About
Author:
Jiddu Krishnamurti was born on 11
May 1895 in Madanapalle, a small town in south India. He and his brother were
adopted in their youth by Dr Annie Besant, then president of the Theosophical
Society. His books include The Songs of Life (1931) and Commentaries on Living
(1956–60). He died on 17 February 1986.
About
Prose:
Freedom from the Known is a book
by Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895–1986), originally published 1969. It contains 16
chapters.
Summary:
In Chapter 6 of "Freedom From the Known," J. Krishnamurti delves into the nature of freedom, defining it as a state that goes beyond societal conditioning and personal experiences. He asserts that genuine freedom cannot be achieved through established beliefs, traditions, or psychological patterns; rather, it emerges from a profound self-awareness and the capacity to observe one's thoughts and emotions without attachment.
Krishnamurti contends that the quest for knowledge and security often results in a form of bondage, as people become attached to familiar concepts and identities. He urges readers to challenge their assumptions and to welcome uncertainty as a means to achieve liberation. By relinquishing the known, individuals can unlock a sense of openness and creativity, paving the way for authentic transformation.
The chapter underscores the significance of awareness and mindfulness in overcoming conditioned responses. Krishnamurti emphasizes that such awareness is crucial for developing a deeper connection with oneself and the surrounding world, ultimately leading to a more genuine and fulfilling life. He encourages readers to engage in self-inquiry, which can foster a richer understanding of what true freedom entails.
Text: Chapter 6
FEAR, PLEASURE, SORROW, thought
and violence are all interrelated. Most of us take pleasure in violence, in
disliking somebody, hating a particular race or group of people, having
antagonistic feelings towards others. But in a state of mind in which all
violence has come to an end there is a joy which is very different from the
pleasure of violence with its conflicts, hatreds and fears.
Can we go to the very root of
violence and be free from it? Otherwise we shall live everlastingly in battle
with each other. If that is the way you want to live - and apparently most
people do - then carry on; if you say, `Well, I'm sorry, violence can never
end', then you and I have no means of communication, you have blocked yourself;
but if you say there might be a different way of living, then we shall be able
to communicate with each other.
So let us consider together,
those of us who can communicate, whether it is at all possible totally to end
every form of violence in ourselves and still live in this monstrously brutal
world. I think it is possible. I don't want to have a breath of hate, jealousy,
anxiety or fear in me. I want to live completely at peace. Which doesn't mean
that I want to die. I want to live on this marvellous earth, so full, so rich,
so beautiful. I want to look at the trees, flowers, rivers, meadows, women,
boys and girls, and at the same time live completely at peace with myself and
with the world. What can I do?
If we know how to look at
violence, not only outwardly in society - the wars, the riots, the national
antagonisms and class conflicts - but also in ourselves, then perhaps we shall
be able to go beyond it.
Here is a very complex problem.
For centuries upon centuries man has been violent; religions have tried to tame
him throughout the world and none of them have succeeded. So if we are going
into the question we must, it seems to me, be at least very serious about it
because it will lead us into quite a different domain, but if we want merely to
play with the problem for intellectual entertainment we shall not get very far.
You may feel that you yourself
are very serious about the problem but that as long as so many other people in
the world are not serious and are not prepared to do anything about it, what is
the good of your doing anything? I don't care whether they take it seriously or
not. I take it seriously, that is enough. I am not my brother's keeper. I
myself, as a human being, feel very strongly about this question of violence
and I will see to it that in myself I am not violent - but I cannot tell you or
anybody else, `Don't be violent.' It has no meaning - unless you yourself want
it. So if you yourself really want to understand this problem of violence let
us continue on our journey of exploration together.
Is this problem of violence out
there or here? Do you want to solve the problem in the outside world or are you
questioning violence itself as it is in you? If you are free of violence in
yourself the question is, `How am I to live in a world full of violence,
acquisitiveness, greed, envy, brutality? Will I not be destroyed?' That is the
inevitable question which is invariably asked. When you ask such a question it
seems to me you are not actually living peacefully. If you live peacefully you
will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join
the army or shot because you refuse to fight - but that is not a problem; you
will be shot. it is extraordinarily important to understand this.
