Our Relationship With the World (Part II) -Relationship to Society

8/14/2019 Our Relationship With the World (Part II) -Relationship to Society

1/7


2/7


3/7

society will be the way we see it in operation. Somewhere, the manifestation may

be more violent than elsewhere but the potential is every where. In that sense,

you could say that the third world war is already on. The United Nations and the

politicians call it a war only when the violence manifests beyond a certain extent,

beyond a certain level, but the third world war is already going on in the minds of

men, in the hatred between nations, in the use of violence to solve problems. It is

already going on because the psychological warfare is already going on. And

every war has sown the seeds for the next war. We have seen all this happen, we

have read it in history, in our education, but we somehow feel separate from it.

We feel Hitler was responsible for that war; but were we not responsible for the

creation of Hitler ? Are we, perhaps, through our process of education, through

our bringing up, creating little Hitlers ? We object only to the big Hitler, becausehe does things that are destructive and inconvenient for us, but the little Hitlers

are also inconvenient ! A father who is a little Hitler in his family is very

inconvenient for his children, for that family but that is legal. So we have

accepted a certain amount of violence as the norm, and we object only when that

violence manifests in a bigger way. Then, we regard it as illegal, immoral, we call

it war.

Wars have not ended for a million years. We have continually had wars, and we

are still having wars-- big wars and small wars. No animal, not even the tiger,

whom we consider most ferocious, has ever created that kind of destruction

which we human beings have created-- that is a fact. I am not saying it just to

make us feel small. It is a fact for which we are responsible. No other animal, no

other species has created that much destruction on Earth, as we have created.

Again that is a fact. You can look at history, see what mankind has done. Is this

going to change through a new political system, through another government,

through the United Nations or some other organization ? How will it change ? Ifwe are the world, and we don't change, the world doesn't change ! You can

organize things in a communist manner and you will have the violence of

communism. Or you can organize things in a capitalistic manner, and you will

have the violence of capitalism. Show me a place where three is no violence?

How can there be if there is violence in each one of us ? So none of those systems

is going to solve the problem. They are only meant to contain it, to put a

policeman there to make me orderly, because I am not orderly in myself. That is

why I need the system, I need a policeman to create order. We believe that an

external agency will bring order into society, which is me ! That may be an

illusion. It has not worked for thousands of years or at least as far as the recorded

history we know. No amount of repression has done away with it. No amount of

control, organizing, this form of politics, that form of politics, has solved it. And

still, we are not learning the basic lesson that each one of us is responsible. I am

not contributing to the war in Bosnia, only if I have ended violence within me;

otherwise I am contributing to it. Just as in science you would say that if you take

calcium and carbon and oxygen atoms, you will get calcium carbonate, and they

can tell you what the properties of that material will be, it is equally true that if

you take individuals of the kind that we are producing, self-centered, violent,

ambitious, concerned mainly with their own success, talking a little bit of love

without understanding what it means, then there is no way you can have a society

that is peaceful, non-violent and orderly. That is as clear a fact as the scientific

fact about a collection of atoms.

So if that is true, then what is our responsibility ? Is it our responsibility to become

a politician, so that we are in a position of power, and therefore can affect and

influence things from there ? That is often put forward as an argument. Often

people say good people must enter politics, so that they can rise and come to

power, and then goodness will be in power. By the time you rise to the top, you

will cease to be good ! Which means we have to understand our relationship with

power. I think it was Shakespeare who said, "Power corrupts, and absolute power

corrupts absolutely". But I question it.

I think that happens because we don't understand our relationship to power.

Power cannot corrupt, if you are incorruptible. Power corrupts, because we are

corruptible. And what we see in the world by way of goodness is often just born

of innocence. Children are innocent, they are good, but unless that goodness is

rooted in understanding it is very fragile. Because a good human being, with very

little self-knowledge, is completely corruptible, easily corruptible. Take a villager

from India who is very good because he is very simple, you take him to the city

and he gets corrupted in three months ! So goodness is very, very fragile, unless it

is rooted in understanding. Therefore it seems to me that our first responsibility is

to understand ourselves, to free ourselves from this division which is within us,

which separates us from the rest of the world and affects all our relationships.

