7. Inner Transformation

To Krishnamurti, modern civilization which is based on acquisitiveness has not solved the problem of violence, fear and greed. It has rather cultivated ways and means of avoiding the conflict at the superficial level of consciousness. So, our present civilization has become a network of escapes–running away from the reality and sought for alternative ways and means. But fundamental change in the constitution of human organization is essential if society is to live happily and faced the crisis as it is. Human beings have so far attempted to change the outer structures, that is, the social and political order only. The outer structure is only an expression of the structure of human consciousness. So, until and unless there is a fundamental change in the constitution of consciousness, human beings would encounter the problems in different forms.

In fact, the scriptures, religious and spiritual leaders, politicians and reformers have admitted that the present situation of disorder and distrust must be brought to an end. Every individual feels and looked upon the present situation of disharmony as an extremely serious and urgent matter needing very careful attention.

Krishnamurti himself says,

‘Obviously there must be a radical revolution. The world crisis demands it. Our life demands it. Our everyday incidences, pursuits, anxieties, demand it. Our problems demand it. There must be a fundamental, radical revolution, because everything about us has collapsed. Though seemingly there is order, in fact there is slow decay, destruction: the wave of destruction is constantly overtaking the wave of life.’^[1]

Accordingly, religion, philosophy, government, political parties and law making bodies are all engaged in improving the dreadful situation that human being is passing through. Krishnamurti however, observed these efforts to reform the society like starting at the wrong end. He argued that, such reforms merely leads to an endless process in which every reform is in need of a further reform. The problem is that those efforts undertaken by religious, social and political organizations arise out of an idea or a pattern which are a predetermined conclusion. To him, they are all wasteful, misdirected and inadequate activity leading us nowhere. He further emphasized that such activity has resulted in antagonism which further resulted to violence and war. As a consequence, human suffering has not stopped by the effort to change society through set patterns or through coercion and compulsion.

To quote Krishnamurti,

‘As long as you merely want to reform, that is, to bring about changes in the existing systems of thought, of culture, of possessiveness, though you may momentarily alleviate the suffering, solve the innumerable problems that arise, you are but postponing, putting away for the moment the fundamental question, which is whether a society or a culture shall be based on self-aggrandizement, possessiveness and exploitation.’^[2]

The point is that, acquisitive nature of society leads to fragmentation of consciousness which subsequently breeds disorder and confusion. Since the Vedic age, the Vedic seers declared reality to be indivisible. Similarly, the Buddha also declared the personal self to be a false idea and Sankara, a renowned Indian philosopher found all kinds of duality to be an illusion of the mind. So, the division of consciousness in terms of self and non-self, ‘me and the other,’ is responsible for the ceaseless strife and conflict in existence. That is the problem–the essence of the problem of existence. Krishnamurti also thinks that the problem of existence and the immense suffering of humanity are rooted in the fragmentation of human consciousness. It is responsible for the individual and collective exploitation, and the psychological and physical disintegration of human being. This crisis in consciousness can only be met with by awakening of every individual to the dangers inherent in the psychological set up of one’s consciousness. This awakening would bring about a total change, a psychological revolution and a mutation of mind which may results in establishing peace and prosperity in the society based on cooperation. Therefore, it is this duality in consciousness that poses the various problems of life. Since, the mind clings on this duality in terms of the self and non-self, the subject and the object, it refuses to face the problem directly. It happen that one either avoids or escapes from the problem and postponed it to an unknown future and thereby penetrates into the realms of duality. Krishnamurti, therefore, points out that to know the cause of the problem is not enough to solve it. To solve the problem of existence means to transcend the level of consciousness that breeds the problem.

The above discussion clearly shows that the issue is to rise above the problem. In other words, to solve the problem meant to put an end to all types of the process of fragmentation of consciousness. That is, one should conduct and behave in such a manner in the process of living one’s daily life. In one’s relationship to others one should behave in such a way that do not allow rooms for thought to interfere. One should not allow time to set in, and duality to take roots. Then one could be in a state of being which is creative and free from conflict and strife. In that ambiance peace and order is inherent by itself. This necessitates a change in the pattern of one’s relationship, not only with things and people but also with ideas. In fact, it requires a change in the very constitution of human consciousness.

