The Ending of

Psychological Time

Thought Shattering Itself Against

Its Own Nothingness

June 17 New York City, USA

July 6 - 8 Taiwan
July 14 - 15 Beijing, China
July 17 Shanghai, China
August 3 Seoul, Korea
October 19 - 21 Ojai, USA

Jaap Sluijter - Executive Director of the Krishnamurti Foundation of America


1

CONTENTS:

[1] Psychological Time p. 3

[2] Time and Becoming p. 19

[3] The Dangers of Psychological Time p. 22

[4] The Ending of Time p. 24

[5] Meditation: The Ending of Time,

Thought & Sorrow p. 31

2

[1] PSYCHOLOGICAL TIME
[1.1] J. Krishnamurti, Talks with American Students, Chapter 4, 1st Talk at
Morcelo, Puerto Rico, 14th September, 1968

Questioner: Can we go into the question of time here?

Krishnamurti: The question is, that we may cut it immediately, but does this last?
Now, can we go into this question of time which you previously raised, time and
space? Now, he said, I can cut it immediately but it does not last. The `lasting' is a
question of time. Time is duration, isn't it? That is, I can be instantly non-angry, but
this state does not last, I may be angry again next minute. So, one has to find out what
time is; not what some philosophers say - because I do not know what they say, I do
not read books at all, fortunately for me. One can see what time is. What is time?
There is time by the watch, chronological time, the time it takes to go from here to a
house; time involves the covering of that space between here and your house. The
house is a fixed object - please listen to this carefully - the house is a fixed object and
the time that it takes to cover that distance is measurable. So there is time according
to the watch. That is clear. There was time as yesterday, today and tomorrow, which
again is part of chronological time; yesterday I was in London, today I am here,
tomorrow I am in New York. Again, this covers distance through time by the watch.
That is clear. I am not a philosopher therefore please forgive me. (Laughter) Is there
any other time??

Questioner: The time we spend in life?

Krishnamurti: That is, what? The days you spend in living? The time, growing old,
dying, covering a space and ending? Please, I am asking something, do listen to it. Is
there any other time except chronological time. Questioner: Psychological time.

Krishnamurti: There is a time which is called psychological. So there are two times,
the time of yesterday, today and tomorrow, the distance, the time you take between
here and your house; that is one kind of time. It takes time to learn a language,
collecting a lot of words, memorizing them; that will take time. Learning a technique,
learning a craft, learning a skill - all that implies time - chronological time. Then there
is psychological time, the time that mind has invented. The mind that says, I will be
the President, tomorrow I will be good, I will achieve, I will become successful, I will
be more prosperous, I will attain perfection, I will become the Commissar, I will be
this, I will be that. There, time is between the goal and the present state. That goal
which I have set myself to achieve, will take time - I must struggle, I must drive, I must
be ambitious, I must be brutal, I must push everybody aside. These are all projections

3

of the mind and what it wants to achieve; they create psychological time. So we have
these two kinds of time, chronological time and psychological time.

Questioner: Is there any difference? I do become the President or I do learn Italian and
this say takes six months or six years.

Krishnamurti: Yes, is does take time. I recognise these two states, the chronological
and the psychological. But is psychological time true or is it an illusion? You haven't
understood, Sir? I am asking myself, does psychological time exist at all

Questioner: Inaudible.

Krishnamurti: Yes, Sir, I understand, but we have to go into it very deeply, we must go
very slowly. Don't let us assert anything. Do not say, it is an illusion, it is not an
illusion, it is like this or like that, do not let us fall into that absurdity. Here are two
facts, one, I am this, the other that I want to be that, whether it is a big thing or a little
thing. And that also implies space and time. And the other is getting from here to the
house, distance to cover, involving time say to myself, both seem to be true, true in the
sense that I have a goal, I want to be powerful, I want to be rich, I want to be famous,
and I drive towards that. To become famous takes time, because the image which I
have created of fame is there in the distance and I must cover it, through time, because
I am not that image now, but I will be in the future. I am not at the house now. I am
here. It will take time. And now I want to be famous. Psychologically, that is my
projection, the image which I have created of fame. You see that, there it is. I have
projected it, it is my image because I have compared other famous people and I want
to be like them.

And that implies struggle, competitiveness and ruthlessness. it is an actual thing I want,
do I not? I want that and I struggle to get it. I do not question why I have created that
image. I do not question what is involved in arriving at that image. I just say, `I must
be that image'. So in this there is a great deal of conflict, pain, suffering, and brutality.
And that is my conditioning, because people have told me from childhood that I must
be this, I must pass my exams, I must be a great man, I must be a business man, a
lawyer, a professor, whatever it is.

So I have created that image and I have not found out why I have done so. If I see the
absurdity of that image, if I see the futility, the pain, the agony, the anxiety, everything
that is involved in it, I do not create the image, therefore I abolish

Questioner: What is wrong with learning Italian in time?

Krishnamurti: No, please, do not mix up the two, please keep it...

4

Questioner: Two psychological states, I am nobody and tomorrow I will be somebody.

Krishnamurti: I am nobody and tomorrow I will be somebody. The `tomorrow' is

there in my mind. I am waiting for tomorrow to happen. So there is time (or I think
there is). I will be famous. The words `will be' are in the future. So, I ask myself, is
there a tomorrow at all? Tomorrow exists only when I want to be something.

Questioner: Can I be free of psychological time?

Krishnamurti: I am showing it to you, Sir. Can man be free from psychological time?
Find out for yourself, Sirs; you can see it. If I want to be famous, I cannot be free from
time. If I say, I am nobody, and I want to be somebody, I am a slave to time. Now I
am nobody, why should I be someone? - I am nobody.

Krishnamurti: No, the somebody has a bigger car, a bigger house. Don't let's mix up
words. I am nobody, but I want to be somebody. There is in this the whole process of
time. If I do not want to be anybody, is there psychological time? I am what I am.
But if I want to change myself into something, then time begins. But I must change, I
cannot remain as I am. Are you following all this?

Look, I am nobody. Please follow this step by step. I am nobody and I want to be
somebody. In that is involved time, pain and the rest. The demand for being
somebody, for change from being nobody, that kind of change I discard as it is absurd,
unintelligent, immature. So I say, I am nobody. If I remain as nobody, there is
nothing. I am nobody, there is nothing in me. But that quality must also change.
Those poor chaps in those huts, (I do not know how you can stand those huts around
here!) - that poor chap in that hut he is nobody. He cannot become anybody because
he is uneducated, he is this and he is that. But he also wants to become somebody
because he sees the house next door is a bigger house. So the wanting to be somebody
is through comparison. We all look at this through comparison. Now, can the mind
eliminate all comparison? Then I will not say, `I am nobody'.

Why should I project? I want to learn Italian and I will learn it. It will take time and I
will work at it. I have to be in New York on the 23rd of this month. I will plan, I will
buy a ticket. There is no projection, there is no image, I have to do the practical things
that will get me there. But I might say to myself: `I am going to New York and it will
be much more exciting than living here and all the rest of it'. Now is it possible for the
mind not to compare and therefore - but you do not see the beauty of it - and
therefore have no time at all. Am I answering your question, Sir?

~.~

5

Questioner: Can one be satisfied with what one is and not be concerned with the
neighbour?

Krishnamurti: Are you really concerned with the neighbour? That neighbour down
below? Are you? Obviously not. And you are not satisfied with what you are. The
moment you use the word `satisfied' and `not satisfied' there is comparison.
Obviously. So, you eliminate altogether words like `better', `the more'. So you see,
time, psychological time exists only when there is a state of comparison and that
includes dissatisfaction, feeling of inferiority, feeling that you must achieve, that you
must be - all that is implied in comparison. And when you say, `I am nobody', that
word is a comparative word, otherwise you would not use that word. So time,
psychological time exists when there is this comparative mind, the mind that measures
psychologically. Now, can I, can the mind exist without measuring - exist, live, not
just go to sleep - be tremendously active, alive to its fullest depth? That is only possible
when there is no comparison.

Psychological time exists only when there is comparison, when there is a distance to be
covered between `what is' and `what should be', which is the desire to become
somebody or nobody, all that involves psychological time and the distance to be
covered. So one says, is there a tomorrow, psychologically? And this you will not be
able to answer. Is there tomorrow - `tomorrow' having come into being because I
have had a moment of complete freedom, a complete feeling of something, and it has
gone. I would like to keep it, to make it last. Making it last is a form of greed. We
struggle to achieve that thing again. All this is implied in psychological time. When
you have some experience of joy, of pleasure or whatever it is, live it completely and do
not demand that it should endure, because then you are caught in time.

So, is there tomorrow? That is, tomorrow is ahead and I have had a feeling today of
great happiness and want to know if it will last. How can I keep it so that it will always
last? Memory of that pleasure makes you want that memory to continue and if it
continues, you prevent further experience altogether. It is fairly simple, this.

[1.2] J. Krishnamurti, The Awakening of Intelligence, Part VIII, Chapter 4, 5th

Public Dialogue, Saanen, 8th August 1971, 'FEAR, TIME AND THE IMAGE'

Questioner: When thought meets the unknown, it doesn't know what to do. Now if
you have thought without time, if there is no time, then there is no fear.

Krishnamurti: Would you like to talk about that?

Audience: Yes.

6

Krishnamurti: What is time? I had to be here this morning in spite of the bad weather
at half past ten and I was. If I did not come on time, I would keep you all waiting.
There is time by the watch - yesterday, today and tomorrow. There is time to cover a
certain distance - between here and the moon, to go from here to Montreux, and so
on. There is also time to cover the distance between the image of myself - or the
image I have projected of myself - and what "I should be", and the distance between
what "I am" and what "I should like to be", between fear and the ending of fear. We
must understand this.

Questioner: Can you give practical examples as you go along?

Krishnamurti: I am not good at giving practical examples. What I am saying is fairly

simple. I am not a philosopher, I don't spin theories. So there is time as yesterday,
today and tomorrow; and there is time - at least we think there is time - between what
I am and what I should be, between the fact of fear and the eventual ending of fear.
Both are time, aren't they? - chronological time, and time as invented by thought. "I
am this" and "I should change to that" and to cover that distance between what I am
and what I should be I need time. That also is time. It will take me many days, or
many weeks, to do certain exercises properly, to loosen up my muscles - to do that I
need time; I shall take perhaps three days, or a week: that's time.

So when we talk about time, let us be clear what we are talking about. There is
chronological time, as yesterday, today and tomorrow; and there is the time which we
think is necessary to achieve an ending to fear. Time is part of fear, isn't it? I am
afraid of the future - not of what might happen in the future but of the idea of the
future, the idea of tomorrow. So there is psychological time and chronological time.
We are not talking about chronological time, time by the watch. What we are talking
about is, "I am all right now, but I am afraid of the future, of tomorrow." Let's call that
psychological time.