We are trying to understand
violence as a fact, not as an idea, as a fact which exists in the human being,
and the human being is myself. And to go into the problem I must be completely
vulnerable, open, to it. I must expose myself to myself - not necessarily
expose myself to you because you may not be interested - but I must be in a
state of mind that demands to see this thing right to the end and at no point
stops and says I will go no further.
Now it must be obvious to me that
I am a violent human being. I have experienced violence in anger, violence in
my sexual demands, violence in hatred, creating enmity, violence in jealousy
and so on - I have experienced it, I have known it, and I say to myself, `I
want to understand this whole problem not just one fragment of it expressed in
war, but this aggression in man which also exists in the animals and of which I
am a part.'
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 see 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
partial system; he is concerned with the total understanding of mankind.
Now there are two primary schools
of thought with regard to violence, one which says, `Violence is innate in man'
and the other which says, `Violence is the result of the social and cultural
heritage in which man lives.' We are not concerned with which school we belong
to - it is of no importance. What is important is the fact that we are violent,
not the reason for it.
One of the most common
expressions of violence is anger. When my wife or sister is attacked I say I am
righteously angry; when my country is attacked, my ideas, my principles, my way
of life, I am righteously angry. I am also angry when my habits are attacked or
my petty little opinions. When you tread on my toes or insult me I get angry,
or if you run away with my wife and I get jealous, that jealousy is called
righteous because she is my property. And all this anger is morally justified.
But to kill for my country is also justified. So when we are talking about
anger, which is a part of violence, do we look at anger in terms of righteous
and unrighteous anger according to our own inclinations and environmental
drive, or do we see only anger? 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 it completely objectively, which means
neither defending it nor condemning it? Can you?
Can I look at you if I am
antagonistic to you or if I am thinking what a marvellous person you are? I can
see you only when I look at you with a certain care in which neither of these
things is involved. Now, can I look at anger in the same way, which means that
I am vulnerable to the problem, I do not resist it, I am watching this
extraordinary phenomenon without any reaction to it?
It is very difficult to look at
anger dispassionately because it is a part of me, but that is what I am trying
to do. Here I am, a violent human being, whether I am black, brown, white or
purple. I am not concerned with whether I have inherited this violence or
whether society has produced it in me; all I am concerned with is whether it is
at all possible to be free from it. To be free from violence means everything
to me. It is more important to me than sex, food, position, for this thing is
corrupting me. It is destroying me and destroying the world, and I want to
understand it, I want to be beyond it. I feel responsible for all this anger
and violence in the world. I feel responsible - it isn't just a lot of words -
and I say to myself, `I can do something only if I am beyond anger myself,
beyond violence, beyond nationality'. And this feeling I have that I must
understand the violence in myself brings tremendous vitality and passion to
find out.
But to be beyond violence I
cannot suppress it, I cannot deny it, I cannot say, `Well, it is a part of me
and that's that', or `I don't want it'. I have to look at it, I have to study
it, I must become very intimate with it and I cannot become intimate with it if
I condemn it or justify it. We do condemn it, though; we do justify it.
Therefore I am saying, stop for the time being condemning it or justifying it.
Now, if you want to stop
violence, if you want to stop wars, how much vitality, how much of yourself, do
you give to it? Isn't it important to you that your children are killed, that
your sons go into the army where they are bullied and butchered? Don't you
care? My God, if that doesn't interest you, what does? Guarding your money?
Having a good time? Taking drugs? Don't you see that this violence in yourself
is destroying your children? Or do you see it only as some abstraction?