Because so long as each one of us is that way, our governments are going to be

that way, our industries are going to be that way, and all this is going to happen.

Relationship with the World (Part II) : Relationship to Society http://www.pkrishna.org/Our-Relationsh

09/05/2009 0


4/7

What is happening in the world is not different from what is happening inside you

and me. That same attitude of exploitation of everything--of your friend, of your

neighbour, of your nation, of nature, of using the other person for our own ends, is

the basis of all our relationships. In the book by Krishnamurti called Krishnamurti

to Himself', there is a passage in which he says "If you have no relationship with

that tree on the distant hill, you will have no relationship with mankind." To me, it

means that if you have relationships only with things which matter to you, if all

our relationships are based on what we can get out of them, then we will have no

relationship with mankind, because that outlook is not an outlook of love, it is one

of exploitation. But if I respect that tree because it is another living entity out

there, a part of this world, a fellow living thing and care for it, then I have arelationship with it, then there is love. There is no purpose to that love. When

there is goodness for a purpose it is not goodness, it is cold, calculated avarice, it

is a pretense of goodness. When you are good for nothing you are really good !

So, all that is involved in the statement "You are the world". Then one is totally

responsible for everything that happens in this world.

And when you are responsible, you care, you do not contribute to violence. The

only way you can not contribute to it, is to end violence, end greed, end the ego.

But you can not end it by volition because that volition is of the ego. But by

understanding it, not by condemning it but by becoming familiar with its ways,

seeing how it interferes in every relationship, by watching it, one can free one's

consciousness of it. Only then does one not contribute to the chaos in the world.

The disorder, in human society, including all the environmental disasters, is not

unconnected with our inner state-- the real source of it lies in the hearts and minds

of men. Therefore this becomes our first responsibility and perhaps the only

responsibility, because if this ends everything else is gone -- we do not need theUnited Nations, we do not need all these controls, nationalities competing with

each other to exploit. So it is not just a lofty philosophic statement : "You are the

world." It is a fact that entails an enormous responsibility. Perhaps we can discuss

it.

Question : What is the basic cause for the identification with the body and mind,

which creates the ego and separates us out from the rest of the world and then

affects all our relationships ?

P.K. : If we observe a small child -- and we have all been children -- then we can

study it by watching how as they grow, the sense of self develops. Whatever

happens with children has happened with us because we are not different from

them. Scientists and psychologists tell us that a child, at the time of its birth, does

not have this feeling of self-consciousness. It does not feel it is separate from the

rest of the world, it does not even know that his arm is his.

Very small children are sometimes upset with their mother that they are having

pain in their head and their mother does not know anything about it. They do not

know that she has no way of knowing unless they tell ! So the sense of self is not

inherently there right from birth, it is something we acquire along the way. I think

it begins the moment a child begins to sense that when it falls it feels pain but not

his brother or mother. He begins to feel that his body is separate -- which is a fact.

Then comes the concern with 'my' pain and 'my' pleasure and with it, the natural

tendency to pursue pleasure and to avoid pain. The brain then sets into motion a

discriminating agency which is pursuing pleasure, avoiding pain, foreseeing what

is going to happen, fearing, so all that kind of thinking is born. I am not

condemning it or saying it is good or bad - I am just describing what one can

observe. I do not think you can bring up a child not to develop an ego. You can

not bring up children in such a way that they will not be conditioned at all.

Basically the brain is recording whatever that child is experiencing -- when he

fights, reads the newspaper, hears his father speaking or watches television - that

is going to condition the brain of the child. You cannot possibly avoidconditioning the mind of the child. From that conditioning arises the

identification, the preferences, the censor, the judgment, the likes and dislikes,

and all that goes into constituting the ego.

Thereafter, we accept that there is no go except to live with this ego. So when the

ego is hurt, we have developed mechanisms for consolation-- we use our

relationships to console us and we begin to need that relationship for consolation.

Every time I am hurt I need somebody to console me, so I become attached to

that person. It is a mechanism we develop to protect us from the hurt. So the me

and the mine develop and the whole turmoil begins.

That is how identification begins. I feel afraid, I feel insecure, so I like to belong

to a community, a nation, I feel they will come and protect me. But, in the long

run, you can see that is exactly what the man in another community, another


09/05/2009 0


5/7

nation is also doing -- he is also identifying with his nation, his religion, for the

same reasons I am identifying with mine and then because we are unintelligent

about it, we fight and destroy each other. This phenomenon is creating the

greatest insecurity, the greatest problem for the world. So it is not really solving

our insecurity but it appears to us as if it solves our insecurity. Therefore we

identify and the self is built up through illusion.

Then there comes along a man like Krishnamurti who says, - Sir, look at it, you

don't have to live that way, it is stupid to live that way.

it is not solving any problems. We may have acquired all this in childhood but we

also have the capacity, the intelligence to watch it and eliminate it. But we do not

look at it, we are all the time interested in avoiding the pain, both psychological

and physical, and in cultivating pleasure. So we do not understand the mechanism

at all. We have desire and we seek fulfillment but we never understand desire.

We say "This is noble desire, that is ignoble desire. These are good habits, those

are bad habits." But we have never questioned habit itself, not understood what

habit is. We object to it when the desire is for alcohol and we consider it very

noble when it is ambition for some work we are doing. So we have merely

categorized it as good habit, bad habit, noble desire, ignoble desire, without

understanding either habit or desire. A man like Krishnamurti comes along and

says, "That is all very well, but it is too superficial.

Look at desire itself, what it does. You have to understand desire.

Desire has its own consequences even though it may be for a noble end." But I

have not understood that so I keep playing with choosing between desires. Which

means we have not really understood our consciousness, and so long as ourconsciousness continues to be the same, we can go on playing at the periphery, it

will be like creating soap bubbles with one hand and erasing them with the other.

Not a particularly intelligent way of spending time ! So we have to address that

problem. At present we are not doing that.

We are in fact exploiting the ego in the child to coerce him to do what we want

him to do. We tell him, "If you do well in Mathematics, I will give you

chocolates". In using reward and punishment we appeal to his ego. We are not

trying to show him the beauty of mathematics, the joy of learning it, we induce

him to do it for a reward. So we create human beings who are to do it for a

reward. So we create human beings who are energized only when there is a gain.

When he grows up he is always asking, "What is the point of doing this, what will

I get out of it ?" If he is not getting anything out of it he slumps. But you dangle a

reward in front of him and he is totally energized.

Energy is generated only when his self-interest is involved. We assume thatenergy is born only out of self-interest, which is the ego. We have not questioned

that, we have not found out if there may be an energy which is not from the ego.

We accept that if there is no ego, there is no self, then there will be no energy, no

ambition and we will slump. So we have the energy of the ego and we have the

wars too ! You cannot have the one without the other, that is all that one is

pointing out. It is as absurd as wanting to have an object in the sun but not have

its shadow !

Question : If the entire universe is governed by a certain cosmic order, then is the

ego also not a part of that order ?

P.K. : I doubt it, I question it. Everything that happens without the interference

of human beings is a part of that order. The tiger attacking and eating a lamb is a

part of the universal order. The volcano, the earthquake are also a part of that

order though they may not suit us ! To define order as that which suits us is too

trivial a definition of order. The universe does not exist in order to suit us.

It is all something that follows the laws of Nature and therefore something

inevitable. It is bound to happen that way, Nature is that way. It is not moral or

immoral, it is that way because the laws of the universe are that way. But that is

not true when the Hindu kills the Muslim or the Arab kills the Jew. Their enmity is

not governed by the laws of Nature. That enmity is born out of illusions produced

by the human imagination. If you do not have the illusions it will not happen.

When it is born out of illusion it is part of disorder. So, by definition, when

something happens in accordance with Nature's laws, it is part of order, even

though it may be inconvenient to us.