Now I am asking, is there such a thing as psychological time at all, or is it merely an

invention of thought? "I shall meet you tomorrow, under a tree, near the bridge" - that
is chronological time. "I am afraid of tomorrow and I don't know how to meet that
fear of tomorrow" - that is psychological time, isn't it?

Questioner: How about if I say, " Why must this beautiful thing come to an end?"

Krishnamurti: That is also psychological time, isn't it? I feel a particular relationship
to something beautiful and I don't want it to end. There is the idea that it might
come to an end and I won't like it to end, and I am afraid of it. So that's one part of
the structure of fear.

7

The other is, I have known security, certainty, and tomorrow is uncertain and I am
afraid of that - that is psychological time, isn't it? I have lived a life of quasi-security,
but tomorrow is dreadfully uncertain and I am frightened of it. Then arises my
problem: how am I not to be afraid? All that is involved, surely, is it not, in
psychological time? The knowledge of yesterday, of many thousand yesterdays, has
given to the brain a certain sense of security, knowledge being experience,
remembrance, memories. In the past there has been security for the brain; tomorrow
there may be no security at all, I might be killed.

Knowledge as time gives to the brain a sense of security. So knowledge is of time. But
I have no knowledge of tomorrow, therefore I am afraid. If I had knowledge of
tomorrow I would not be afraid. So knowledge breeds fear, and yet I must have
knowledge. You are following? I must have knowledge to go from here to the station,
I must have knowledge to speak English, or French, or whatever it is; I must have
knowledge to carry out any kind of function. I have accumulated knowledge about
myself as the experiencer, and yet that experiencer is frightened of tomorrow because
he does not know tomorrow.

Questioner: What about repetition?

Krishnamurti: It is the same thing, it is mechanical. After all, knowledge is repetitive.

I add to it or take away from it, but it's a machinery of accumulation.
Questioner: What about the people who have terrible tragedies, who have seen people
slaughtered and tortured? Krishnamurti: What has that got to do with what we are
talking about?

Questioner: Well, you see, they remain with that fear.

Krishnamurti: We are talking about the relationship between thought and fear.

Questioner: But even so, people have been telling me how their fear remains in them
and they can't get rid of it because for them man is a beast.

Krishnamurti: It is the same problem, surely. That is, I have been hurt, by a snake or by
a human being. That hurt has left a deep mark on my brain and I am afraid of snakes
or of human beings - which is the past. Also I am afraid of tomorrow. It is the same
problem, isn't it? - only one is in the past, the other is in the future.

Questioner: It's only difficult when you say, "Knowledge of yesterday has given
security." Some people find the knowledge of yesterday has given them insecurity.

Krishnamurti: Knowledge gives security and it also gives insecurity, doesn't it? I have
been hurt by human beings in the past - that's knowledge. That remains deeply rooted

8

and I loathe human beings, I am frightened of them. Questioner: One isn't speaking of
psychological knowledge but of physical torture.

Krishnamurti: Yes, physical torture which is again in the past.

Questioner: But you know that in the present people go on doing it.

Krishnamurti: You are mixing up two facts. We are talking about fear and its
relationship to thought. There are physical tortures going on in the world, people are
extraordinarily brutal and I like to think about it and get terribly excited. I feel morally
righteous about it and I can't do anything, can I? Sitting in this tent I can't do
anything about what is happening in another place. But I like to get neurotically
excited about it, and to say, "It's terrible what human beings are doing." No? What
can I actually do? Join a group that is going to stop this torture of human beings?
Make a demonstration in front of somebody? - and yet the torture will go on. What I
am concerned with is how to change the human mind so that it will not torture
human beings physically or psychologically in any way. But if I am neurotic I like to
keep on thinking, "How terrible this world is."

Now let's come back. I am afraid of what human beings have done to me, or to
another human being, and that knowledge is a scar in the brain. That is, knowledge of
the past not only gives certainty but also uncertainty, that I may be hurt tomorrow,
therefore I am afraid. Now why does the brain retain the memory of that hurt of
yesterday? In order to protect itself from future hurts? Let's think it out. That means, I
am always facing the world with that hurt and therefore I have no relationship with
another human bring, because the hurt is so deep. And I resist every human
relationship because I might get hurt again. Therefore there is fear. Knowledge of the
past hurt brings fear of future hurt. So knowledge brings fear - yet I must have
knowledge.

Knowledge has been accumulated through time. Scientific, technological knowledge,

knowledge of a language and so on need time. Knowledge, which is the product of
time, must exist, otherwise I can't do anything, I can't communicate with you. But
also I see that knowledge of a past hurt says, "Be careful not to be hurt in the future."
So I am afraid of the future.

So how am I, who have been scarred very deeply, how am I to be free of that and not
project that knowledge into the future, saying, "I am afraid of the future." There are
two problems involved, aren't there? There is the scar of pain, Can the mind be free of
that scar? Now let's examine that. I am sure most of us have some kind of
psychological scars. Haven't you? - of course. We are not talking about the physical
scars which affect the brain - we can leave that aside for the moment. There are the
psychological scars of hurt. How is the mind, the brain, to be free of them? Must it be

9

free of them? Is not the memory of being hurt a protection against the future?
Verbally, in many ways you have hurt me; there is a memory of it. If I forget that, I
come innocently to you next morning and you hurt me again. So what am I to do?
Think it out, Sirs, go on.

[1.3] J. Krishnamurti, The Wholeness of Life, Part II, Chapter 9, 7th Public Talk,
Saanen, 24th July 1977, 'Because there is space, there is emptiness and total silence.'

Time, for us, is very important, both chronologically and psychologically. We depend
so much on psychological time. Time is related to movement - from here to there
takes time. A distance to be covered, to arrive at a goal, to fulfill a purpose, requires
time.

To learn a language requires time. That has been carried over into the psychological
field: "We need time to be perfect; we need time to get over something; we need time
to be free of our anxieties; to be free of our sorrow; to be free of our fears and so on."
Time is needed in practical matters, in the field of technology and so on and that need
for time has been introduced into our psychological life and we have accepted it. To
wipe away our nationalities, to become brotherly we think we need time.
Psychological time implies hope; the world is mad, let us hope in the future there will
be a sane world. We are questioning whether there is such a thing as psychological
time at all. We ask: Is there an action in which time is not involved at all? Action
arising from a cause, a motive, needs time. Action based on a pattern of memory
needs time to put into action. If you have an ideal, however noble, however beautiful
and romantic, however nonsensical even, you need time to arrive at that idealistic
state. And to arrive at that you destroy the present. It does not matter what happens to
you now; what is important is the future. For the sake of the future sacrifice yourself
now - some marvelous future established by the ideologists, the religious teachers and
so on throughout the world. We question that and ask whether there is any
psychological time at all and therefore no hope. "What shall I do if I have no hope?"
Hope is so important because it gives you satisfaction, energy, drive to achieve
something.

When one looks closely, non-sentimentally, logically, is there psychological time at all?
There is psychological time only when one moves away from "what is". There is
psychological time when one realizes that one is violent and then proceeds to enquire
how to be free of it; that movement away from "what is" is time. But if one is totally
and completely aware of "what is", then there is no such time.

Most of us are violent. Violence is not only hitting somebody physically, but anger,
jealousy, acceptance of authority, conformity, imitation, accepting the edicts of
another. Human beings are violent; that is the fact - violence. The very word
"violence" condemns it. By the very usage of the word "violence" you have already

10

condemned violence. See the intricacies of this. Being violent and being negligent, or
lazy, we move away from it and invent ideological non-violence. That is time - the
movement from "what is" to "what should be". That time comes to an end,
completely, when there is only "what is" - which is non-verbal identification with
"what is". Anger is a form of violence, or hatred, jealousy. The words "anger",
"hatred" or "jealousy" in themselves are condemnatory; they are verbalizations, which
strengthen by reaction. When I say "I am angry," I have recognized from past angers
the present anger, so I am using the word "anger" which is of the past and identifying
that word with the present. The word has become extraordinarily important; yet if
there is no usage of the word so that there is only the fact, the reaction, then there is no
strengthening of that feeling.

Is it possible to live, psychologically, without tomorrow? To say: "I love you, I will
meet you tomorrow", that affection is in memory projected towards tomorrow. Is
there an activity without time at all? Love is not time; it is not a remembrance. If it is,
it is not love, obviously. "I love you because you gave me sex; or you gave me food, or
flattered me; or you said you needed a companion; I am lonely therefore I need you" -
all that is not love, surely? When there is jealousy, when there is anxiety or hatred that
is not love. So then what is love? Love is obviously a state of mind in which there is no
verbalization, no remembrance, but something immediate.

There is a way of living, in daily life, where time as movement from this state to that,
has gone. What happens when you do that? You have an extraordinary vitality, an
extraordinary sense of clarity. You are then only dealing with facts, not with ideas. But
as most of us are imprisoned in ideas and have accepted that way of life, it is very
difficult to break away. But, have an insight into it, then it is finished.

Our minds are so cluttered up, with knowledge, with worries, with problems, with
money, with position and prestige; they are so burdened that there is no space at all; yet
without space there is no order.

When I look at this valley from a height and there is a direction because I want to see
where I live, then I lose the vastness of space. Where there is direction space is limited.
Where there is a purpose, a goal, something to be achieved, there is no space. If you
have a purpose in life for which you are living, concentrating, where is there space?
Whereas if there is no concentration there is vast space.

When there is a centre from which we look, then space is very limited. When there is
no centre, that is to say, no structure of the me, which has been put together by,
thought, there is vast space. Without space there is no order, there is no clarity, there is
no compassion.

11

Living where there is no effort, where there is no action of will, where there is
tremendous space, is part of meditation.

So far we have only dealt with the waves on the surface of the ocean. You have only
dealt with the superficiality of it. Now, if you have gone so far you can go into the
depth of the ocean - of course you must understand how to dive deeply; not you dive,
it comes about.

There is concentration, choiceless awareness and attention. Concentration implies

resistance. Concentration on a particular thing, on the page you are reading, or on the
phrase you are trying to understand: to concentrate is to put all your energy in a
particular direction. In concentration there is resistance and therefore effort and
division. You want to concentrate, thought goes off on something else, you bring it
back - the fight. If you are interested in something you concentrate very easily.
Implied in the word concentrate is putting your mind on a particular object, a
particular picture, a particular action.