To Krishnamurti, there is only one and single consciousness. The division in consciousness in terms of the self and non-self, conscious and unconscious, are classification of thought for mere convenience of understanding. So, this division pertains to thought and not to the fact of consciousness. In simple terms, there is no division but it is we who creates conventionally. To him, stressing the individual or the collective is of no importance for bringing about a fundamental change in the structure of consciousness. Nonetheless, he perceives life as a process focused in the individual, and the order of the society to be an expression of the structure of individual consciousness. In order to bring about psychological revolution, one has to begin with the individual, that is, with oneself. If one is clear within oneself, if at peace and is free from contradiction within oneself, one could begin to show a different way of life that is free from fear, duality and from identification with ideas.

So, to Krishnamurti, the only answer to the problem of human suffering is through a total and fundamental change in oneself. Transformation is possible only when there is a deep and radical change in the inward being of an individual. Mere change in the outer structure of society without considering the inward conflict is worthless. So, real change is possible only when there is total resolution of the conflict within the individual. The individual has to integrate oneself without any choice. It demands complete rejection of thought which is imposed on the mind. It means freedom from the known and freedom from the past. A fundamental revolution or change is primarily a revolution in the inner world of thoughts and feelings and radically affects man’s psychological relations with the world. That implies a fundamental change in the structure of consciousness and a mutation of the mind which must consequently resulted in the emergence of a new civilization and a new culture. In that consciousness there is no longer fragmentation and every individual is a unique inviolate expression of reality. In that there is spontaneous cooperation that springs not from common self-interest but from the immediate perception of the oneness of all life.

He again says,

‘What we need is a complete revolution in thought, that is, in values, and you cannot create values except by awakening the individual, not the individual in opposition to the mass.’^[3]

His contention remains that the individual is the focal point and the prime actor on the way to transformation.

He himself says,

‘In order to transform the world about us, with its misery, unemployment, starvation, class divisions and utter confusion, there must be a transformation in ourselves. The revolution must begin with oneself–but not according to any belief or ideology, because revolution based on idea or in conformity to a particular pattern, is obviously no revolution at all. To bring about fundamental revolution in oneself, one must understand the whole process of one’s thought and feeling in relationship.’^[4]

Hence, Krishnamurti does not think that any partial revolution in the economic, social or political organisation of society would provide a lasting solution to the crisis in human consciousness. The revolutions on the social, economic and political levels are limited. They do not change the total structure and nature of society. In other words, total revolution is not economic, social or political and is not according to any set pattern or ideas.

He says,

‘Social or economic revolution can only change outer states and things, or in increasing or narrowing circles, but it will always be within a limited field of thought. For total revolution, the brain must forsake all its inward, secret mechanism of authority, envy, fear and so on.’^[5]

Krishnamurti therefore thinks that, economic, political and social devolutions are a modification in the existing pattern. They are based on the desire for comfort, adjustment security and so on. The change that is derived from desire or motive is not real change. Fundamental revolution is realised only in understanding the total process of action, but not at any particular whether economical or ideological. That is, it is action as an integrated whole. He thinks that, the only revolution that must be brought about to bring peace and order to the suffering humanity has to be essentially psychological. The psychological revolution could come into being not through the effort of a few individuals but by the participation of every individual, since every individual is a part and parcel of life.

Now the question remains as to what is transformation according to Krishnamurti. His entire discussion indicates that Krishnamurti expressed the term ‘transformation’ as also ‘the mutation of mind,’ ‘psychological revolution or what he calls inner transformation/transformation of consciousness.’ He therefore, interchangeably used these expressions as one and the same thing. In simple language, by transformation Krishnamurti meant to say as seeing the false as the false and the true as the true. When one sees something very clearly as the truth, that truth leads to liberation. Similarly, when one see that something is false that false thing drops away. For instance, when one sees that ceremonies are mere vain repetitions, and see the truth of it without giving justification, there is transformation. In other words, the pattern which one have adopted or followed is realised to be a mere repetition or continuation of the past, and that seeing and realisation, and accepting it ‘as it is’ is itself a transformation.

