Life is constantly knocking at our door

When we close the windows and doors of our house and stay inside, we feel very secure, we feel safe, unmolested. But life is not like that. Life is constantly knocking at our door, trying to push open our windows that we may see more; and if out of fear we lock the doors, bolt all the windows, the knocking only grows louder. The closer we cling to security in any form, the more life comes and pushes us. The more we are afraid and enclose ourselves, the greater is our suffering, because life won’t leave us alone. We want to be secure but life says we cannot be; and so our struggle begins.

J. Krishnamurti/Life Ahead, p 54

Does thought give security?

So does thought fundamentally, basically, give security, psychologically? Thought has its place; but when thought assumes that it can bring about psychological security then it is living in illusion. Thought wanting ultimate security has created a thing called god; and humanity clings to that idea. Thought can create every kind of romantic illusion. And when the mind, psychologically, seeks security in the dogma of the Church, or some other dogmatic assertion, or whatever it is, it is seeking security in the structure of thought.
Thought is the response of experience and knowledge, stored up in the brain as memory; that response is therefore always moving from the past. Now, is there security in the past?

J. Krishnamurti/The Wholeness of Life, p 160

Security and dependence

The desire to be secure is one of the most curious things. And that security must be recognized by the world; I don’t know whether you see this. I write a book and in the book I find my security. But that book must be recognized by the world, otherwise there is no security. So look what I have done—my security lies in the opinion of the world! “My books sell by the thousand”, and I have created the value of the world. In seeking security through a book—through whatever it is—I am depending on the world which I have created. So it means I am deceiving myself constantly. If you saw this! So the desire for thought to be secure is the way of uncertainty, is the way of insecurity.

The Impossible Question, p 182

Why are we insecure in our relationship?

So what is insecurity? Why are we insecure in our relationship to each other? There is tremendous disturbance, turmoil and agony in the external world, and each one wants his own place, his own security, and wants to escape from this terrible state of insecurity. So, can we together inquire into why we are insecure?—not into what security is because your security may be an illusion. Your security may be in some romantic concept, in some image, tradition, or in a family and name. What does that word 'insecure' mean? In your relationship to your wife or husband, there is not a sense of complete security. There is always this background, this feeling that everything is not quite right. So inquire with me into why human beings are insecure. Is it about not having a job? In a country like this country, which is overpopulated, there are probably ten thousand people for one job. Don’t you know all this, or am I inventing it? If we were not insecure, we would not talk about gods, we would not talk about security. Because we are insecure, we seek the opposite.

That Benediction is Where You Are, p 25

There is no permanent relationship

Is there any psychological security certainty or security such as the mind is always seeking? Obviously when you observe any relationship very closely, there is no certainty. In the case of husband and wife or boy and girl who want to establish a firm relationship, what happens? When the wife or the husband looks at anyone else, there is fear, jealousy, anxiety, anger and hatred; there is no permanent relationship. Yet the mind all the time wants the feeling of belonging.

The Flight of the Eagle, p58

Is there security in any relationship?

Psychologically, in our relationship with ideas, people and things, we want security, but is there security at all, in any relationship? Obviously there is not. Wanting security psychologically is to deny outward security. If I want to be secure psychologically as a Hindu, with all the traditions, superstitions and ideas, I identify myself with the larger unit which gives me great comfort. So I worship the flag, the nation, the tribe and separate myself from the rest of the world. And this division obviously brings about insecurity physically. When I worship the nation, the customs, the religious dogmas, the superstitions, I separate myself within these categories and then obviously I must deny physical security for everybody else. The mind seeks physical security, which is denied when it seeks psychological security.

J. Krihnamurti/The Flight of the Eagle, pp 57-8

The search for security

Throughout the world human beings are always seeking security, both physiological and psychological. Physical security is denied when psychological security—which does not really exist—is sought in various forms of illusion and in divisive beliefs, dogmas, religious sanctions and so on. When there are these psychological divisions, there must inevitably be physiological division with all its conflicts, wars, and the suffering and the tragedy and the inhumanity of man to man.