Choiceless awareness is to be aware both externally and inwardly, without any choice.
Just to be aware of the trees, the mountains, nature, just to be aware. Not choose,
saying, "I like this", "I don't like that", or "I want this", "I don't want that". It is to
observe without the observer. The observer is the past, which is conditioned, always
looking from that conditioned point of view, therefore there is like and dislike and so
on. To be choicelessly aware implies observing the whole environment around you,
the mountains, the trees, also the ugly world and the towns; just to be aware, observe
and in that observation there is no decision, no will, no choice.

In attention there is no centre, there is no me attending. When there is no me which

limits attention then attention is limitless; attention has limitless space.

After understanding all the waves on the surface - fear, authority, all the petty affairs
compared to that which we are going into - the mind has then emptied consciousness
of the whole of its content. It is empty; not through action of will, not through desire,
not through choice. Consciousness, then, is totally different, is of a totally different
dimension.

Because there is space there is emptiness and total silence - not induced silence, not
practised silence; which are all just the movement of thought and therefore absolutely
worthless. When you have gone through all this - and there is great delight in going
through all this, it is like playing a tremendous game - then in that total silence there is
a movement which is timeless, which is not measured by thought - thought has no
place in it whatsoever - then there is something totally sacred, timeless.

12

[1.4] J. Krishnamurti, London, 4th Public Talk, 12th June 1962

This evening I would like to talk about time and death; and I would also like to talk
about what we call love.

In these talks we are not dealing with ideas. Ideas are organized thought, and thought
does not solve our deep psychological problems. What really wipes away our problems
is facing them, not through the screen of thought, but coming directly and vitally into
contact with them, actually seeing and feeling the fact. If I may use the word, one has
to be emotionally - not sentimentally, but emotionally - in contact with the fact. If we
rely on thought, however clever, however well organized, however learned, logical, sane,
rational it may be, our psychological problems will never be solved. Because, as I was
pointing out the other day, it is thought that creates all our problems; and a man who
would really go into this whole question of death and not run away from it must find
out for himself how thought creates time, and how thought also prevents us from
understanding the meaning, the significance and the profundity of death.

Most of us are frightened of death, and we try to escape from that fear by rationalizing
death or we cling to various beliefs, rational or irrational, again manufactured by
thought.

Now, to go into this question of death demands, it seems to me, a mind that is not
only rational, logical, sane, but which is also able to look directly at the fact, to see
death as it is and not be overwhelmed by fear.

To understand fear, we must understand time. I do not mean time by the watch,
chronological time; that is fairly simple, that is mechanical, there is nothing much to
understand. I am talking about psychological time: the looking back to many
yesterdays, to all the things that we have known, felt, enjoyed, gathered and stored up
in memory. Remembrance of the past shapes our present, which in turn is projected
into the future. This whole process is psychological time, in which thought is caught.
Thought is the result of yesterday passing through; today to tomorrow. The thought
of the future is conditioned by the present, which again is conditioned by the past.

The past is made up of the things that the conscious mind learned at school, the jobs it
has held, the technical knowledge it has acquired, and so on, all of which is part of the
mechanical process of remembering; but it is also made up of psychological
knowledge, that is, the things that one has experienced and stored away, the memories
which are hidden deep in the unconscious. Most of us have not the time to inquire
into the unconscious, we are too busy, too occupied with our daily activities; so the
unconscious gives various hints and intimations in the form of dreams, and these
dreams then require interpretation.

13

All this, both the conscious and the unconscious process, is psychological time - time
as knowledge, time as experience, time as distance between what is and what should
be, time as a means to arrive, to succeed, to fulfill, to become. The conscious mind is
shaped by the unconscious; and it is very difficult to understand the hidden motives,
purposes and compulsions of the unconscious, because we cannot feel our way into
the unconscious through conscious effort. It must be approached negatively, not by the
positive process of analysis. The analyzer is conditioned by his memories; and his
positive approach to something which he does not know and of which he is not fully
aware, is of very little significance.

Similarly, we must approach death negatively, because we don't know what it is. We
have seen others die. We know there is death through disease, old age and decay, death
through accident, and death with a purpose; but we don't really know what it means
to die. We may rationalize death. Seeing old age coming upon us - gradual senility,
losing our memory, and so on - we may say, "Well, life is a process of birth, growth and
decay, and the ending of the physical mechanism is inevitable". But that doesn't bring
deep understanding of what death is.

Death must be something extraordinary, as life is. Life is a total thing. Sorrow, pain,
anguish, joy, absurd ideas, possession, envy, love, the aching misery of loneliness - all
that is life. And to understand death we must understand the whole of life, not take
just one fragment of it and live with that fragment, as most of us do. In the very
understanding of life there is the understanding of death, because the two are not
separate.

As I said, we are not dealing with ideas or beliefs, because they solve nothing. A man
who would know what it means to die, who would actually experience and know the
full significance of it, must be aware of death in living; that is, he must die every day.
Physically you can't die every day, although there is a physiological change going on
every moment. I am talking about dying psychologically, inwardly. The things that we
have gathered as experience, as knowledge, the pleasures and pains we have known -
dying to all that.

But you see, most of us don't want to die, because we are content with our living. And
our living is very ugly; it is mean, envious, a constant strife. Our living is a misery, with
occasional flashes of joy which soon become only a memory; and our death is also a
misery. But real death is to die psychologically to everything we know - which means
being able to face tomorrow without knowing what tomorrow is. This is not a theory
or a fanciful belief. Most people are afraid of death and therefore believe in
reincarnation, in resurrection, or cling to some other form of belief. But a man who
really wants to find out what death is, is not concerned with belief. Merely to believe is
immature. To find out what death is, you must know how to die psychologically.

14

I don't know if you have ever tried to die to something which is very close to you and
which gives you immense pleasure - to die to it, not with reason, not with conviction
or a purpose, but just to die to it as a leaf falls from the tree. If you can die in this way
every day, every minute, then you will know the ending of psychological time. And it
seems to me that for a mature mind, for a mind that would really inquire, death in this
sense is very important. Because to inquire is not to seek with a motive. You cannot
find out what is true if you have a motive, or if you are conditioned by a belief, by a
dogma. You must die to all that - die to society, to organized religion, to the various
forms of security that the mind clings to.

After all, beliefs and dogmas offer psychological security. We see that the world is in a
mess; there is universal confusion, and everything is changing very rapidly. Seeing all
this, we want something lasting, enduring, so we cling to a belief, to an ideal, to a
dogma, to some form of psychological security; and this prevents us from really finding
out what is true.

To discover something new, you must come to it with an innocent mind, a mind that
is fresh, young, uncontaminated by society. Society is the psychological structure of
envy, greed, ambition, power, prestige; and to find out what is true, one has to die to
that whole structure, not theoretically, not abstractly, but actually to die to envy, to the
pursuit of `the more'. As long as there is the pursuit of `the more' in any form, there
can be no comprehension of the enormous implication of death. We all know that
sooner or later live shall die physically, that time is passing and death will catch up with
us; and being afraid, we invent theories, we put together ideas about death, we
rationalize it. But that is not the understanding of death.

After all, with physical death you can't argue; you can't ask death to let you live another
day. It is absolutely final. And is it not possible to die to envy in the same way,
without argument, without asking what will happen to you tomorrow if you die to
envy, or to ambition? This means, really, understanding the whole process of
psychological time.

We are always thinking in terms of the future, planning for tomorrow psychologically.
I am not talking about practical planning, that is a different matter altogether. But
psychologically we want to be something tomorrow. The cunning mind pursues what
it has been and what it will be, and our lives are built on that pursuit. We are the result
of our memories, memory being psychological time. And is it possible effortlessly,
easily to die to that whole process?

You all want to die to something which is painful, and that is comparatively easy. But
I am talking of dying to something which gives you great pleasure, a great sense of
inward richness. If you die to the memory of a stimulating experience, to your visions,
to your hopes and fulfillments, then you are confronted with an extraordinary sense of

15

loneliness, and you have nothing to rely on. The churches, the books, the teachers, the
systems of philosophy - you can't trust any of them any more, which is just as well;
because if you put your trust in any of them, then you are still afraid, you are still
envious, greedy, ambitious, seeking power.

Unfortunately, when we don't trust anything we generally become bitter, cynical,

superficial, and then we just live from day to day, saying that is enough. But, however
cunning or philosophical the mind may be, that makes for a very shallow, petty life.

I do not know if you have ever tried this, if you have ever experimented with it: to die
effortlessly to everything that you know, not superficially but actually, without asking
what will happen tomorrow. If you can do this, you will come to an extraordinary
sense of loneliness, a state of nothingness where there is no tomorrow - and if you go
through it, it is not bleak despair; on the contrary.

After all, most of us are terribly lonely. You may have an interesting occupation, you
may have a family and plenty of money, you may have the wide knowledge of a learned
mind; but if you push all that aside when you are by yourself, you will know this
extraordinary sense of loneliness.

But you see, at such a moment we become very frightened. We never face that
loneliness; we never go through that emptiness to find out what it is. We turn on the
radio, read a book, chatter with friends, go to church, go to the cinema, take a drink -
all of which are on the same level because they all offer an escape. God is a cheerful
escape, just as drink is. When the mind is escaping, there is not much difference
between God and drink. Sociologically, perhaps, drink is not so good; but the escape
to God also has its detriment.

So, to understand death, not verbally or theoretically, but actually to experience it, one
must die to yesterday, to all one's memories, one's psychological wounds, the flattery,
the insults, the pettiness, the envy - one must die to all that, which is to die to oneself.
Because all that is oneself. And then you will find, if you have gone so far, that there is
an aloneness, which is not loneliness. Loneliness and aloneness are two different
things. But you cannot come to aloneness without going through and understanding
that state of loneliness in which relationship means nothing any more. Your
relationship with your wife, with your husband, with your son, your daughter, your
friends, your job - none of these relationships has meaning any more when you are
completely lonely. I am sure some of you have experienced that state. And when you
can go through it and beyond it, when you are no longer frightened by that word
`lonely', when you are dead to all the things that you have known and society has
ceased to influence you, then you will know the other. Society influences you only as
long as you belong to it psychologically. Society can have no influence on you
whatsoever from the moment you cut the psychological knot that binds you to it.

16

Then you are out of the clutches of social morality and respectability. But to go
through that loneliness without escaping, without verbalizing, which is to be with it
completely, requires a great deal of energy. You need energy to live with something
ugly and not let it corrupt you, just as you need energy to live with something beautiful
and not get used to it. That uncontaminated energy is the aloneness to which you
must come; and out of that negation, out of that total emptiness, there is creation.

Surely, all creation takes place in emptiness, not when your mind is full. Death has
meaning only when you die to all your vanities, your superficialities, to all your
innumerable remembrances. Then there is something which is beyond time,
something to which you cannot come if you have fear, if you cling to beliefs, if you are
caught in sorrow.

