[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.And I think such arevolution has immense significance in the world, for then themind has no ideology, it is neither of the West nor of the East.Surely, this religious revolution is the only salvation.To find out what is true religion requires, not a mere one-dayeffort or one-day search and forgetfulness the next day, butconstant questioning, a disturbing inquiry, so that you begin todiscard everything.After all, this process of discarding is thehighest form of thinking.The pursuit of positive thinking is notthinking at all, it is merely copying.But when there is inquirywithout a motive, without the desire for a result, which is thenegative approach - in that inquiry the mind goes beyond alltraditional religions; and then, perhaps, one may find out foroneself what God is, what truth is.September 6, 1956 HAMBURG, GERMANY 3RD PUBLIC TALK 9THSEPTEMBER 1956I do not think that we realize the significance or the importance ofthe individual.Because, as I was saying the other day, to bringabout a fundamental, religious revolution, one must surely cease tothink in terms of the universal, in terms of the collective.Anythingthat is made universal, collective, belonging to everyday, can neverbe true - true in the sense of being directly experienced by eachindividual, uninfluenced, without the impetus of self-centredinterest.I think we do not sufficiently realize the seriousness ofthis.Anything really true must be totally individual - not in thesense of self-centredness, which is very limiting and which in itselfis evil, but individual in the sense that each one of us mustexperience for himself, uninfluenced, something which is not theoutcome of any self-centred interest or drive.One can see in the modern world how everything is tendingtowards collective thought - everybody thinking alike.The variousgovernments, though they do not compel it, are quietly andsedulously working at it.Organized religions are obviouslycontrolling and shaping the minds of people according to theirrespective patterns, hoping thereby to bring about a universalmorality, a universal experience.But I think that whatever is madeuniversal, in that sense, is always suspect, because it can never betrue; it has lost its vitality, its directness, its truth.Yet throughoutthe world we see this tendency to shape and to control the mind ofman.And it is extraordinarily difficult to free the mind from thisfalse universality and to change oneself without any self-interest. It seems to me that we must have a change - a fundamental,radical change in our thinking, in our feeling.To bring aboutchange we use various methods, we have ideals, disciplines,sanctions, or we look to social, economic and scientific influences.These things do bring about a superficial change, but I am nottalking of that.I am talking of a change which is uninfluenced,without any self-interest, without self-centredness.It seems to methat such a change is possible, and that it must come about if weare to have this religious revolution of which I was speaking theother day.We think that ideals are necessary.But do ideals help to bringabout this radical change in us? Or do they merely enable us topostpone, to push change into the future, and thereby avoid theimmediate, radical change? Surely, so long as we have ideals, wenever really change, but hold on to our ideals as a means ofpostponement, of avoiding the immediate change which is soessential.I know it is taken for granted by the majority of us thatideals are indispensable, for without them we think there would beno impetus to change, and we would rot, stagnate.But I amquestioning whether ideals of any kind ever do transform ourthinking.Why do we have ideals? If I am violent, need I have the ideal ofnon-violence? I do not know if you have thought about this at all.If I am violent - as most of us are in different degrees - , is itnecessary for me to have the ideal of non-violence? Will thepursuit of non-violence free the mind from violence? Or is the verypursuit of non-violence actually an impediment to theunderstanding of violence? After all, I can understand violence only when with my whole mind I give complete attention to theproblem.And the moment I am wholly concerned with violenceand the understanding of violence, what significance has the idealof non-violence? It seems to me that the pursuit of the ideal is anevasion, a postponement.If I am to understand violence, I mustgive my whole mind to it, and not allow myself to be distracted bythe ideal of non-violence.This is really a very important issue.Most of us look upon theideal as essential in order to make us change.But I think it ispossible to bring about a change only when the mind understandsthe whole problem of violence; and to understand violence, youmust give your complete attention to it, and not be distracted by anideal.We all see the importance of the cessation of violence [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl milosnikstop.keep.pl
