The Awakening of Intelligence. J. Krishnamurti
Читать онлайн книгу.
image; but I don’t know what that love is. I only want love as pleasure, sex and all the rest of it. There must be a relationship between the emptying of consciousness and the thing called love; between the unknown and the known, which is the content of consciousness.
Needleman: I am following you. There must be this relationship.
KRISHNAMURTI: The two must be in harmony. The emptying and love must be in harmony. And it may be only love that is necessary and nothing else.
Needleman: This emptying is another word for love, is that what you are saying?
KRISHNAMURTI: I am only asking what is love. Is love within the field of consciousness?
Needleman: No, it couldn’t be.
KRISHNAMURTI: Don’t stipulate. Don’t ever say yes or no; find out! Love within the content of consciousness is pleasure, ambition and all that. Then what is love? I really don’t know. I won’t pretend any more about anything. I don’t know. There is some factor in this which I must find out. Whether the emptying of consciousness with its content is love, which is the unknown? What is the relationship between the unknown and the known?—not the mysterious unknown, God or whatever name you give it. We will come to God if we go through this. The relationship between the unknown, which I don’t know, which may be called love, and the content of consciousness, which I know, (it may be unconscious, but I can open it up and find out)—what is the relationship between the known and the unknown? To move between the known and the unknown is harmony, is intelligence, isn’t it?
Needleman: Absolutely.
KRISHNAMURTI: So I must find out, the mind must find out, how to empty its content. That is, have no image, therefore no observer. The image means the past, or the image which is taking place now, or the image which I shall project into the future. So no image—no formula, idea, ideal, principle—all that implies image. Can there be no formation of image at all? You hurt me or you give me pleasure and therefore I have an image of you. So no image formation when you hurt me or give me pleasure.
Needleman: Is it possible?
KRISHNAMURTI: Of course it is. Otherwise I am doomed.
Needleman: You are doomed. In other words I am doomed.
KRISHNAMURTI: We are doomed. Is it possible when you insult me to be completely watchful, attentive, so that it doesn’t leave a mark?
Needleman: I know what you mean.
KRISHNAMURTI: When you flatter me—no mark. Then there is no image. So I have done it, the mind has done it: which is, no formation of image at all. If you don’t form an image now, the past images have no place.
Needleman: I don’t follow that. “If I don’t form an image now . . . ?”
KRISHNAMURTI: The past images have no place. If you form an image, then you are related to it.
Needleman: You are connected to the past images. That is right.
KRISHNAMURTI: But if you don’t form any?
Needleman: Then you are free from the past.
KRISHNAMURTI: See it! See it!
Needleman: Very clear.
KRISHNAMURTI: So the mind can empty itself of images by not forming an image now. If I form an image now, then I relate it with past images. So consciousness, the mind, can empty itself of all the images by not forming an image now. Then there is space, not space round the centre. And if one delves, goes into it much further, then there is something sacred, not invented by thought, which has nothing to do with any religion.
Needleman: Thank you.
. . .
Needleman: I have another question which I wanted to ask you. We see the stupidity of so many traditions which people hallow today, but aren’t there some traditions transmitted from generation to generation which are valuable and necessary, and without which we would lose the little humanity that we now have? Aren’t there traditions that are based on something real, which are handed down?
KRISHNAMURTI: Handed down . . .
Needleman: Ways of living, even if only in an external sense.
KRISHNAMURTI: If I hadn’t been taught from childhood not to run in front of a car . . .
Needleman: That would be the simplest example.
KRISHNAMURTI: Or to be careful of fire, be careful of irritating the dog which might bite you, and so on. That is also tradition.
Needleman: Yes, that certainly is.
KRISHNAMURTI: The other kind of tradition is that you must love.
Needleman: That is the other extreme.
KRISHNAMURTI: And the tradition of the weavers in India and other places. You know, they can weave without a pattern and yet they weave in a tradition which is so deeply rooted that they don’t even have to think about it. It comes out with their hands. I don’t know if you have ever seen it? In India they have a tremendous tradition and they produce marvellous things. Also there is the tradition of the scientist, the biologist, the anthropologist, which is tradition as the accumulation of knowledge, handed over by one scientist to another scientist, by a doctor to another doctor, learning. Obviously that kind of tradition is essential. I wouldn’t call that tradition, would you?
Needleman: No, that is not what I had in mind. What I meant by tradition was a way of living.
KRISHNAMURTI: I wouldn’t call that tradition. Don’t we mean by tradition some other factor? Is goodness a factor of tradition?
Needleman: No, but perhaps there are good traditions.
KRISHNAMURTI: Good traditions, conditioned by the culture in which one lives. Good tradition among the Brahmins used to be not to kill any human being or animal. They accepted that and functioned. We are saying: “Is goodness traditional? Can goodness function, blossom in tradition?”
Needleman: What I am asking then is: are there traditions which are formed by an intelligence either single, or collective, which understands human nature?
KRISHNAMURTI: Is intelligence traditional?
Needleman: No. But can intelligence form, or shape a way of living which can help other men more readily to find themselves? I know that this is a self-initiated thing that you speak of, but are there not men of great intelligence who can shape the external conditions for me, so that I will not have quite as difficult a time to come to what you have seen?
KRISHNAMURTI: That means what, Sir? You say you know.
Needleman: I don’t say I know.
KRISHNAMURTI: I am taking that. Suppose you are the great person of tremendous intelligence and you say, “My dear son, live this way.”
Needleman: Well I don’t have to say it.
KRISHNAMURTI: You exude your atmosphere, your aura, and then I say, “I’ll try it—he has got it, I haven’t got it.” Can goodness flower in your ambience? Can goodness grow under your shadow?
Needleman: No, but then I wouldn’t be intelligent if I made those my conditions.
KRISHNAMURTI: Therefore you are stating that goodness cannot operate, function, flower in any environment.
Needleman: No, I didn’t say that. I was asking, are there environments which can be conducive to liberation?
KRISHNAMURTI: We will go into this. A man who goes to a factory every day, day after day, and finds release in drink and all the rest of it . . .
Needleman: This is the example of a poor environment, a bad tradition.
KRISHNAMURTI: So what does the man who is intelligent, who is concerned with changing the environment, do for that man?
Needleman: