The New Mind (eBook)

Banaras, India, 1963

First Talk at Rajghat

I will talk to you for about half an hour or so, and then perhaps you will be good enough to ask questions, and we can discuss them. Perhaps this might be worthwhile.

It seems to me, not only now but always, that a new mind, a mind that can consider all the many problems from a totally different dimension is necessary because the problems are increasing in every field; man’s anxiety, his despair, the agony of his violence and hatred all over the world is increasing—one kills for an idea. And technologically, you may go to the moon; but the human problems of violence, of real sympathy, love, affection, are not solved at all. And wars are on the increase—there is the threat of war, there is more division between man and man. And one sees, all over the world, the fantastic illusion, the fiction of ideals which have no meaning at all; and ideals have become astonishingly important.

We—especially the so-called religious people, the so-called idealists, the nonviolent people—live in a world of fiction. We are not facing facts, the actualities, the what is of everyday human existence. And if one observes, one finds there is more conflict, without as well as within—not only physical conflict, an act which kills, but also the conflict within—inside the skin, inside the heart, inside the brain; and there is the conflict between nations, between classes. And unfortunately in this country, there is conflict between people who speak different languages, between the rich and the poor.

If one observes a little more deeply, there is conflict within at all levels of our existence—not only at the conscious level of our daily hopes, daily activities, and daily feelings, but unconsciously, deep down. There is always a battle going on—an endless battle which perhaps ends with death. There is unceasing violence outside and within. And we try to escape from this violence through ideals, through every form of religious fantasy. But the fact remains that there is this extraordinary violence and conflict within each one. Apparently, we do not give our whole heart and mind to understand this conflict, this violence. When you give your mind, your body, your heart, your nerves, everything that you have, you understand and resolve this conflict. But apparently we do not do that. We rather put up with the conflict and escape through some ideation. All ideation is fiction; it has no reality at all. What has reality is the actual—the actual thing that you can observe, put your hands upon. But apparently ideals give us a fantastic escape from the actual thing.

Not only have we conflict within ourselves, but we add to it another conflict, the conflict of ideals—how to approximate our activities, our doing, our thought, to a certain pattern which we call the ideal. You know what happens in this country, the country which has everlastingly preached nonviolence. Nonviolence is obviously a fiction, it has no validity at all; and yet we are carried away by this word. What has reality is violence, this conflict, this agony, this terribly complex existence of life. Instead of giving our hearts to understand it, to resolve it, and to go completely beyond it, we pursue this fiction, this myth. We see not only that we have this incessant conflict, but we also add another. This becomes hypocritical as is shown in this country which has talked about ahimsa and nonviolence—which is all sheer, brutal, ugly nonsense.

Our problem is surely not only to find the cause, not only to be aware of the conflict, of the violence within, but having discovered it, having seen it as a fact, as an actuality, to give our hearts to it—and apparently we cannot do that. You know, to understand something, to understand even the most scientific question, the scientist must give his mind, his labor, his thought, his heart to it. And the really first-class scientist does this at least in his laboratory; he is completely there. He is a completely different human being once he leaves his laboratory. But when he is in his laboratory, he has only one complete intensity to discover, to understand what is under the microscope and go on with it until he discovers everything that has to be understood about that particular thing. But apparently we cannot do that. Though we are broken, we are in chaos, though our life is shattered, made ugly, though our life is petty, narrow, small, and stupid, we won’t give our minds, our hearts, to understand this thing. I wonder why we are so fragmented, broken up.

It is important, I think, to find out what it is to listen, to find out how we listen. There is a statement being made by the speaker. How do you listen to it? Do you listen to it as something foreign, as a series of words put together which you casually hear, which has a vague peripheral meaning, as something that you have heard or that has very little meaning? Or, do you listen to find out if what the speaker is saying is true or false?—not agreeing with him, not rejecting what he says. And to find out, you have to listen. And to listen is one of the most difficult things. We can’t listen completely, continuously. We listen intermittently, sporadically, now and then.

To listen implies that you have to have a certain quality of attention. To listen means that you have not to bring your own opinions, not to bring your own ideas, the commitments that you have, the knowledge, the inferences, the comparison that you make—all those have to be put aside so as to listen really, completely, to what another person is saying.

You happen to be here to listen to the speaker; if you cannot listen that way, then what is being said is merely a series of words casually formed together, and all communication between you and the speaker ceases.

We are talking about something very, very serious—not something which you do occasionally when you have time, when you have nothing else to do. We are dealing with life. And you have to listen to find out how to resolve this extraordinary conflict in which one is. Because this conflict is not merely of the particular, but it is also the conflict of the world, the collective—the two things are not separate; it is one continuous movement, like a tide that goes out and comes in. And you have to resolve this conflict as an individual, not as a group, not as the collective that wants to work for peace—that will follow much later. We will always begin at the wrong end.

It is important to understand this and give our hearts and minds to find out if this conflict, misery, sorrow, despair, and anxiety can be resolved. What we propose to do during the three Sundays we are meeting here is to go into the question of whether a new mind can come into being. And a new mind is only possible when all the conflicts at every level of our being—the conflict of the unconscious, the conflict of the verbal, the conflict of the intellectual, and the conflict at the level of our daily existence—are wiped away. We have to see whether that conflict can be completely, totally, wiped away. Because it is only then that we can have the new mind—a mind that can proceed, a mind that is young, fresh, innocent, a mind that can ask.

You see another peculiar thing in our life. We think that every action needs conflict. To overcome that conflict, we have a pattern called an idea, and according to that idea, action is made to conform; and so conflict increases in action. So, is it possible—not theoretically, not ideationally, not in some far-off places, not in an ecstatic heaven—is it possible actually to eliminate conflict altogether if I am going to see? Naturally that is a vital question. Because if the mind were not in conflict, then there would be affection, love; there would be clarity; then you and I would not be against each other; you wouldn’t have your own opinions, ideas, your beliefs which are so extraordinarily important that you fight with another for your beliefs and dogmas. Then we would look at things, then we would consider what is important and would inquire into those things with which we are concerned.

So, is it possible to end conflict? If you say it is not possible to end conflict in life, in living, then you stop inquiring. Please understand this. You may say it is not possible, as most people say. The whole of the communist world, ideologically and actually, says, “Conflict cannot be wiped away from the human mind. It is part and parcel of human existence”; then you must have conflict. You don’t do it either. You say, “Let us refine conflict, let us make it better, let us fasten it, let us put it in a gold frame, and all the rest of it.”

Just as there are those who say it is not possible, there are those who say, ideologically, verbally, it is possible if you follow a certain discipline and a certain rule of life. They say that if you believe in God, if you sacrifice yourself for certain ideas and so on, eventually you will have peace. Eventually means at a distance, at the end of some years, but we want peace now, like a hungry man wanting food. So if you belong to either of these categories—one who says that it is not possible and the other who says that it is possible only through time—then you and I can have no relationship because it is absolutely essential to end this conflict immediately, not in time.

If you say it is possible, then you do not do anything about it because possibility is merely an idea. And if you say it is not possible, again you belong to the category of the man that says, “Conflict is there, put up with it, make...