[1.5] J. Krishnamurti, Talks with American Students, Chapter 11, 4th Talk at
New School for Social Research, New York, 8th October 1968

Is it possible to see and live with `what is' and not with the contradiction of `what is',
not with the opposite of `what is' which brings about struggle, conflict, contradiction?
Is this possible? It is really quite an interesting problem; we have to understand this
question, because we have divided life into living and dying, hate and love, courage
and fear, goodness as opposed to evil and so on - endless opposites.

The opposites breed time. There are obviously two kinds of time; chronological time
and psychological time. There is psychological time, as not being or becoming - I am
this, I will be that, I am violent and I shall be non-violent. The division between `what
is' and `what should be' is the way of time. In that is involved becoming. I am violent
and to become non-violent, to become peaceful, I must have time. The non-violence
is the opposite of violence and this division breeds conflict, the conflict between
myself as I am and as I should be. In that is involved the whole process of psychological
time. And is there really psychological time at all? Obviously there is time by the
watch, you have to have time to catch a bus, train and so on; but is there any other
kind of time at all? - for that time breeds fear. That is to say, I am vicious and hateful
inwardly, I am psychologically ugly and thought projects the ideology of the non-
violence that is to be attained, an ideology of perfection and so on. So thought
involves time; and thought breeds fear. Thought breeds the fear of tomorrow - of
what might happen; thought maintains the past as `has been' and puts together the
various possibilities of `what will be'. Thought is afraid of the past as well as the
future. Thought is time, and time psychologically, is this division between `what has
been', `what is' and `what should be'.

We are dealing with the possibility of living so completely, so total in the active
present, that there is only the present and nothing else. And to find that, one must not

17

only investigate the whole question of psychological time, but the way thought uses
time as a means of achievement and how thereby it breeds fear. We were asking: is
there the opposite, the ideal? Or, is that merely a projection of thought, as a non-
actual opposite of `what is; and does it not do this because it does not know how to
deal with `what is'? How does one unravel it and how does one understand the
present?

Thought breeds the future as the ideal, and, as we said the other day, all ideals are
idiotic, they have no meaning whatsoever, they have led man into all kinds of wars,
inhumanities, division of people, hatred, various forms of suppression in the name of
the State, or in the name of God and so on. Unfortunately, we have many ideals; they
are the opposite of `what is'. And because we do not know how to deal with and how
to understand and go beyond `what is', we resort to the escapes of `what should be'.

Now, can we live with `what is' and go beyond it, not inventing an opposite and
thereby increasing the conflict, the misery, the struggle? One is violent, brutal,
aggressive, ambitious, envious - that is the fact, that is `what is', that is the actuality -
and all the opposites which man has invented have no reality whatsoever. Can the
mind live with that - without the opposite - and understand `what is' and go beyond
it? Because to understand the question of love and death - which is one of the most
essential problems of life - one must naturally live with `what is' - actually. Can I look
at myself, as I am, with my hates, anxieties, fears - all the innumerable tortures the
human mind goes through - live with myself, understand myself and go beyond,
without any effort? It is only possible when we eliminate altogether the opposites.
Am I making myself clear?

~.~

The psychological pain comes only when I am unwilling to understand myself as I am,
to face myself, to live with myself in my loneliness, not escape from it, to be completely
lonely. And all my activity, my thought, breeds this loneliness because I am self-
centred; I am thinking about myself all the time, my activity is isolating me in the
name of the family, in the name of God, in the name of business and so on,
psychologically my thinking is isolating. Loneliness is the result and to find out and to
go beyond it I have to live with it, understand it, not say `It is ugly, it is painful, it is
this or that' - I have to live with it. I do not know if you have lived with anything so
completely. If you have, then you will see that that which you so live with becomes
extraordinarily beautiful.

18

[2] TIME AND BECOMING
[2.1] J. Krishnamurti, Bombay, 4th Public Talk, 8th February 1948

Question: You cannot build a new world in the way you are doing it now. It is
obvious that the method of training laboriously a few chosen disciples will not make
any difference to humanity. It cannot. You may be able to leave a mark like Gandhiji,
Mohammed, Buddha, Krishna, have done. But, they have not fundamentally changed
the world - nor will you, unless you discover an entirely new way of approach to the
problem.
Krishnamurti: Let us think it out together. The question implies, does it not?, that
the wave of destruction, the wave of confusion, is co-existent with life; that the wave
of destruction, and life, are always together, running together simultaneously, and there
is no interval between them. So, the questioner says, `You may have a few disciples
who understand, a few who really perceive and transform themselves, but they cannot
transform the world'. And that is the problem: That man should be transformed, not
just a few. Christ, Buddha, and others have not transformed the world, because the
wave of destruction is always sweeping over mankind; and the questioner says, `Have
you a different way of solving this problem? If not, you will be like the rest of the
teachers. A few may come out of the chaos, the confusion, but the majority will be
swallowed up, destroyed'. You understand the problem, don't you? That is, the few
who escape from the burning house hope to draw others from the fire; but since the
vast majority are doomed to burn, many who are burning invent the theory of the
process of time: in the next life it will be alright. So, they look to time as a means of
transformation. That is the problem, is it not? A few of us may be out of this chaos,
but the vast majority are held in the net of time, in the net of becoming, in the net of
sorrow; and can they be transformed? Can they leave the burning house
instantaneously, completely? If not, the wave of confusion, the wave of misery, is
continuously covering them up, continuously destroying them. That is the problem,
isn't it? I am only explaining, studying the question. So, is there a new approach to the
problem? Otherwise, only a few can be saved - which means the wave of destruction,
the wave of confusion, is always pursuing man. That is the problem, isn't it, Sirs?

Now, let us try to find the truth of it. Is it not possible for us to step out of time - all of
us here, not by some self-hypnotic process, but actually? That is the problem involved.
Can you and I, can you who are listening to me, step out of the process of time, so that
you are free from chaos? Because, as long as you believe in that process, that is, as long
as you say you are becoming free from chaos through the process of time, you and
chaos are always co-existent. I do not know if I am explaining myself. That is, if you
think that you will become free from chaos, you will never be free, because the
becoming is part of the chaos. Either we understand now, or never. If you say, `I will
understand tomorrow', you are really postponing; you are really inviting the wave of

19

destruction. So, our problem is to put an end to the becoming process, and therefore
put an end to time. As long as you think in terms of becoming - `I will be good', `I
will be noble', `I will be something tomorrow which I am not today' - , in that
becoming is implied the time process, and in the time process there is confusion. So,
there is confusion because you are thinking in terms of becoming. Now, instead of
becoming, can you be? - in which alone there is transformation, radical
transformation. Becoming is a process of time, being is free from time. And, as I
explained earlier, only in being can there be transformation, not in becoming; only in
ending is there renewal, not in continuity. Continuity is becoming. When you end
something, there is a being; and it is only in being, that there can be fundamental,
radical transformation.

So, our problem is to put an end to becoming - not chronological becoming, as

yesterday became today and today becomes tomorrow, but - , psychological becoming.
Can you put an end instantaneously to that becoming? That is the only new approach,
is it not? Every other way is the old approach. Do you understand the question? At
present, all forms of approach are gradual. I am this, but I will become that tomorrow;
I am a clerk, but I will be the manager in ten years' time; I am angry, but I will slowly
become virtuous. That is becoming, which is the process of time; and where there is
time, there must be the wave of confusion also. So, our problem is, can we
immediately and altogether stop thinking in terms of becoming? That is the only new
approach otherwise, we repeat the old approach. I say it is possible. I say you can do it,
you can cease to be caught in the net of time, in the net of becoming, you can cease to
think in terms of time, in terms of the future, in terms of yesterday. You can do it, and
you are doing it now; you do it when you are tremendously interested, when the
thought process ceases entirely, when there is complete concentration, complete
awareness. That is, Sirs, you do it when you are face to face with a new problem.
Now, this is a new problem - how to bring time to an end. As it is a new problem, you
must be completely new in regard to it, must you not? Because, if you think in terms
of the old, surely you are then translating the new problem into the old and therefore
confusing, misinterpreting the problem. When it is a new problem, you must come to
it anew; and that which is new is timeless.

So, the point is this: Can you, as you are now sitting here listening to me, free yourself
from time? Can you be aware of that state of being in which there is no time? If you
are aware of that state of being, you will see that there is a tremendous revolution
taking place instantaneously, because the thinker has ceased. It is the thinker that
produces the process of becoming. So, time can be brought to an end, time has a stop
- not chronological time, but psychological time. Now, look, many of you are gazing
at somebody else - you are more interested in seeing who is coming and who is going.
Therefore, what has happened? You are not interested to discover what it is to be
without time; and you can discover what it is to be free from the net of time only
when you give your whole mind and heart to it, your whole attention - not the

20

attention which is merely exclusive. That, surely, is right meditation, is it not? For
thought to end is the beginning of real meditation; and then only is there a revolution,
a fundamentally new approach to existence. The new approach is to bring time to an
end; and I say it can be done instantaneously, if you are interested. You can step from
the river onto the shore at any point. The river of becoming ceases when you
understand the time process; but to understand, you must give your heart and mind to
it. You are free of time only when there is complete absorption in understanding, -
which you are doing now. You are very quiet. You are quiet, because we are
discussing, we are forcing the issue. But you cease to be quiet the moment the issue
disappears. If you maintain, if you keep that issue clearly in front of you all the time,
the stepping out of time becomes an extraordinarily absorbing problem; and I say that
for any who are willing to give their mind and heart to it, it is possible to step out of
time. That is the only new approach, and therefore it can bring about a radical
transformation in society.

21

[3] THE DANGERS OF
PSYCHOLOGICAL TIME
[3.1] J. Krishnamurti, Bombay, 3rd Public Talk, 31st January 1981

And we are saying time is danger. Psychological time is danger because it prevents you
from acting. If I am violent, if I say, I will be non-violent, you have taken time, in that
time you are not free from violence, you are being violent. Right? So if you
understand the nature of time there will be immediate action. That is, there is the
ending of violence immediately. Have you understand this? Please let us understand
the question of time, it is very important because we think we need time to change;
we think we need time to grow, evolve - time means that. That is, what we are and
what we should be. Right? This is our constant, continuous tradition, our
conditioning. Now we are pointing out that time, psychological time, not biological
time or time by the watch, but the psychological time, that is, admitting tomorrow,
that is, tomorrow may be a hundred days ahead, but the idea that time is necessary to
change from `what is' to `what should be'. Right? Right sir? So we are saying, that is
one of the most dangerous factors in life, to admit time in action.