J. Krishnamurti/The Wholeness of Life, p150

Physical and psychological security

One cannot live without security, that is the very first, primary animal demand, that there be physical security. One must have a house, food and clothing. But the psychological way in which we use this necessity for security brings about chaos within and without. The psyche, which is the very structure of thought, also wants to be secure inwardly, in all its relationships. Then the trouble begins. There must be physical security for everybody, not only for the few; but that physical security for everybody is denied when psychological security is sought through nations, through religions, through the family.

J. Krishnamurti/The Flight of the Eagle, p57

Meeting violence in another

Questioner: How do we meet violence in other people?

Krishnamurti: My neighbour is violent: how shall I deal with it? Turn the other cheek? He is delighted. What shall I do? Would you ask that question if you were really non-violent, if there were no violence in you? Do listen to this question. If in your heart, in your mind, there is no violence at all, no hate, no bitterness, no sense of fulfilment, no wanting to be free, no violence at all, would you ask that question about how you meet the neighbour who is violent? Or would you know then what to do with your neighbour? Others may call what you do violent, but you may not be violent; at that moment your neighbour acts violently you will know how to deal with the situation. But a third person, watching, might say, “You are also violent.” But you know that you are not violent. So what is important is to be for yourself completely without violence—and it does not matter what another calls you.

J. Krishnamurti/Beyond Violence, pp 83-84

In the presence of anger

The brain when faced with violence undergoes a rapid chemical change; it reacts much quicker than the blow. One’s whole body reacts and there is immediate response; one may not hit back, but the very presence of anger or hatred causes this response and there is action.

In the presence of a person who is angry, see what takes place if one is aware of it and does not respond. The moment one is aware of the other person’s anger and one does not react oneself, there is quite a different response. One’s instinct is to respond to hate by hate, to anger by anger; there is the welling up chemically which creates in the system the nervous reactions. But quieten all this in the presence of anger, and a different action takes place.

J. Krishnamurti/Questions and Answers, p 23

Is there righteous anger ever?

Is there righteous anger ever? Or is there only anger? There is no good influence or bad influence, only influence, but when you are influenced by something which doesn’t suit me I call it an evil influence.

The moment you protect your family, your country, a bit of coloured rag called a flag, a belief, an idea, a dogma, the thing that you demand or that you hold, that very protection indicates anger. So can you look at anger without any explanation or justification, without saying, “I must protect my goods,” or “I was right to be angry,” or “How stupid of me to be angry”? Can you look at anger as if it were something by itself? Can you look at completely objectively, which means neither defending it nor condemning it?

J Krishnamurti/Freedom from the Known, p 52

Not escaping from the fact of violence

If there was no ideal at all, you would be left with “what is”. Would that make one complacent? Or would you then have the energy, the interest, the vitality to solve ‘what is’? Is not the ideal of non-violence an escape from the fact of violence? When the mind is not escaping, but is confronted with the fact of violence—that it is violent, not condemning it, not judging it—then surely such a mind has an entirely different quality and there is no longer violence.

J. Krishnamurti/The Flight of the Eagle, p 32

Why should I have the opposite as non-violence?

Man is all the time trying to become non-violent. So there is conflict between “what is”, which is violence, and “what should be”, which is non-violence. There is conflict between the two. That is the very essence of wastage of energy. As long there is duality between “what is” and “what should be”—man trying to become something else, making an effort to achieve “what should be”—that conflict is waste of energy. As long as there is conflict between the opposite, man has not enough energy to change. Why should I have the opposite at all, as non-violence, as the ideal?

J. Krishnamurti/The Flight of the Eagle, p56

Non-violence is not a fact

Non-violence has been preached over and over again, politically, religiously, by various leaders that you have had. Non-violence is not a fact; it is just an idea, a theory, a set of words; the actual fact is that you are violent. That is the fact. That is “what is”. But we are not capable of understanding “what is”, and that is why we create this nonsense called non-violence. And that gives rise to the conflict between “what is” and “what should be”. All the while you are pursuing non-violence you are sowing the seeds of violence. This is so obvious. So, can we together look at “what is” without any escape, without any ideals, without suppressing or escaping from “what is”?

