The Origin of Conflict (eBook)

Madras, India, 1949-1950

First Talk in Madras

Perhaps if we can understand this whole problem of searching, seeking, we may be able to understand the complex problem of dissatisfaction and discontent. Most of us are seeking something at various levels of existence, physical comfort or psychological well-being, or we say we are seeking truth or seeking wisdom. We are apparently always seeking something. Now, what does this mean, actually? What is it that we are seeking? We can only seek something that we know; we cannot seek something that we do not know. We cannot search for something that we do not know exists; we can only search for something that we have had and have lost. The search is the desire for satisfaction.

Most of us are dissatisfied both outwardly and inwardly, and if we observe ourselves closely, we find that this discontent is merely the search for an enduring satisfaction at different levels of existence, which we call truth, happiness, understanding, or any other term. Basically, this urge is to find lasting gratification; and being discontented with everything we do, finding no gratification in any of the things we have tried, we go from one teacher, one religion, one path, to another, hoping to find ultimate satisfaction. So, essentially our search is not for truth, but for satisfaction. Most of us are discontented, dissatisfied, with things as they are, and our psychological inward struggle is to find a permanent refuge; whether the refuge is one of ideas or of immediate relationship, the basic urge is a desire to achieve complete satisfaction. This drive is what we call seeking.

We try various gratifications, various isms, Communism included, and when these do not satisfy, we turn to religion and pursue one guru after another, or we become cynics. Cynicism also gives great satisfaction. Our search is always for a state of mind in which there will be no disturbance whatever, in which there will no longer be a struggle, but complete satisfaction. Is there the possibility of complete satisfaction in anything which the mind seeks? The mind is searching for its own projections, which are satisfying, gratifying, and the moment it finds one of these projections troublesome, it leaves it and goes to another. That is, we are seeking a psychological state which will be so pacifying, so reconciled, that it eliminates all conflicts. If we look into it deeply, we shall see that no such state is possible unless we are in illusion or attached to some form of psychological assertion.

Can discontent ever find permanent satisfaction? And what is it that we are discontented with? Are we seeking a better job, more money, a better wife, or a better religious formulation? If we examine it closely, we shall find that all our discontent is a search for permanent satisfaction and that there can be no permanent satisfaction. Even physical security is impossible. The more we want to be secure, the more we become enclosed, nationalistic, ultimately leading to war. So, as long as we are seeking satisfaction, there must be ever-increasing conflict.

Is it possible ever to be content? What is contentment, actually? What brings contentment, how does it come about? Surely, contentment comes only when we understand what is. What brings discontent is the complex approach to what is. Because I want to change what is into something else, there is the struggle of becoming. But mere acceptance of what is also creates a problem. Surely, to understand what is, there must be passive watchfulness without the desire to change it into something else, which means that one must be passively aware of what is. Then it is possible to go beyond the mere outward show of what is. What is is never static, though our response may be static.

Our problem, therefore, is not the search for an ultimate gratification, which we call truth, God, or a better relationship, but the understanding of what is. To understand what is requires an extraordinarily swift mind which sees the futility of the desire to change what is into something else, of comparing or trying to reconcile what is with something else.

This understanding comes, not through discipline, control, or self-immolation, but through the removal of hindrances which prevent us from seeing what is directly.

There is no ending to satisfaction—it is continuous, and unless we see that, we are incapable of dealing with what is as it is. Direct relationship with what is is right action. Action based upon an idea is merely a self-projection. The idea, the ideal, the ideology, is all a part of the thought process, and thought is a response to conditioning at any level. Therefore, the pursuit of an idea, of an ideal or an ideology, is a circle in which the mind is caught. When we see the whole process of the mind and all its crafty maneuvering, only then is there understanding which brings transformation.

Question: We see inequality among men, and some are far above the rest of mankind. Surely, then, there must be higher types of beings like Masters and devas who may be deeply interested in cooperating with mankind. Have you contacted any of them? If so, can you tell us how we can contact them?

KRISHNAMURTI: Most of us are interested in gossip, and gossip is an extraordinarily stimulating thing, whether it is about Masters and devas or about our neighbors. The more dull we are, the more we love gossip. When one is fed up with social gossip, one wants to gossip about something higher. We are interested, not in the problem of inequality, but in gossipy tidbits about strange entities we do not see, thus seeking a means of escaping from our shallowness. After all, the Masters and devas are your own projections; when you follow them, you follow your own projections. If they were to say to you, “Drop your nationalism, your societies, do not be greedy, do not be cruel,” you would soon leave them and pursue others who would satisfy you. You want me to help you to contact the Masters. I am really not interested in the Masters. There is a lot of talk about them, and it has become a cunning means of exploiting people. We make a mess in the world, and we want a big brother to come and help us out of it. A great deal of that is cant. This division between Master and pupil, the hierarchical climbing of the ladder of success—is it really spiritual? This whole idea of hierarchical becoming, struggling to become what you call spiritual, to attain liberation—is it spiritual? When our hearts are empty, we fill them with the images of Masters, which means there is no love. When you love someone, you are not conscious of equality or inequality. Why are you so occupied with the question of Masters? The Masters are important to you because you have a sense of authority, and you give authority to something which has no authority. You give authority because it pleases you; it is self-flattery.

The problem of inequality is more fundamental than the desire to contact the Masters. There is inequality in capacity, in thought, in action—between the genius and the dull-witted man, the man who is free and the man who practices a routine. Every kind of revolution has tried to break this down and in the process has created another inequality. The problem is how to go beyond the sense of inequality, of the inferior and the superior. That is true spirituality—not seeking Masters and thereby maintaining the sense of inequality. The problem is not how to bring about equality, because equality is an impossibility. You are entirely different from another. You see more, you are much more alert than the other; you have a song in your heart, the other’s is empty and to him a dead leaf is a dead leaf which he burns. Some people have extraordinary capacity, they are swift and capable. Others are slow, dull, unobserving. There is no end to physical and psychological differences, and you cannot break them down—that is an utter impossibility. All that you can do is to give an opportunity to the dull and not kick him, not exploit him. You cannot make him a genius.

So the problem is not how to contact Masters and devas but how to transcend the sense of inequality; seeking to contact Masters is the pursuit of the very, very dull. When you know yourself, you know the Master. A real Master cannot help you because you have to understand yourself. We are all the time pursuing phony Masters; we seek comfort, security, and we project the kind of Master we want, hoping that Master will give us all that we desire. Since there is no such thing as comfort, the problem is much more fundamental—that is, how to go beyond this sense of inequality. Wisdom is not the struggle to become more and more.

Now, is it possible to transcend the sense of inequality? For inequality is there, we cannot deny it. What happens when we do not deny inequality, when we do not come to it with a prejudiced mind, but face it? There is the dirty village, and there is also the nice clean house—both are what is. How do you approach ugliness and beauty? In that lies the solution. The beautiful you wish to be identified with, and the ugly you put aside. For the inferior you have no consideration, but for the superior you have the greatest consideration and deference. Your approach is identification with the higher and rejection of the lower; you look upward with cringing and downward with contempt.

Inequality can be transcended only when we understand our approach to it. As long as we resist the ugly and identify ourselves with the beautiful, there is bound to be all this misery. But, if we approach inequality without condemnation, identification, or judgment, then our...