[3.2] J. Krishnamurti, Saanen, 5th Public Dialogue, 6th August 1970

So the moment mind admits time, time becomes a dangerno? In that time there is
laziness, postponement, in that time there is a division between here and there

[3.3] J. Krishnamurti, Bombay, 3rd Public Talk, 31st January 1981

Time is danger. Psychological time is danger because it prevents you from acting.

[3.4] J. Krishnamurti, Freedom from the Known, Chapter 9, pp. 71-72

We do not see the danger of many of our problems and therefore we invent time as a
means of overcoming them. Time is a deceiver as it doesnt do a thing to help us bring
about a change in ourselves.

22

[3.5] J. Krishnamurti, Bombay, 5th Public Talk, 23rd February 1964

So I say time is poison, time is danger, of which you are to be tremendously awareas
living with a tiger. You have to be aware every minute that time is a deadly, poisonous
thing, unreal.

[3.6] J. Krishnamurti, Krishnamurtis Notebook, Part 6, Bombay and Rishi Valley,

20th October to 20th November 1961

Time is illusion. There is tomorrow and there have been many yesterdays; this time is
not an illusion. Thought which uses time as a means to bring about an inward change,
a psychological change is pursuing a non-change, for such a change is only a modified
continuity of what has been; such thought is sluggish, postpones, takes shelter in the
illusion of gradualness, in ideals, in time. Through time mutation is not possible. The
very denial of time is mutation; mutation takes place where the things which time has
brought into being, habit, tradition, reform, the ideals, are denied. Deny time and
mutation has taken place, a total mutation, not the alteration in patterns nor the
substitution of one pattern by another. But acquiring knowledge, learning a
technique, require time, which cannot and must not be denied; they are essential for
existence. Time to go from here to there is not an illusion but every other form of time
is illusion. In this mutation, there is attention and from this attention there is a totally
different kind of action. Such action does not become a habit, a repetition of a
sensation, of an experience, of knowledge, which dulls the brain, insensitive to a
mutation. Virtue then is not the better habit, the better conduct; it has no pattern, no
limitation; it has not the stamp of respectability; it is not then an ideal to be pursued,
put together by time. Virtue then is a danger not a tame thing of society. To love then
is destruction; a revolution, not economic and social but of total consciousness.

23

[4] THE ENDING OF TIME
[4.1] J. Krishnamurti, The Ending of Time, Chapter 1, 1st April 1980,
Conversation with Prof. David Bohm, 'The Roots of Psychological Conflict'

Krishnamurti: Is time the factor? Time - as `I need knowledge in order to do this or

that'? The same principle applied inwardly? Is time the factor?
David Bohm: I can't see that time by itself can be the only factor.
K: No, no. Time. Becoming - which implies time.
DB: Yes, but we don't see how time is going to cause trouble. We have to say that
time applied outwardly doesn't cause any difficulty.
K: It causes a certain amount - but we are discussing the idea of time, inwardly.
DB: So we have to see why time is so destructive inwardly.
K: Because I am trying to become something.
DB: Yes, but most people would say that this is only natural. You have to explain what
it is that is wrong about becoming.
K: Obviously, there is conflict, in that when I am trying to become something, it is a
constant battle.
DB: Yes. Can we go into that: why is it a constant battle? It is not a battle if I try to
improve my position outwardly.
K: Outwardly, no. It is more or less all right outwardly, but when that same principle
is applied inwardly it brings about a contradiction.
DB: And the contradiction is.?
K: Between `what is' and `becoming what should be'.
DB: The difficulty is, why is it a contradiction inwardly and not outwardly?
K: Inwardly it builds up a centre, doesn't it, an egotistic centre?
DB: Yes, but can we find some reason why it should do so? Does it build up when we
do it Outwardly? It seems it need not.
[]
K: You see, I want to abolish time, psychologically. You understand?
DB: Yes, I understand.
K: To me that is the enemy. And is that the cause, the origin of man's misery?
DB: This use of time, certainly. Man had to use time for a certain purpose, but he
misused it.
K: I understand that. If I have to learn a language, I must have time.
B: But the misuse of time by extending it inwardly...
K: Inwardly: that is what I am talking about. Is that the cause of man's confusion -
introducing time as a means of becoming, and becoming more and more perfect,
more and more evolved, more and more loving? You follow what I mean?
DB: Yes, I understand. Certainly if we didn't do that, the whole structure would
collapse.
K: That's it.

24

DB: But I don't know whether there is not some other cause.
K: Just a minute. I want to go into that a little bit. I am not talking theoretically,
personally. But to me the idea of tomorrow doesn't exist psychologically - that is, time
as a movement, either inwardly or outwardly.
DB: You mean psychological time?
K: Yes, psychological time, and time outwardly. Now if psychological time doesn't
exist, then there is no conflict, there is no `me', no `I', which is the origin of conflict.
Outwardly, technologically man has moved, evolved.
DB: And also in the inward physical structure.
K: The structure, everything. But psychologically we have also moved outward.
DB: Yes, we have focused our life on the outward. Is that what you are saying?
K: Yes. We have extended our capacities outwardly. And inwardly it is the same
movement as outwardly. Now if there is no inward movement as time, moving,
becoming more and more, then what takes place? You understand what I am trying to
convey? Time ends. You see, the outer movement is the same as the inward
movement.
DB: Yes. It is going around and around.
K: Involving time. If the movement ceases, then what takes place? I wonder if I am
conveying anything? Could we put it this way? We have never touched any other
movement than the outer movement.
DB: Generally, anyway. We put most of our energy into the outer movements.
K: And psychological movement is also outward.
DB: Well, it is the reflection of that outward movement.
K: We think it is inward but it is actually outward, right?
DB: Yes.
K: Now if that movement ends, as it must, then is there a really inward movement - a
movement not in terms of time?
DB: You are asking, is there another kind of movement which still moves, but not in
terms of time?
K: That's right.
DB: We have to go into that. Could you go further?
K: You see, that word movement means time.
DB: Well, it really means to change from one place to another. But anyway there is still
the notion of something which is not static. By denying time you don't want to
return to something static, which is still time.
K: Let's say, for instance, that one's brain has been trained, accustomed, for centuries
to go North. And it suddenly realizes that going North means everlasting conflict. As
it realizes that, the brain itself changes - the quality of the brain changes.
~.~

K: Can the brain itself see that it is caught in time, and that as long as it is moving in
that direction, conflict is eternal, endless? You follow what I am saying?
DB: Yes. Does the brain see it?

25

K: Has the brain the capacity to see in what it is doing now - being caught in time -
that in that process there is no end to conflict? That means, is there a part of the brain
which is not of time?
DB: Not caught or functioning in time?
K: Can one say that?
DB: I don't know.
K: That would mean - we come back to the same thing in different words - that the
brain is not being completely conditioned by time, so there is a part of the brain that is
free of time.
DB: Not a part, but rather that the brain is mainly dominated by time, although that
doesn't necessarily mean it couldn't shift.
K: Yes. That is, can the brain, dominated by time, not be subservient to it?
DB: That's right. In that moment it comes out of time. I think I can see this - it is
dominated only when you give it time. Thought which takes time is dominated, but
anything fast enough is not dominated.
K: Yes, that's right. Can the brain - which has been used to time - can it see in that
process that there is no end to conflict? See, in the sense of realizing this? Will it
realize it under pressure? Certainly not. Will it realize it under coercion, reward or
punishment? It will not. It will either resist or escape.
So what is the factor that will make the brain see that the way it has been functioning
is not correct? (Let's use that word for the moment.) And what will make it suddenly
realize that it is totally mischievous? What will make it? Certainly not drugs or some
kind of chemical.
DB: None of these outward things.
K: Then what will make the brain realize this?
DB: What do you mean by realize?
K: Realize that the path along which the brain has been going will always be the path
of conflict.
DB: I think this raises the question that the brain resists such a realization.
K: Of course, of course. Because it has been used to the old path, for centuries! How
will you make the brain realize this fact? If you could make it realize that, conflict is
finished.You see, people have tried fasting, austerity, poverty, chastity in the real sense,
purity, having a mind that is absolutely correct; they have tried going away by
themselves; they have tried practically everything that man has invented, but none of
these ways has succeeded.
DB: Well, what do you say? It is clear that people pursuing these outward goals are still
becoming.
K: Yes, but they never realize that these are outward goals. It means denying all that
completely.
DB: You see, to go further, I think that one has to deny the very notion of time in the
sense of looking forward to the future, and deny all the past.
K: That's just it.
DB: That is, the whole of time.

26

K: Time is the enemy. Meet it, and go beyond it.
DB: Deny that it has an independent existence. You see, I think we have the
impression that time exists independently of us. We are in the stream of time, and
therefore it would seem absurd for us to deny it because that is what we are.
K: Yes, quite, quite. So it means really moving away - again this is only words - from
everything that man has put together as a means of timelessness.
DB: Can we say that none of the methods that man uses outwardly is going to free the
mind from time?
K: Absolutely.
DB: Every method implies time.
K: Of course. It is so simple.
DB: We start out immediately by setting up the whole structure of time; the whole
notion of time is presupposed before we start.
K: Yes, quite. But how will you convey this to another? How will you, or `X', convey
this to a man who is caught in time and will resist it, fight it, because he says there is
no other way? How will you convey this to him?
DB: I think that you can only convey it to somebody who has gone into it; you are not
likely to convey it at all to somebody you just pick up off the street!
K: So then, what are we doing? As that cannot be conveyed through words, what is a
man to do? Would you say that to resolve a problem as it arises you have to go into it
immediately, because otherwise you may do the most foolish thing and delude
yourself that you have resolved it? Suppose I have a problem, any psychological
problem - can the mind realize, resolve it immediately? Not deceive itself, not resist it
- you understand? But face it, and end it.
DB: Well, with a psychological problem, that is the only way. Otherwise we would be
caught in the very source of the problem.
K: Of course. Would that activity end time, the psychological time that we are talking
about?
DB: Yes, if we could bring this immediate action to bear on the problem, which is the
self.
K: One is greedy, or envious. To end immediately greed, attachment, and so on, will
that not give a clue to the ending of time?
DB: Yes, because any action which is not immediate has already brought in time.
K: Yes, yes. I know that.
DB: The ending of time is immediate - right?
K: Immediate, of course. Would that point out the wrong turn that mankind has
taken?
DB: Yes, if man feels something is out of order psychologically he then brings in the
notion of time, and the thought of becoming, and that creates endless problems.
K: Would that open the door to this sense of time having no place inwardly? Which
means, doesn't it, that thought has no place except outwardly?
DB: You are saying that thought is a process which is involved in time.