.And I think such arevolution has immense significance in the world, for then themind has no ideology, it is neither of the West nor of the East.Surely, this religious revolution is the only salvation.To find out what is true religion requires, not a mere one-dayeffort or one-day search and forgetfulness the next day, butconstant questioning, a disturbing inquiry, so that you begin todiscard everything.After all, this process of discarding is thehighest form of thinking.The pursuit of positive thinking is notthinking at all, it is merely copying.But when there is inquirywithout a motive, without the desire for a result, which is thenegative approach - in that inquiry the mind goes beyond alltraditional religions; and then, perhaps, one may find out foroneself what God is, what truth is.September 6, 1956 HAMBURG, GERMANY 3RD PUBLIC TALK 9THSEPTEMBER 1956I do not think that we realize the significance or the importance ofthe individual.Because, as I was saying the other day, to bringabout a fundamental, religious revolution, one must surely cease tothink in terms of the universal, in terms of the collective.Anythingthat is made universal, collective, belonging to everyday, can neverbe true - true in the sense of being directly experienced by eachindividual, uninfluenced, without the impetus of self-centredinterest.I think we do not sufficiently realize the seriousness ofthis.Anything really true must be totally individual - not in thesense of self-centredness, which is very limiting and which in itselfis evil, but individual in the sense that each one of us mustexperience for himself, uninfluenced, something which is not theoutcome of any self-centred interest or drive.One can see in the modern world how everything is tendingtowards collective thought - everybody thinking alike.The variousgovernments, though they do not compel it, are quietly andsedulously working at it.Organized religions are obviouslycontrolling and shaping the minds of people according to theirrespective patterns, hoping thereby to bring about a universalmorality, a universal experience.But I think that whatever is madeuniversal, in that sense, is always suspect, because it can never betrue; it has lost its vitality, its directness, its truth.Yet throughoutthe world we see this tendency to shape and to control the mind ofman.And it is extraordinarily difficult to free the mind from thisfalse universality and to change oneself without any self-interest. It seems to me that we must have a change - a fundamental,radical change in our thinking, in our feeling.To bring aboutchange we use various methods, we have ideals, disciplines,sanctions, or we look to social, economic and scientific influences.These things do bring about a superficial change, but I am nottalking of that.I am talking of a change which is uninfluenced,without any self-interest, without self-centredness.It seems to methat such a change is possible, and that it must come about if weare to have this religious revolution of which I was speaking theother day.We think that ideals are necessary.But do ideals help to bringabout this radical change in us? Or do they merely enable us topostpone, to push change into the future, and thereby avoid theimmediate, radical change? Surely, so long as we have ideals, wenever really change, but hold on to our ideals as a means ofpostponement, of avoiding the immediate change which is soessential.I know it is taken for granted by the majority of us thatideals are indispensable, for without them we think there would beno impetus to change, and we would rot, stagnate.But I amquestioning whether ideals of any kind ever do transform ourthinking.Why do we have ideals? If I am violent, need I have the ideal ofnon-violence? I do not know if you have thought about this at all.If I am violent - as most of us are in different degrees - , is itnecessary for me to have the ideal of non-violence? Will thepursuit of non-violence free the mind from violence? Or is the verypursuit of non-violence actually an impediment to theunderstanding of violence? After all, I can understand violence only when with my whole mind I give complete attention to theproblem.And the moment I am wholly concerned with violenceand the understanding of violence, what significance has the idealof non-violence? It seems to me that the pursuit of the ideal is anevasion, a postponement.If I am to understand violence, I mustgive my whole mind to it, and not allow myself to be distracted bythe ideal of non-violence.This is really a very important issue.Most of us look upon theideal as essential in order to make us change.But I think it ispossible to bring about a change only when the mind understandsthe whole problem of violence; and to understand violence, youmust give your complete attention to it, and not be distracted by anideal.We all see the importance of the cessation of violence [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]