The Talks on Freedom - Eight questions on the man and the talks

Preamble: The following eight questions are taken from the Foundation Focus Newsletter of the KFA, October 2007, (Volume 5, Issue 1 of 3). They appear in an article on Page 5 entitled: Creating Relationships in China. These are some of the representative questions put forward, by mostly Chinese students, at and following a presentation of a 1982 Talk shown at Peking University, in 2007.

As an interesting exercise in and of itself, it was decided to take up all of these penetrating questions on this page:

* How did Krishnamurti become such a clear person?

The fact is he was different from the start. As a young child, he was dreamy and vague, to the point of being unable to study or even concentrate in school classes. The distinguishing feature was the absence of thought, of a fully functioning intellect. This meant his sense of self was weak, poorly developed. Throughout his early years, he was never self-assertive or ambitious in any way. As a result, he was unburdened with the self-centered reactions with which we are afflicted. Consequently, he was able to directly perceive the actual nature of things - the "what is", without the intrusion of the word, the intellect. Then, of course, he experienced an undeniable 'spiritual awakening' in California in 1922, at the age of twenty-seven, where essentially he became one with all things.

Because of this free, silent mind he was able to directly perceive the nature of thought and the self, without distortion. But this is not to say that we who do not have this background are unable to come to such a state of mind. It is a matter of intensity, questioning, applying the mind, and insight. The origin of the talks is essentially irrelevant - it is what the talks are saying that is important. We do not have to be Krishnamurti to understand what the talks are all about, to come to self-knowledge.

* Is there any practice that can help one to be aware in the way that K is talking about?

The short answer is no. Any practice by its very nature implies a reward at the end of it, otherwise you don't practice it. This, being an action by the self, only strengthens it. So it becomes an actual impediment to true awareness, which is - and must be - choiceless and without motive.

* Do the English words “attention” and “observation” mean the same thing as when K uses them?

No. It is a matter of nature and intensity. Attention/observation in the sense they are used in the talks is where there is no observer. We are so used to the thought process that says: 'I must pay attention to my thoughts'. This is where the 'I' has set itself itself apart from what it is observing. It therefore means you are not coming into direct contact with thought - you are observing it from afar. You cannot understand thought when there is a detached observer looking at it, which then tries to change that which it is observing.

There is also the issue of intensity. Attention is not idle or casual attention as addressed in the talks, it is attention with your whole being, your whole energy. You must listen completely to what is being said, which is giving your full attention. Such listening means you have to end all the pre-formed conclusions you have in your mind. This is difficult.

* It seems to me that what K is saying is for a few people. Or is it for everyone? If it is for a few people, how can that change the world?

You cannot start out with an intention to change the world, or even concern yourself with that. Change yourself, and see what comes out of that afterwards. The fact is you don't have the slightest clue what effect there would be on people around you if you ended the self, which is at the very heart of the talks.

Is what is said for a few people? No, it is for everyone. But the fact is there are very few people in the world who have the real intention to change themselves. Most people are perfectly content to drift along the way they have been doing. Change means bringing to oneself the unknown, and there are very few who can even face this prospect, let alone pursue an inquiry into it.

* I want to know if K was a usual person, because if he was unusual, then I probably can’t do what he is talking about.

This is the wrong approach. Truth is the truth, irrespective of who says it. You are wanting an 'out' at the start; if he turns out to be unusual - or you think or conclude he's unusual - then you don't need to apply yourself to what has been said. You are setting yourself up for defeat when you adopt this line of reasoning. You must look inside yourself to determine if what is being said is true, and this approach means the speaker is not important. Unfortunately, we are so caught up with the personality of the speaker.

Remember: You don't have to be this man to understand what this man is saying.

* Does understanding oneself influence other people?

Of course. If you are greedy, fearful and ambitious one day, and peaceful, calm and happy the next, do you not see that this would have an effect on your immediate family and friends? And that they would then themselves act differently as a result, even though not having self-understanding themselves? All social environments have a rippling affect.

But the primary object is not to influence others, surely. The object is to understand yourself. Then when you have understood yourself completely, things will happen of their own volition - which you cannot possibly know about in advance.

* Is there a difference between influence and propaganda?

No. Influence is the past of knowledge and authority, which because it is not in the now - as truth is only in the now, not in the past - is false. Propaganda is also by definition false, as it is from prejudiced minds, from people who have a vested interest in what they are putting over to you.
Truth is impartial and objective, is it not?

* Isn’t K talking about universal love? Then how can I love just one person?

You can do both. Universal love is not preclusive of love for an individual. You can't live with the rest of the human race to raise children. What this really means is that love is not exclusive to one person, the way love is now (with its resultant jealousy and posssession) but encompasses everyone. But that does not deny a relationship as a couple in order to bring up a family.