27

K: Wouldn't you say that thought is the process of time? Because thought is based on
experience, knowledge, memory and response, which is the whole of time.
DB: Let's try to put it that thought, as we have generally known it, is in time.
K: Thought as we know it now is of time.
DB: Yes. I would agree, generally speaking.
K: Generally speaking, thought is time.
DB: It is based on the notion of time.
K: Yes, all right. But to me, thought itself is time.
DB: Thought itself creates time, right.
K: Does it mean, when there is no time there is no thought?
DB: Well no thought of that kind.
K: No. There is no thought. I want just to go slowly.
DB: Could we say that there is a kind of thought which we have lived in which has
been dominated by time?
K: Yes, but that has come to an end.
DB: But there may be another kind of thought which is not dominated by time... I
mean, you were saying, you could still use thought to do some things.
K: Of course, outwardly that's so.
DB: We have to be careful not to say that thought is necessarily dominated by time.
K: Yes. I have to go from here to there, to my house; that needs time, thought, but I
am not talking of that kind of time.
DB: So let's make it clear that you are talking of thought which is aimed at the mind,
whose content is the order of the mind.
K: Yes. Would you say knowledge is time?
DB: Well, yes...
K: All knowledge is time.
~.~

K: So then what is existence without this? There is no time, there is no knowledge in

the psychological sense, no sense of `me', then what is there? To come to that point
most people would say, `What a horror this is.'

[4.2] J. Krishnamurti, Truth and Actuality, Part III, Chapter 14, Question from
the 6th Public Talk, Saanen, 24th July 1975, 'The Stream Of "Selfishness"'

One can see that thought has built the "me", the "me" that has become independent,
the "me" that has acquired knowledge, the "me" that is the observer, the "me" that is
the past and which passes through the present and modifies itself as the future. It is
still the "me" put together by thought, and that "me" has become independent of
thought. That "me" has a name, a form. It has a label called X or Y or John. It
identifies with the body, with the face; there is the identification of the "me" with the
name and with the form, which is the structure, and with the ideal which it wants to

28

pursue. Also with the desire to change the "me" into another form of "me", with
another name. This "me" is the product of time and of thought. The "me" is the
word: remove the word and what is the "me"?

And that "me" suffers: the "me", as you, suffers. The "me" in suffering is you. The
"me" in its great anxiety is the great anxiety of you. Therefore you and I are common;
that is the basic essence. Though you may be taller, shorter, have a different
temperament, different character, be cleverer, all that is the peripheral field of culture;
but deep down, basically we are the same. So that "me" is moving in the stream of
greed, in the stream of selfishness, in the stream of fear, anxiety and so on, which is the
same as you in the stream. Please don't accept what I am saying - see the truth of it.
That is, you are selfish and another is selfish; you are frightened, another is frightened;
you are aching, suffering, with tears, greed, envy, that is the common lot of all human
beings. That is the stream
in which we are living, the stream in which we are caught, all of us. We are caught in
that stream while we are living; please see that we are caught in this stream as an act of
life. This stream is "selfishness" - let us put it that way - and in this stream we are
living - the stream of "selfishness" - that expression includes all the descriptions of the
"me" which I have just now given. And when we die the organism dies, but the selfish
stream goes on. Just look at it, consider it.

Suppose I have lived a very selfish life, in self-centred activity, with my desires, the
importance of my desires, ambitions, greed, envy, the accumulation of property, the
accumulation of knowledge, the accumulation of all kinds of things which I have
gathered - all of which I have termed as "selfishness". And that is the thing I live in,
that is the "me", and that is you also. In our relationships it is the same. So while
living we are together flowing in the stream of selfishness. This is a fact, not my
opinion, not my conclusion; if you observe you will see it, whether you go to America,
to India, or all over Europe, modified by the environmental pressures and so on, but
basically that is the movement. And when the body dies that movement goes on...
That stream is time. That is the movement of thought, which has created suffering,
which has created the "me" from which the "me" has now asserted itself as being
independent, dividing itself from you; but the "me" is the same as you when it suffers.
The "me" is the imagined structure of thought. In itself it has no reality. It is what
thought has made it because thought needs security, certainty, so it has invested in the
"me" all its certainty. And in that there is suffering. In that movement of selfishness,
while we are living we are being carried in that stream and when we die that stream
exists.

Is it possible for that stream to end? Can selfishness, with all its decorations, with all its
subtleties, come totally to an end? And the ending is the ending of time. Therefore
there is a totally different manifestation after the ending, which is: no selfishness at all.

29

When there is suffering, is there a "you" and "me"? Or is there only suffering? I
identify myself as the "me" in that suffering, which is the process of thought. But the
actual fact is you suffer and I suffer, not "I" suffer something independent of you, who
are suffering. So there is only suffering... there is only the factor of suffering. Do you
know what it does when you realize that? Out of that non-personalised suffering, not
identified as the "me" separate from you, when there is that suffering, out of that
comes a tremendous sense of compassion. The very word "suffering" comes from the
word "passion".

So I have got this problem. As a human being, living, knowing that I exist in the
stream as selfishness, can that stream, can that movement of time, come totally to an
end? Both at the conscious as well as at the deep level? Do you understand my
question, after describing all this? Now, how will you find out whether you, who are
caught in that stream of selfishness, can completely step out of it? - which is the ending
of time. Death is the ending of time as the movement of thought if there is the
stepping out of that. Can you, living in this world, with all the beastliness of it, the
world that man has made, that thought has made, the dictatorships, the totalitarian
authority, the destruction of human minds, destruction of the earth, the animals,
everything man touches he destroys, including his wife or husband. Now can you live
in this world completely without time? - that means no longer caught in that stream of
selfishness.

You see there are many more things involved in this; because there is such a thing as
great mystery. Not the thing invented by thought, that is not mysterious. The occult
is not mysterious, which everybody is chasing now, that is the fashion. The
experiences which drugs give are not mysterious. There is this thing called death, and
the mystery that lies where there is a possibility of stepping out of it.

That is, as long as one lives in the world of reality, which we do, can there be the
ending of suffering in that world of reality? Think about it. Look at it. Don't say yes,
or no. If there is no ending of suffering in the world of reality - which brings order - if
there is no ending of selfishness in the world of reality - it is selfishness that creates
disorder in the world of reality - if there is no ending to that then you haven't
understood, or grasped, the full significance of ending time. Therefore you have to
bring about order in the world of reality, in the world of relationships, of action, of
rational and irrational thinking, of fear and pleasure. So can one, living in the world of
reality as we are, end selfishness? You know it is a very complex thing to end
selfishness, it isn't just, "I won't think about myself".... This selfishness in the field of
reality is creating chaos. And you are the world and the world is you. If you change
deeply you affect the whole consciousness of man.

30

[5] MEDITATION: THE ENDING OF TIME,
THOUGHT & SORROW
[5.1] J. Krishnamurti, Madras, 4th Public Talk, 15th December 1974,
'Meditation Which Transforms the Mind'

Religion implies the understanding, the discovery for one's own mind, what is sacred.
And also if there is such a thing as the eternal. Religion means the beauty, goodness,
which means also excellence, and the finding, or coming upon something sacred; and
the enquiry into something that is not touched by thought, because thought is time,
thought is measure. And to find out if there is, or if there is not, something that is
nameless, timeless, that has no beginning and no end, all that is religion. And as we
said, without that quality of mind, which is explosive, not acquiescent, without that
quality of mind you cannot have a culture which is absolutely necessary, a culture not
brought about by a few but by a religious mind, which means a light to yourself, not
the light of another but light which you have found for yourself. All that is implied in
religion.

So: meditation is the enquiry into that which is sacred. And also to find out - these are
words, you can't find out if there is eternity - to feel that, to have that quality of a mind
that is really timeless. So that is what we are going to do together. We are not going to
meditate together, that is another phoney, imaginative, romantic nonsense, but we are
going together to find out what it means to meditate, and what it means to have the
capacity of freedom that can come upon that thing that is sacred, and from there move
to something that may be timeless.

This is a very complex question. And what is complex can be understood only when
the mind is really very simple, not childish, not immature, but simple. But most of
you have probably read, or gone to some guru, or you have invented your own form of
meditation, and so you are already burdened with something, which you call
meditation. And to find out what is meditation you have to enquire, you have to put
aside your particular form of meditation, otherwise you can't find out if what you are
doing is true or false. Now to enquire into something that one may call sacred you
cannot possibly accept the authority of any book, any leader, any guru, any system,
because your mind must be free to enquire, free to find out. And can you do this? As
you are sitting there listening, can you put aside all that you know about meditation?
And that will be very difficult because your mind operates in routine, in habit,
mechanically, and to put away something that you are so accustomed to becomes
extraordinarily difficult, because the mind has been conditioned to act mechanically
and to put away this mechanical habit is extremely arduous. You have to see the
danger of it. Then when you see the danger of it then it has no power. When you see

31

a dangerous animal you leave it alone, it has no power. It is only when you don't know
then the danger exists.

I want to find out what is meditation, because I know nothing about what other
people have said about it. And I don't want to know what other people have said
about it. Not that I am vain, not that I am conceited, not that I want to have original
experience but I don't know if what those people say has any validity; they might be as
neurotic as myself, as stupid, as cunning, as deceptive, as illusory, caught in an illusion.
I am talking as a human being who is enquiring into it, I am not talking about myself
personally. So I am a human being, an ordinary human being, who sees the reality that
religions as they exist have no validity, no meaning, no significance whatsoever, with
all their rituals, dogmas and superstitions, authority, and all that. Such a mind says, "I
want to find out, I want to find out what it means to meditate", because perhaps that
may be the ambience, the environment, the atmosphere which will reveal that which
is sacred. So I must put all that aside; and I hope you are doing it, otherwise we cannot
communicate with each other, unless you see for yourself the falseness of all the things
that we have put together by thought, which you call religion, has no meaning at all. If
you see that then you will discard all authority in these matters - not the authority of a
doctor, not the authority of a policeman, which is obeying law, but you don't obey law
anyhow, you are too clever, you make all kinds of devious ways to avoid law. That is
your misery.

So what is meditation? And why should one meditate at all? Now the word
meditation means to think over, to ponder over; and also meditation means the
capacity to measure, and measure means movement between this and that. Which
means comparison, which means imitation, all that is implied in that word
meditation.