All right then, if you are
interested, attend with all your heart and mind to find out. Don't just sit
back and say, `Well, tell us all about it'. I point out to you that you cannot
look at anger nor at violence with eyes that condemn or justify and that if
this violence is not a burning problem to you, you cannot put those two things
away. So first you have to learn; you have to learn how to look at anger, how
to look at your husband, your wife, your children; you have to listen to the
politician, you have to learn why you are not objective, why you condemn or
justify. You have to learn that you condemn and justify because it is part of
the social structure you live in, your conditioning as a German or an Indian or
a Negro or an American or whatever you happen to have been born, with all the
dulling of the mind that this conditioning results in. To learn, to discover,
something fundamental you must have the capacity to go deeply. If you have a
blunt instrument, a dull instrument, you cannot go deeply. So what we are doing
is sharpening the instrument, which is the mind - the mind which has been made
dull by all this justifying and condemning. You can penetrate deeply only if your
mind is as sharp as a needle and as strong as a diamond. It is no good just
sitting back and asking, `How am I to get such a mind?' You have to want it as
you want your next meal, and to have it you must see that what makes your mind
dull and stupid is this sense of invulnerability which has built walls round
itself and which is part of this condemnation and justification. If the mind
can be rid of that, then you can look, study, penetrate, and perhaps come to a
state that is totally aware of the whole problem.
So let us come back to the
central issue - is it possible to eradicate violence in ourselves? It is a form
of violence to say, `You haven't changed, why haven't you?' I am not doing
that. It doesn't mean a thing to me to convince you of anything. It is your
life, not my life. The way you live is your affair. I am asking whether it is
possible for a human being living psychologically in any society to clear
violence from himself inwardly? If it is, the very process will produce a
different way of living in this world.
Most of us have accepted violence
as a way of life. Two dreadful wars have taught us nothing except to build more
and more barriers between human beings that is, between you and me. But for
those of us who want to be rid of violence, how is it to be done? I do not
think anything is going to be achieved through analysis, either by ourselves or
by a professional. We might be able to modify ourselves slightly, live a little
more quietly with a little more affection, but in itself it will not give total
perception. But I must know how to analyse which means that in the process of
analysis my mind becomes extraordinarily sharp, and it is that quality of
sharpness, of attention, of seriousness, which will give total perception. One
hasn't the eyes to see the whole thing at a glance; this clarity of the eye is
possible only if one can see the details, then jump. Some of us, in order to
rid ourselves of violence, have used a concept, an ideal, called non-violence,
and we think by having an ideal of the opposite to violence, non-violence, we
can get rid of the fact, the actual - but we cannot. We have had ideals without
number, all the sacred books are full of them, yet we are still violent - so
why not deal with violence itself and forget the word altogether?
If you want to understand the
actual you must give your whole attention, all your energy, to it. That
attention and energy are distracted when you create a fictitious, ideal world.
So can you completely banish the ideal? The man who is really serious, with the
urge to find out what truth is, what love is, has no concept at all. He lives
only in what is.
To investigate the fact of your
own anger you must pass no judgement on it, for the moment you conceive of its
opposite you condemn it and therefore you cannot see it as it is. When you say
you dislike or hate someone that is a fact, although it sounds terrible. If you
look at it, go into it completely, it ceases, but if you say, `I must not hate;
I must have love in my heart', then you are living in a hypocritical world with
double standards. To live completely, fully, in the moment is to live with what
is, the actual, without any sense of condemnation or justification - then you
understand it so totally that you are finished with it. When you see clearly
the problem is solved.
But can you see the face of
violence clearly - the face of violence not only outside you but inside you,
which means that you are totally free from violence because you have not
admitted ideology through which to get rid of it? This requires very deep
meditation not just a verbal agreement or disagreement.
You have now read a series of
statements but have you really understood? Your conditioned mind, your way of
life, the whole structure of the society in which you live, prevent you from
looking at a fact and being entirely free from it immediately. You say, `I will
think about it; I will consider whether it is possible to be free from violence
or not. I will try to be free.' That is one of the most dreadful statements you
can make, `I will try'. There is no trying, no doing your best. Either you do
it or you don't do it. You are admitting time while the house is burning. The
house is burning as a result of the violence throughout the world and in
yourself and you say, `Let me think about it. Which ideology is best to put out
the fire?' When the house is on fire, do you argue about the colour of the hair
of the man who brings the water?
***************************************************************************************
For more summaries and videos subscribe @Saipedia YouTube Channel
and follow www.englishlitmeet.blogspot.com Blogger
Posts