He says,

‘To realize transformation, one must examine very closely what our life is, not escapes from it, not indulge in theoretical beliefs and assertions, but observe very closely what our life actually is and see whether it is possible to transform it completely. In the transformation of it you may affect the nature and the culture of society. There must be change in society, because there are so many evils and social injustices and there is an appalling travesty of worship and so on. But the change in society is of secondary importance. It will come about naturally, inevitably when you as a human being in relationship with another, bring about this change in yourself.’^[6]

To be more precise, seeing the false as the false meant to look at things or problems as it is and not predetermined by past memory or knowledge. In such a realisation and acceptance bondage is gone. Similarly, when one see that class distinction is false and creates conflict, misery, and division, that very seeing of the truth of it liberates. The very perception of that truth is transformation.

Thus, it is clear that Krishnamurti’s view of transformation is not cumulative, because anything that is cumulative or accumulated is memory. Through memory one can never find truth as memory is of time. Time is the past the present and the future. Time which is continuity could never find the things of the eternal, the truth. Eternity is in the moment and is in the ‘now.’ The ‘now’ is not the reflection of the past or the continuance of the past through the present to the future. The premise is that, an individual desirous of a future transformation or looks transformation as an ultimate end can never find truth. Truth is rather a thing that must come from moment to moment. It must be discovered anew and there can be no discovery through accumulation. A real revolution and transformation should be present at every movement of life. There is no question of discovering the new if one has the burden of the old. It is only after the ending of that burden of old, one could discover the new. To discover the new, the eternal and the present, one needs a mind that is not seeking a result and a mind that is not becoming. A mind that is becoming can never identify the full ecstasy. The ecstasy which is not of an achieved result but the ecstasy that comes when the mind sees the truth in ‘what is’ and the false in ‘what is.’ That perception of the truth is from moment to moment.

Krishnamurti further asserted that transformation is not an end or a result. Result implies a residue having the cause and effect. Wherever there is cause the affect is bound to follow. The effect is merely the result of one’s desire to be transformed. When one wished to be transformed, one is still thinking in terms of becoming. The act of becoming could never know that which is being. The truth and the reality could not be bought, sold or be repeated. It cannot be caught in books. It has to be found from moment to moment.

In Krishnamurti’s own words,

‘Truth and reality can be found in the smile, in the tear, under the dead leaf, in the vagrant thoughts, in the fullness of love.’^[7]

The challenge put forwarded by Krishnamurti is the task of bringing about a psychological revolution which he also calls a total revolution or transforming human existence as a whole. Human existence is self-centered and the problems are created by ourselves through the self-centered action. He has attempted to solve the same age old problem in his own right, which is but unique in many respects. He might not succeed in his life time in influencing the heart of every human being, but is somehow showing seeds that would in due course of time bear the fruits of psychological revolution.

To quote RK Shringy,

‘Even if Krishnamurti is able to carry humanity one step further, it would be a significant task in the history of civilization.’^[8]

To Krishnamurti, the life one live is reduced to be the struggle for survival. He points out the true significance of life by assuring the suffering humanity that there is a way of living life effortlessly, without bringing in conflict and strives.

He remarks,

‘So I repeat, there is a way of living without effort, without the constant strain of achievement and struggle for success, without the constant fear of loss or gain; I say there is an harmonious way of living life that comes when you meet every experience completely, when your mind is not divided against itself.’^[9]

The confusion is caused by craving which leads to self-identification and the establishment of the self-centre, which causes fragmentation of consciousness. To him, craving is the manifestation of ignorance, which he treats it as without beginning. Ignorance is not merely the lack of information. It has the positive content of ignoring ‘what is’ in preference to ‘what should be.’ Ignorance therefore, implies the denial of truth and reality. So, the only problem is ignorance and the only solution could be the understanding of reality at the individual level.