But when it arises from illusions created by human thought and imagination, it is a

part of disorder, not order. That includes the apparent order which sometimes

thought creates outwardly, like the order of communism or the order created by


09/05/2009 0


6/7

the military-- it is all a part of disorder. It is only apparently orderly when all those

military men wear the same uniform and walk in the same style, to the same beat

of martial music. If you are nationalistic you may feel uplifted when you see that

display but that whole feeling is also a part of disorder because it arises out of

illusions. That is a very very superficial order. Those men may not be disciplined

at all.

They are momentarily doing that to feel disciplined, but that is not discipline. We

have to understand deeply what discipline means. One may be a totally

undisciplined person and for half or one hour act in a very disciplined manner;

that is not discipline, that is hypocrisy.

We get taken in by appearances because we do not go deep into it. The

differences we feel between one human being and another also arise because we

look at human beings superficially, by their labels, by their professions, by their

religious identifications. we judge human beings on that basis. It may be that the

difference we see is only because we see superficially. If we really regard a

human being deeply and are aware of the depths of his consciousness, we may

find there is little difference between one human being and another. The Buddha

said, "One human being differs from another only as much as one candle differs

from another candle; and that difference is not more than the difference between

a candle and what it was a little while earlier !" We have to go into that deeply to

understand what it means.

Question : I have a question about energy. When I watch myself and make

judgments, I find that in the end I feel exhausted. Is there a way of not forming

opinions and not making judgments which conserves energy ?

P.K. : You know, it appears to us that the ambitious man is terribly energetic

because he is passionately working at his mission. But where there is ambition

there is violence, there is friction, conflict. Where there is conflict there is also

wastage of energy.

We all get energized for a particular purpose. At the time of war, when we all feel

it is important for our nation to win, look at the amount of energy we are capable

of. All that energy is there, available. But the mind conjures it up when it has a

cause like that in front of it. When we are not intelligent we spend it on stupid

causes like war, like fighting our neighbour, creating tension in a relationship and

so on. But if we are intelligent, all that energy is available for joy, for living with

happiness, for exploring - it does not have to be spent on a battle, whether it be a

battle out there in war or with a colleague in the office with whom one is

competing -- it is all the same, it is violence.

So we are familiar with the energy that is used by the self but we have neverdiscovered whether it is possible to have the same energy without the self. Of

course it is possible. Indeed we do it too - it is not as if we are all the time

self-centred. There are moments when the self is absent but we do not give

importance to them because we are so much taken up with the activities of the

self that our attention is focused on them. When we do something which is just

out of love, it is treated as something on the side as a hobby. We are often not

aware of it, but we of course have that capacity. The Gita posed the question,

"Can you work like an ambitious man without being ambitious ?" That challenge

we have not answered in 5000 years !

Question: Is not mental energy different from physical energy ? I may have a lot

of physical energy but very little mental energy. That seems to be another kind of

energy.

P.K. : Sir, energy is a very funny thing. When you are tired, feeling low in energy,

if a tiger walks into the door you will discover energy. (laughter). You will runlike you had all the energy in the world. It's not you who do that, the human

system has that capacity -- the adrenalin is secreted, the whole body is energized

for that particular purpose and immediately the energy appears. So the energy is

not there when the mind is disinterested, then the energy does not appear. And it

is disinterested because it only looks for reward and where there is no reward it is

not interested. A man like K is saying, "Sir, can you live with that energy

irrespective of reward -- in everything you do". Can we live that way ? To polish

one's shoes that way, with enthusiasm, with zest, excel in that-- bathe that way,

walk that way, talk to a friend that way. The same energy which is there when

you are going to double your salary can be there when you are doing all this

without wanting anything out of it. But if we say that is important, this is not

important, then it does not come. Our mind has created what is important and

what is unimportant and we are training our children to do that also. Notice young

children are not that way. They play with a friend and have tremendous energy


09/05/2009 0


7/7

Documents

Our Relationship With the World (Part II) -Relationship to Society