J. Krishnamurti/The Flame of Attention, p 74

The whole spectrum of violence

There are so many different kinds of violence. Shall we go into each kind of violence or shall we take the whole structure of violence? Can we look at the whole spectrum of violence, not just at one part of it?…The source of violence is the “me”, the ego, the self, which expresses itself in so many ways—in division, in trying to become or be somebody—which divides itself as the “me” and the “not me”, as the unconscious and the conscious; the “me” that identifies with the family or not with the family, with the community or not with the community and so on. It is like a stone dropped in a lake; the waves spread and spread, at the centre is the “me”. As long as the “me” survives in any form, very subtly or grossly, there must be violence.

J. Krishnamurti/Beyond Violence, p 74

The depths of violence

Violence is not merely killing another. It is violence when we use a sharp word, when we make a gesture to brush away a person, when we obey because there is fear. So violence isn’t merely organized butchery in the name of God, in the name of society or country. Violence is much more subtle, much deeper, and we are inquiring into the very depths of violence. When you call yourself an Indian or a Muslim or a Christian or a European, or anything else, you are being violent. Do you know why it is violent? Because you are separating yourself from the rest of mankind. When you separate yourself by belief, by nationality, by tradition, it breeds violence. So a man who is seeking to understand violence does not belong to any country, to any religion, to any political party or system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.

J. Krishnamurti/Freedom from the Known, pp 51-52

The common ground

This is the common ground on which all humanity stands. And whatever happens in the field of this consciousness we are responsible. That is: If I am violent, I am adding violence to that consciousness which is common to all of us. If I am not violent, I am not adding to it, I am bringing a totally new factor to that consciousness. So I am profoundly responsible either to contribute to that violence, to that confusion, to the terrible division; or as I recognize deeply in my heart, in my blood, in the depths of my being, that I am the rest of the world, I am mankind, I am the world, the world is not separate from me, then I become totally responsible.

J. Krishnamurti/Social Responsibility, pp 19-20

You are the world

You are the world, you are not separate from the world. You are not an American, Russian, Hindu, or Muslim. You are apart from these labels and words, you are the rest of mankind because your consciousness, your reactions are similar to the others. You may speak a different language, have different customs, that is superficial culture—all cultures apparently are superficial—but your consciousness, your reactions, your faith, your beliefs, your ideologies, your fears, anxieties, loneliness, sorrow, and pleasure are similar to the rest of mankind. If you change, it will affect the whole of mankind.
J. Krishnamurti/Krishnamurti to Himself, p 61

It is not an individual thinking

Your consciousness is not yours any more than your thinking. It is not an individual thinking. Thinking is common, is general, from the poorest man, the most uneducated, unsophisticated man in a little, tiny village to the most sophisticated brain—the great scientists; they all think. The thinking may be more complex, but thinking is general, shared by all human beings. Therefore, it is not your individual thinking. This is rather difficult to see and to recognize the truth of it, because we are so conditioned as individuals. All your religious books, whether Christian or Muslim or another, all sustain and nourish this idea, this concept of an individual. You have to question that. You have to find out the truth of the matter.

J. Krishnamurti/Mind Without Measure, p 37

Education is the understanding of oneself

The ignorant man is not the unlearned, but he who does not know himself, and the learned man is stupid when he relies on books, on knowledge and on authority to give him understanding. Understanding comes only through self- knowledge, which is awareness of one's total psychological process. Thus education, in the true sense, is the understanding of oneself, for it is within each one of us that the whole of existence is gathered.

What we now call education is a matter of accumulating information and knowledge from books, which anyone can do who can read. Such education offers a subtle form of escape from ourselves and, like all escapes, it inevitably creates increasing misery. Conflict and confusion result from our own wrong relationship with people, things and ideas, and until we understand that relationship and alter it, mere learning, the gathering of facts and the acquiring of various skills, can only lead us to engulfing chaos and destruction.

J. Krishnamurti, Education and the Significance of Life