So I want to find out can a mind be without measure? You understand? Can a mind
be without the movement of thought, which is time? Time is measure. Time is
direction. Time, there is the time by the watch, there is the time as movement from
here to there, time is necessary to cover from here to that - necessary time. Time is
movement. And is meditation a movement in time? Can time, as a movement, find
out something that is sacred? You understand my question? We said thought is a
material process. And to investigate into what is meditation, what place has thought -
thought being time, thought being measure, thought being direction, which is from
here to there? What place has thought? Please. Has it any place at all? If it has no place
at all, then what is the mind to do with thought? Has it any place at all? If it has no
place at all, then what is the mind to do with thought. If it has no place in meditation,
then what do you do with this extraordinary movement of thought in which the mind
is caught up? The mind which is everlastingly chattering, the mind which says, "I will
achieve, I will gain, I am comparing", it is moving all the time, incessantly. What will
you do with that thought? You cannot deny it, it is there. And so you begin to say, 'I

32

will control it. I will learn concentration on an object, on an image, on what I think to
be sacred, and dwell upon that and exclude every other thought'. hat is what you are
doing. And so the battle begins, the struggle to concentrate on something and the
thought wandering off. This constant struggle going on. Concentration implies
centering your thought on something that thought has chosen to be noble, to be
excellent, to be real. Right? So thought has projected an idea, a picture, an image, and
thought says, "I am going to concentrate on that". And in the process of concentration
it must exclude everything else. And thought being fragmentary, its exclusion is the
movement of fragmentation.

So concentration on an idea, on a picture, on something that thought thinks is

necessary, is a movement in time, a movement of measurement, a movement in a
particular direction, therefore it must be fragmentary. So seeing that I say, "I won't
concentrate" - out, it is finished.

So a mind that is enquiring into the meaning of meditation comes upon this fact; that
thought is measure, thought is the movement of time, thought sets a direction as will,
and as thought in itself is a fragment, because thought is the response of memory,
memory is the accumulation of knowledge as experience, which is the past and
therefore it is a fragment, thought is a fragment. In investigating what is meditation,
one discovers this.

What is one to do with this movement of thought? Should it be controlled? And if

you are controlling it, who is the controller? Is not the controller himself the thought?
So the controller is the controlled. Then what to do with the thought, with this
movement of thought? The mind has to find out the art of putting thought in its
right place. Which is, knowledge is necessary, knowledge is the movement of thought
as experience, so thought is necessary in the field, or in the area of knowledge. To
drive a car, to speak, to do your daily job, technology, and so on, knowledge there is
necessary and thought must function most efficiently, clearly, non-personally in that
area. So in the understanding of what meditation is the mind has discovered thought
has its right place. And when it discovers that it has a right place then you will see that
thought is no longer a matter of importance.

Then the next question is: the systems, the methods, the various practices that you do,
has it any validity? Or is it the cultivation of a mechanical habit, which is part of
thought? You understand? After all you have systems of meditation haven't you?
Different kinds of systems of meditation from the Zen to the modern or the ancient
methods or systems or practices of meditation. When you practice, what does that
imply? It implies a direction. Right? You have set a direction and you are practicing
daily in order to achieve that end - the end, the guru, the book the other people have
set, have laid down that is the end. So you practice in order to achieve a definite end, a
fixed end. If it is a living thing you can't practice to arrive at it, it is moving all the

33

time. So when you are practicing a method, which means you have set a direction
towards which you are moving, that direction and the end is put together by thought.
So you are not out of thought. You are still in the movement of thought. Right?

So you then see, have an insight into that, and so no direction, which means no will.
Will is after all the accentuation, the exaggeration of desire. Right? You desire to have
enlightenment. You desire moksha, liberation, or heaven or whatever you call it, you
desire it, and you work for it, if you are serious and you are not playing with it, which
you probably are. But if you are serious you then set a direction, and say, "I'll do these
things regularly in order to achieve that moksha, that heaven, that liberation" -
whatever the aim is, the goal you have set for yourself, is still within the area of
thought, within the area of matter, within the area of time, within the area of
measure. So you have not left thought at all, you are still caught in it. And a mind that
is enquiring into meditation sees he is aware of this fact, therefore no system, no
method, no goal, no direction, and therefore no guru.

Then, as we said, the things that thought has put together as sacred are not sacred.
They are just words to give a significance to life, because life as you live is not sacred, is
not holy. And the word holy, H-O-L-Y comes from being whole, which means
healthy, sane and therefore holy. All that is implied in that word. So a mind - please
follow all this - a mind that is functioning through thought, however desirous it be to
find that which is sacred is still acting within the field of time, within the field of
fragmentation. So then can the mind be whole, not fragmented? This is all part of the
understanding of what is meditation. Can the mind, which is the product of
evolution, product of time, product of so much influence, so many hurts, so many
travails, such great sorrow, great anxiety, it is caught in all that. And all that is the result
of thought. And thought, as we said, is fragmentary by its very nature. And mind is the
result of thought, as it is now. So can the mind be free of the movement of thought?
Can the mind be completely non-fragmented? Can you look at life as a whole? Can
the mind be whole, which means without a single fragment? Therefore diligence
comes into this. A mind is whole when it is diligent, which means to have care means
to have great affection, great love, which is totally different from the love of a man and
a woman.

So the mind that is whole is attentive and therefore cares, and has this quality of deep
abiding sense of love. Such a mind is the whole. That you come upon when you
begin to enquire what is meditation. Then we can proceed to find out what is sacred.
Please listen, it is your life, give your heart and mind to find out a way of living
differently. Which means when the mind has abandoned all control. It does not mean
that you lead a life of doing what you like, yielding to every desire, to every lustful
glance or reaction, to every pleasure, to every demand of the pursuit of pleasure, but to
find out, to find out whether you can live a daily life without a single control. That is
part of meditation. That means one has to have this quality of attention. That

34

attention, which has brought about the insight into the right place of thought, and
thought is fragmentary, and where there is control there is the controller and the
controlled, which is fragmentary. So to find out a way of living without a single
control, that requires tremendous attention, great discipline, not the discipline that
you are accustomed to, which is merely suppression, control, conformity, but we are
talking of a discipline which means to learn. The word discipline comes from the
word disciple. The disciple is there to learn. Now here there is no teacher, no disciple:
you are the teacher and you are the disciple if you are learning. And that very act of
learning brings about its own order.

Now: thought has found its own place, its right place. So the mind is no longer
burdened with the movement as a material process, which is thought. Which means
the mind is absolutely quiet. It is naturally quiet, not made quiet. That which is made
quiet is sterile. That which happens to be quiet, in that quietness, in that emptiness a
new thing can take place.

So can the mind, your mind, be absolutely quiet, without control, without the
movement of thought? It will be quiet naturally if you really have the insight - the
insight which brings about the right place for thought. From there thought has its
right place therefore the mind is quiet. You understand what the word silence and
quiet means? You know you can make the mind quiet by taking a drug, by repeating a
mantram or a word, constantly repeating, repeating, repeating, naturally your mind will
become quiet. And then such a mind is a dull, stupid mind. And there is a silence
between two noises. There is silence between two notes. There is silence between
two movements of thought. There is silence of an evening when the birds have made
their noise, chattering and have gone to bed and there isn't a flutter among the leaves,
there is no breeze, there is absolute quietness, not in a city but when you are out with
nature, when you are with the trees, or sitting on the banks of the river, there silence
descends on the earth and you are part of that silence. So there are different kinds of
silence. But the silence we are talking about, the quietness of a mind, that silence is
not to be bought, is not to be practiced, is not something you gain, a reward, a
compensation to an ugly life. It is only when the ugly life has been transformed into
the good life; by good I mean not having plenty, but the life of goodness, the flowering
of that goodness, the beauty, then the silence comes.

And also you have to enquire what is beauty? What is beauty? Have you ever gone into
this question? Or will you find it in a book and tell me, or tell each other that book
says what beauty is. What is beauty? Did you look at the sunset this evening as you are
sitting there. The sunset was behind the speaker. Did you look at it? Did you feel the
light and the glory of that light on a leaf? Or do you think beauty is sensory, sensuous,
and a mind that is seeking sacred things cannot be attracted to beauty, cannot have
anything with beauty, therefore only concentrate on your little image which you have
projected from your own thought as the good. So you have to find out, if you want to

35

find out what meditation is, you have to find out what beauty is. Beauty in the face,
beauty in character - not character, character is a cheap thing, that depends on your
environmental reaction, and the cultivation of that reaction is called character. The
beauty of action, the beauty of behaviour, conduct, the inward beauty, the beauty of
the way you walk, the way you talk, the way you gesture, all that is beauty. And
without having that, meditation becomes merely an escape, a compensation, a
meaningless action. And there is beauty in frugality, there is beauty in great austerity -
not the austerity of sannaysi. The austerity of a mind that has order. Order comes
when you understand the whole disorder in which you live, and out of that disorder
comes naturally order, which is virtue. Therefore virtue, order is supreme austerity,
not the denial of three meals a day or fasting, or shaving your head, and all the rest of
that business.

So there is order, which is beauty, there is beauty of love, beauty of compassion. And
also there is the beauty of a clean street, of a good architectural form of a building,
there is beauty of a tree, a lovely leaf, the great big branches, to see all that is beauty; not
merely go to museums and talk everlastingly about beauty. So silence of a quiet mind is
the essence of that beauty. And because it is silent and because it is not the plaything
of thought, then in that silence there comes that which is indestructible, which is
sacred. And in the coming of that which is sacred then life becomes sacred, your life
becomes sacred, our relationship becomes sacred, everything becomes sacred because
you have touched that thing which is sacred.

And then we have also to find out in meditation if there is something, or if there is
nothing, which is eternal, timeless; which means can the mind, which has been
cultivated in the area of time, can that mind find out, come upon or see that thing that
is from everlasting to everlasting? So it means can the mind be without time - though
time is necessary to go from here to there and all the rest of it, can that mind, that very
same mind which operates in time, going from here to there, not psychologically but
physically, can that mind be without time? Which means can that mind be without
the past, without the present, without the future? Can that mind be in absolute
nothingness? Don't be frightened of that word. Because it is empty it has got vast
space. Have you ever observed in your own mind if you have any space at all there?
Just space, you know, a little space? Or is everything crowded? Crowded by your
worries, by your sex, or no sex, by your achievements, by your knowledge, by your
ambitions, fears, by your anxieties, your pettiness, crowded. And how can such a mind
understand, or be in that state of being or having that enormous space? Space is always
enormous.
And a mind that has no space in daily life cannot possibly come upon that which is
eternal, which is timeless. And that is why meditation becomes extraordinarily
important. Not the meditation that you all practice, that is not meditation at all. But
the meditation of which we are talking about transforms the mind. And it is only
such a mind that is the religious mind. And it is only such a religious mind can bring

36

about a different culture, a different way of life, different relationship, a sense of
sacredness and therefore great beauty and honesty. All this comes naturally, without
effort, without battle.