He again says,

‘The lack of comprehension of oneself is ignorance. That is, one must discern how one has come into being, what one is, all the tendencies, the reactions, the hidden motives, the self imposed beliefs and pursuits. Until each one deeply understands this, there can be no cessation of sorrow, and the confusion of divided action, as economic and religious, public and private, will continue. The human problems that now disturb us will disappear only when each one is able to discern the self-sustaining process of ignorance.’^[10]

Thus, Krishnamurti’s stress for discerning the process of ignorance to solve the problems of human existence is quite significant. It raises an important question as to whether it is possible for an individual to be free from ignorance. If it is not possible what would be the value of such a solution. In support of Krishnamurti, one could not say that it is impossible, as humanity has not given its best attention to fundamentally solve the problem. Of course, efforts have been made for some changes which are but only in the external order of socio-economic set up that leaves the structure of consciousness untouched. Maximum human activity is directed towards the cultivation of the ‘me’/ the ‘I’ at various levels and a tremendous energy is utilized towards the task of self-aggrandisement.

To Krishnamurti, one has to experiment oneself to find out the truth. Speculation would not bring the solution for speculation is one of the ways in which the mind escapes the problem. So long as one seek the easy ways and evade facing the real problem the true solution is impossible and in that way sustain one’s ignorance by one’s own action. He therefore says that ignorance is a self-sustaining process. The question of ignorance, as the cause of one’s problems is therefore pertinent. If one put this question seriously to oneself there could be a fundamental change in one’s attitude to life. Instead of pondering for various forms of escapes from the truth of one’s being one can be a part of it. So, it is truth that could deliver an individual from the bondage of ignorance.

Krishnamurti says,

‘When the truth about escapes dawns on you, will you persist in your search? Obviously not. Then we accept inevitably what is; this complete surrender to what is, is the liberating Truth, not the attainment of the objects of search.’^[11]

The only solution of one’s problem is the true understanding of reality. It is the duty of every individual to search for the real which alone could bring peace and joy. In it there is enduring unity of man and in it alone there is creative being. As long as human being persists on avoiding the reality there can be no hope of true solution but only the pursuit of illusion. It could be therefore, generalised that it is not impossible for humanity to bring about a mutation of mind. The real could not be described in words but the real comes into being and is understood when one becomes aware of ‘what is’ and when one is free from the ideal that is what should be. Krishnamurti points out, ‘The understanding of the actual is possible only when the ideal, ‘the what should be,’ is erased from the mind, that is only when the false is seen as the false. The ‘what should be’ is also the ‘what should not be.’ As long as the mind approaches the actual with either positive or negative compensation, there can be no understanding of the actual. To understand the actual you must be in direct communion with it; your relationship with it cannot be through the screen of ideal, or through the screen of the past, of tradition, of experience. To be free from the wrong approach is the only problem. This means, really, the understanding of the conditioning, which is the mind. The problem is the mind itself, and not the problems it breeds; the resolution of the problems bred by the mind is merely the reconciliation of effects, and that only leads to further confusion and illusion.’^[12]

Thus far it is understood that ‘what is’ is to know or to see the true as true and the false as false, and the true in the false. That is, it is the process of discernment of ignorance or to understand the mind the conditioning and the self-enclosing walls of the ego. In that discernment and awareness which perceives the fact as it is, there arises the understanding of the true significance of the actual–‘what is.’ One need not understand life as focussed in others or as an object outside the mind. It could rather be understood as it is focussed within one’s own mind. One’s ego could be discovered in the awareness of its responses to the renewed challenges of life from moment to moment. In other words, when attention is focussed entirely in studying the response of the mind without moulding, evaluating, judging, condemning and justifying it, only then one could be aware of the reacting background and of the conditioning. Understanding does not meant an intellectual process but implies awareness of ‘what is’ in relationship.

As Krishnamurti says,

‘The ‘what is’ is seen in the mirror of relationship, relationship with all things. The ‘what is’ cannot be understood in withdrawal, in isolation, it cannot be understood if there is the interpreter, the translator, who denies or accepts. The ‘what is’ can be understood only when the mind is utterly passive, when it is not operating on what is.’^[13]

Therefore, understanding according to Krishnamurti is passive awareness and direct perception, without implying time and efforts. By passive awareness Krishnamurti means to say about looking, seeing, without bringing in the past, which is already known. From understanding begins the action of intelligence, action which is not the result of thought or the will to be. To him, understanding implies the instant seeing as a perception and action. It is like seeing a dangerous thing and acting instantly without verbal or intellectual argument.

