally wrong; you cannot possibly come near their idea of God if you love someone. That is, sex is taboo; it is pushed aside by the saints, but they are eaten up with it, generally. So to go into this question of what love is, one must first put away all ideas, all ideologies of what it is, or should be, or should not be, and the division as the divine and the not divine.
Can we do that? What do you mean by love? We are going to discover by understanding what love is not, because, as love is the unknown, we must come to it by discarding the known. The unknown cannot be discovered by a mind that is full of the known… What is love with most of us? When we say we love somebody, what do we mean? We mean we possess that person. From that possession arises jealousy, because if I lose him or her what happens?
I feel empty, lost; therefore I legalize possession; I hold him or her. From holding, possessing that person, there is jealousy, there is fear, and all the innumerable conflicts that arise from possession.
Surely such possession is not love, is it? Obviously love is not sentiment. To be sentimental, to be emotional, is not love, because sentimentality and emotion are mere sensations.
A religious person who weeps about Jesus or Krishna, about his guru or somebody else, is merely sentimental, emotional. He is indulging in sensation, which is a process of thought, and thought is not love. Thought is the result of sensation, so the person who is sentimental, who is emotional, cannot possibly know love. Sentimentality, emotionalism, is merely a form of self-expansion.
To be full of emotion is obviously not love, because a sentimental person can be cruel when his sentiments are not responded to, when his feelings have no outlet. An emotional person can be stirred to hatred, to war, to butchery. A man who is sentimental, full of tears for his religion, surely has no love.
What is implied in forgiveness? I am still the central figure. I am still important, it is I who am forgiving somebody. As long as there is the attitude of forgiving it is I who am important, not the man who is supposed to have insulted me.
So when I accumulate resentment and then deny that resentment, which you call forgiveness, it is not love. A man who loves obviously has no enmity and to all these things he is indifferent. Sympathy, forgiveness, the relationship of possessiveness, jealousy, and fear—all these things are not love. They are all of the mind, are they not? You can write a poem about love, but that is not love. You have respect for those above, for your boss, for the millionaire, for the man with a large house and a title, for the man who can give you a better position, a better job, from whom you can get something.
But you kick those below you… You can know love only when all these things have stopped, come to an end…. How few of us are generous, forgiving, merciful! You are generous when it pays you, you are merciful when you can see something in return. When all this has stopped, then love comes into being, then you will know what it is to love. Then love is not quantitative but qualitative. Because we do not know how to love one, our love of humanity is fictitious.
When you love, there is neither one nor many: It is only when there is love that all our problems can be solved…. We know sex as an inescapable physical and psychological necessity and it seems to be a root-cause of chaos in the personal life of our generation. How can we deal with this problem? Why is it that whatever we touch we turn into a problem?
We have made God a problem, we have made love a problem, we have made relationship, living a problem, and we have made sex a problem. Why is everything we do a problem, a horror? Why are we suffering? Why has sex become a problem? Why do we submit to living with problems, why do we not put an end to them? Why do we not die to our problems instead of carrying them day after day, year after year? Sex is certainly a relevant question but there is the primary question: Working, sex, earning money, thinking, feeling, experiencing—you know, the whole business of living—why is it a problem?
Is it not essentially because we always think from a particular point of view, from a fixed point of view? What do we mean by the problem of sex? Is it the act, or is it a thought about the act?
Surely it is not the act. The sexual act is no problem to you, any more than eating is a problem to you, but if you think about eating or anything else all day long because you have nothing else to think about, it becomes a problem to you. Is the sexual act the problem or is it the thought about the act? Why do you think about it? Why do you build it up, which you are obviously doing? The cinemas, the magazines, the stories, the way women dress, everything is building up your thought of sex.
Why does the mind build it up, why does the mind think about sex at all? Why has it become a central issue in your life? When there are so many things calling, demanding your attention, you give complete attention to the thought of sex.
What happens, why are your minds so occupied with it?
Because that is a way of ultimate escape, is it not? It is a way of complete self-forgetfulness. For the time being, at least for that moment, you can forget yourself—and there is no other way of forgetting yourself. When there is only one thing in your life that is an avenue to ultimate escape, to complete forgetfulness of yourself if only for a few seconds, you cling to it because that is the only moment in which you are happy.
Every other issue you touch becomes a nightmare, a source of suffering and pain, so you cling to the one thing which gives complete self-forgetfulness, which you call happiness. But when you cling to it, it too becomes a nightmare, because then you want to be free from it, you do not want to be a slave to it. So you invent, again from the mind, the idea of chastity, of celibacy, and you try to be celibate, to be chaste, through suppression, all of which are operations of the mind to cut itself off from the fact.
Sex becomes an extraordinarily difficult and complex problem so long as you do not understand the mind that thinks about the problem. The act itself can never be a problem but the thought about the act creates the problem - 5 - What Is Desire? Desire is energy, and it has to be understood; it cannot merely be suppressed, or made to conform…If you destroy desire, you destroy sensitivity, as well as the intensity that is necessary for the understanding of truth.
We are not denying desire. It would be utterly stupid to say that we must live without desire, for that is impossible. Man has tried that.
People have denied themselves, tortured themselves, and yet desire has persisted, creating conflict, and all the brutalizing effects of that conflict. We are not advocating desirelessness, but we must understand the whole phenomena of desire, pleasure, and pain, and if we can go beyond there is a bliss and ecstasy, which is love.
When I see a tree swaying in the wind, it is a lovely thing to watch, and what is wrong with that? What is wrong in watching the beautiful motion of a bird on the wing? What is wrong in looking at a new car, marvelously built and highly polished? And what is wrong in seeing a nice person with a symmetrical face, a face that shows good sense, intelligence, quality?
Your perception is not just perception, but with it comes sensation. With the arising of sensation you want to touch, to contact, and then comes the urge to possess.
Have you ever just observed anything? Do you understand, sirs? Have you ever observed your wife, your children, your friends, just looked at them? Have you ever looked at a flower without calling it a rose, without wanting to put it in your button-hole, or take it home and give it to somebody?
If you are capable of so observing, without all the values attributed by the mind, then you will find that desire is not such a monstrous thing. You can look at a car, see the beauty of it, and not be caught in the turmoil or contradiction of desire.
But that requires an immense intensity of observation, not just a casual glance. It is not that you have no desire, but simply that the mind is capable of looking without describing. If you can do this, you will find that in the intensity of observation, of feeling, of real affection, love has its own action, which is not the contradictory action of desire.
Experiment with this and you will see how di fficult it is for the mind to observe without chattering about what it observes. In the first of the letters Krishnamurti said: These letters are written seriously and if you care to read them, read them with intent to study what is said as you would study a flower by looking at the flower very carefully—its petals, its stem, its colours, its fragrance and its beauty.
These letters should be studied in the same manner, not read one morning and forgotten in the rest of the day.
On Relationship: Jiddu Krishnamurti: serii.info: Books
One must give time to it, play with it, question it, inquire into it without acceptance. Live with it for some time; digest it so that it is yours and not the writer's''.
Krishnamurti often stated that people must look at the state of the world, with all its violence and conflict, if they are ever to understand themselves. To turn away from world events was for him not to be alive to what life has to teach. Facing a World in Crisis presents a selection of talks that Krishnamurti gave on how to live in and respond to troubling and uncertain times.
His message of personal responsibility and the importance of connecting with the broader world is presented in a non-sectarian and non-political way.
Direct and ultimately life-affirming, Facing a World in Crisis will resonate with readers today who are looking for a new way to understand and find hope in challenging times. How can I live with another without conflict? Why are relationships difficult? What is awareness in relationship? Do I really know what love is?