[5.2] J. Krishnamurti, Krishnamurti's Notebook, Part 6, Bombay and Rishi Valley,

20th October to 20th November 1961

2nd: It had become very cloudy, all the hills were heavy with them and clouds were
piling up in every direction. It was spitting with rain and there wasn't a blue patch
anywhere; the sun had set in darkness and the trees were aloof and distant. There is an
old palm tree that stood out against the darkening sky and whatever light there was
held by it; the riverbeds were silent, their red sand moist but there was no song; the
birds had become silent taking shelter among the thick leaves. A breeze was blowing
from north-east and with it came more dark clouds and a spattering of rain but it
hadn't begun in earnest; that would come later in gathering fury. And the road in front
was empty; it was red, rough, and sandy and the dark hills looked down on it; it was a
pleasant road with hardly any cars and the villagers with their oxdrawn carts going from
one village to another; they were dirty, skeleton-thin, in rags, and their stomachs drawn
in but they were wiry and enduring; they had lived like that for centuries and no
government is going to change all this overnight. But these people had a smile, though
their eyes were weary. They could dance after a heavy day's labour and they had fire in
them, they were not hopelessly beaten down. The land had not had good rains for
many years and this may be one of those fortunate years which may bring more food
for them and fodder for their thin cattle. And the road went on and joined at the
mouth of the valley the big road with few buses and cars. And on this road, far away
were the cities with their filth, industries, rich houses, temples and dull minds. But
here on this open road, there was solitude and the many hills, full of age and
indifference.

Meditation is the emptying the mind of all thought, for thought and feeling dissipate
energy; they are repetitive, producing mechanical activities which are a necessary part
of existence. But they are only part, and thought and feeling cannot possibly enter into
the immensity of life. Quite a different approach is necessary, not the path of habit,
association and the known; there must be freedom from these. Meditation is the
emptying of the mind of the known. It cannot be done by thought or by the hidden
prompting of thought, nor by desire in the form of prayer, nor through the self-
effacing hypnotism of words, images, hopes and vanities. All these have to come to an
end, easily, without effort and choice, in the flame of awareness.

And there walking on that road, there was complete emptiness of the brain, and the
mind was free of all experience, the knowing of yesterday, though a thousand
yesterdays have been. Time, the thing of thought, had stopped; literally there was no

37

movement before and after; there was no going or arriving or standing still. Space as
distance was not; there were the hills and bushes but not as high and low. There was
no relationship with anything but there was an awareness of the bridge and the passer-
by. The totality of the mind, in which is the brain with its thoughts and feelings, was
empty; and because it was empty, there was energy, a deepening and widening energy
without measure. All comparison, measurement belong to thought and so to time.
The otherness was the mind without time; it was the breath of innocence and
immensity. Words are not reality; they are only means of communication but they are
not the innocence and the immeasurable. The emptiness was alone.

3rd: It had been a dull, heavy day; the clouds were pressing in and it had rained
violently. The red riverbeds had some water in them but the land needed lots more
rain for the big catchments, tanks, and the wells to get filled up; there would be no
rains for several months and the hot sun would burn the land. Water was needed
urgently for this part of the country and every drop was welcome. One had been
indoors all day and it was good to get out. The roads were running with water, there
was a heavy shower and under every tree there was a puddle and the trees were dripping
with water. It was getting dark; the hills were visible, they were just dark against the
sky, the colour of the clouds; the trees were silent and motionless, lost in their
brooding; they had withdrawn and refused to communicate. One was aware,
suddenly, of that strange otherness; it was there and it had been there, only there had
been talks, seeing people and so on and the body had not had enough rest to be aware
of the strangeness but on going out it was there and only then was there a realization
that it had been there. Still it was unexpected and sudden, with that intensity which is
the essence of beauty. One went with it down the road not as something separate, not
as an experience, something to be observed and examined, to be remembered. These
were the ways of thought but thought had ceased and so there was no experiencing of
it. All experiencing is separative and deteriorating, it is part of the machinery of
thought and all mechanical processes deteriorate. It was something, each time, totally
new and that which is new has no relation whatsoever with the known, with the past.
And there was beauty, beyond all thought and feeling.

There was no call of the owl across the silent valley; it was very early; the sun would not
be over the hill for several hours yet. It was cloudy and no stars were visible; if the sky
were clear, Orion would be this side of the house, facing west, but everywhere there
was darkness and silence. Habit and meditation can never abide together; meditation
can never become a habit; meditation can never follow the pattern laid down by
thought which forms habit. Meditation is the destruction of thought and not thought
caught in its own intricacies, visions and its own vain pursuits. Thought shattering
itself against its own nothingness is the explosion of meditation. This meditation has
its own movement, directionless and so is causeless. And in that room, in that peculiar
silence when the clouds are low, almost touching the treetops, meditation was a
movement in which the brain emptied itself and remained still. It was a movement of

38

the totality of the mind in emptiness and there was timelessness. Thought is matter
held within the bonds of time; thought is never free, never new; every experience only
strengthens the bondage and so there is sorrow. Experience can never free thought; it
makes it more cunning, and refinement is not the ending of sorrow. Thought,
however astute, however experienced, can never end sorrow; it can escape from it but
it can never end it. The ending of sorrow is the ending of thought. There is no one
who can put an end to it [to thought], not its own gods, its own ideals, beliefs, dogmas.
Every thought, however wise or petty, shapes the response to the challenge of limitless
life and this response of time breeds sorrow. Thought is mechanical and so it can
never be free; only in freedom there is no sorrow. The ending of thought is the ending
of sorrow.

4th: It had been threatening to rain but it never rained; the blue hills were heavy with
clouds; they were always changing, moving from one hill to another but there was a
long white-grey cloud, stretching west over many hills to the horizon, which had its
birth in one of the eastern hills; it seemed to begin from there, from the side of the hill,
and went on to the western horizon in a rolling movement, alive with the light of the
setting sun; it was white and grey but deep within it was violet, a fading purple; it
seemed to be carrying on its way the hills it covered. In the western gap the sun was
setting in a fury of clouds and the hills were getting darker and more grey and the trees
were heavy with silence. There is a huge, unmolested banyan tree, many years old, by
the side of the road; it is really magnificent, huge, vital, unconcerned and that evening
it was the lord of the hills, the earth and the streams; it had majesty and the stars
seemed very small. Along that road, a villager and his wife were walking, one behind
the other, the husband led and the wife followed; they seemed a little more prosperous
than the others that one met on the road. They passed us, she never looking at us and
he looked at the far village. We caught up with her; she was a small woman, never
taking her eyes off the ground; she wasn't too clean; she had a green soiled sari and her
blouse was salmon coloured and sweat-stained. She had a flower in her oily hair and
was walking bare-footed. Her face was dark and there was about her a great sadness.
There was a certain firmness and gaiety in her walk which in no way touched her
sadness; each was leading its own life, independent, vital and unrelated. But there was
great sadness and you felt it immediately; it was an irremediable sadness; there was no
way out, no way to soften it, no way to bring about a change. It was there and it would
be there. She was across the road, a few feet away and nothing could touch her. We
walked side by side for a while and presently she turned off and crossed the red
riverbed of sand and went on to her village, the husband leading, never looking back
and she following. Before she turned off, a curious thing was taking place. The few
feet of road between us disappeared and with it also disappeared the two entities;
there was only that woman walking in her impenetrable sadness. It was not an
identification with her, nor overwhelming sympathy and affection; these were there
but they were not because of the phenomenon. Identification with another, however
deep, still maintains separation and division; there are still two entities, one

39

identifying with the other, a conscious or an unconscious process, through affection or
through hate; in it there is an endeavour of some kind, subtle or open. But here there
was none at all. She was the only human being that existed on that road. She was and
the other was not. It was not a fancy or an illusion; it was a simple fact and no amount
of clever reasoning and subtle explanation could alter that fact. Even when she turned
off the road and was going away, the other was not on that straight road that went on.
It was some time before the other found himself walking beside a long heap of broken
stones, ready for renewing the road.

Along that road, over the gap in the southern hills, came that otherness with such
intensity and power that it was with the greatest difficulty that one could stand up and
continue the walk. It was like a furious storm but without the wind and the noise and
its intensity was overwhelming. Strangely every time it comes, there is always
something new; it is never the same and always unexpected. This otherness is not
something extraordinary, some mysterious energy, but is mysterious in the sense that it
is something beyond time and thought. A mind that is caught in time and thought
can never comprehend it. It is not a thing to be understood, any more than love can be
analysed and understood, but without this immensity, strength and energy, life, and all
existence, at any level, becomes trivial and sorrowful. There is an absoluteness about it,
not a finality; it is absolute energy; it is self-existent without cause; it is not the
ultimate, final energy for it is all energy. Every form of energy and action must cease
for it to be. But in it all action is. Love and do what you will. There must be death
and total destruction for it to be; not the revolution of outward things but the total
destruction of the known in which all shelter and existence is cultivated. There must
be total emptiness and only then that otherness, the timeless, comes. But this
emptiness is not to be cultivated, it is not the result whose cause can be bought and
sold; nor is it the outcome of time and evolutionary process; time can only give birth
to more time. Destruction of time is not a process; all methods and processes prolong
time. Ending of time is the ending of total thought and feeling.

40

Meditation
Meditation is one of the most extraordinary things, and if you do not know what it
is you are like the blind man in a world of bright color, shadows and moving light.
It is not an intellectual affair, but when the heart enters into the mind, the mind
has quite a different quality: it is really, then, limitless, not only in its capacity to
think, to act efficiently, but also in its sense of living in a vast space where you are
part of everything.
Meditation is the movement of love. It isnt the love of the one or of the many. It
is like water that anyone can drink out of any jar, whether golden or earthenware:
it is inexhaustible. And a peculiar thing takes place which no drug or self-hypnosis
can bring about: it is as though the mind enters into itself, beginning at the surface
and penetrating ever more deeply, until depth and height have lost their meaning
and every form of measurement ceases. In this state there is complete peace not
contentment which has come about through gratification but a peace that has
order, beauty and intensity.
It can all be destroyed, as you can destroy a flower, and yet because of its very
vulnerability it is indestructible. This meditation cannot be learned from another.
You must begin without knowing anything about it, and move from innocence to
innocence.
The soil in which the meditative mind can begin is the soil of everyday life, the
strife, the pain, and the fleeting joy. It must begin there, and bring order, and from
there move endlessly. But if you are concerned only with making order, then that
very order will bring about its own limitation and the mind will be its prisoner.
In all this movement you must somehow begin from the other end, from the other
shore, and not always be concerned with this shore or how to cross the river. You
must take a plunge into the water, not knowing how to swim. And the beauty of
meditation is that you never know where you are, where you are going, what the
end is.
J.Krishnamurti, Meditatons 1969

Krishnamurti Foundation of America & Krishnamurti Foundation Trust 2012

Global Programs Booklet. Cover photo by Friedrich Grohe.