According to Krishnamurti, there is pure intelligence that is unconditioned and uncorrupted, which is the vision of intuition operated in direct perception. That intelligence is fully awake to the responses of the background and to the hidden motives of the mind. It is capable of meeting every challenge and every problem. It does not breed any problem and gives no room to any problem. In that state of awakened intelligence there is no problem, no contradiction and no conflict to be resolved. When intelligence is conditioned by desire, need is confused with greed. The physical needs are used as a means of psychological satisfaction giving more momentum to the craving for more. Accordingly, one builds up the self-centre and causes fragmentation in consciousness. In addition, one’s greed brings about competition and antagonism in relationship causing conflict and strife.

In this connection, Krishnamurti says,

‘Seeing this problem, this complex problem of living, and being aware of the process of our own thinking and realising that it actually leads nowhere, when we deeply realise that, then surely there is a state of intelligence which is not individual or collective. So, the problem of relationship of individual to society, of the individual to the community, of the individual to reality, ceases; because then there is only intelligence, which is neither personal nor impersonal. It is this intelligence alone, I feel, that can solve our immense problems.’^[14]

To Krishnamurti, if there is right understanding of the fact that there cannot be true discernment as long as want continues, this very understanding brings the ‘I’ process to an end. Want and desire, through the background of tradition, false values and self-protective memories renews each moment the ‘I’ process, which prevent true discernment. As long as there is desire, that breeds choice, preference and partiality, there is no discernment. For instance, if one say he/she want a particular thing, in that choosing one have created an opposite. After the choice of that particular thing, one created another opposite and one goes on from one opposite to another through a process of continual effort. Krishnamurti says that, this process of one’s life goes on and in that, there is ceaseless struggle, pain, conflict and suffering. If one realized the futility of choice then one would no longer choose. Ending of choice or choiceless awareness is the intuitive response of discernment. Thus, choiceless response is not formulated by thought or is originated from the mind, but from intuition, which Krishnamurti asserts to be the highest point of intelligence. To him the problems of existence could be solved not by the action of will or the mind but by the action of intelligence. This indicates that the problems of existence could not be solved by the mind. In order to solve it the mind has to be transcended. This action of the transcendence of the mind calls for mutation of mind, psychological revolution and fundamental change in the structure of consciousness. For the purpose, every individual has to be capable of discernment and being choicelessly aware of ‘what is.’ When there is discernment, the attempt to unify oneself with the reality got loses its relevance. In that there could be no acceptance of any belief or pursuit of any ideal or moulding of oneself after a pattern of conduct.

Krishnamurti says that, ignorance which is the origin of the ‘I’ process could not dissolve either through experience or mere control of environment. It voluntarily withers away if there is that awareness in which there is no desire or choice. To keep the mind free from conditioning one has to find out the truth for oneself. That could be done not by choice or will but by the surrender of will. In this connection Krishnamurti agreeably says that it is truth that frees one but not one’s effort to be free.

Krishnamurti focuses his attention on the silent mind as the solution of the problem of existence. By silent mind he indicates the cessation of choice and the freeing of attention from concentration on the opposite. A busy mind which is always wanting, identifying and trying of becoming this or that is a big hindrance to the perception of truth. So, this preoccupation of the mind with the ideal and with ‘what should be,’ which is the thought process, could not solve one’s problem.

Regarding thought Krishnamurti asserts,

‘Thought has not solved our problem, and I don’t think it ever will. We have relied on the intellect to show us the way out of our complexity. The more cunning, the more hideous, the more subtle the intellect is, the greater the variety of systems, of theories, of ideas. And ideas do not solve any of our human problems; they never have and they never will. The mind is not the solution; the way of thought is obviously not the way out of our difficulty. And it seems to me that we should first understand this process of thinking, and then perhaps be able to go beyond–for when thought ceases, perhaps we shall be able to find a way which will help us to solve our problems, not only the individual, but also the collective.’^[15]

Thus, the ending of thought brings about the silence of mind and in that silence there is a direct and simple perception of the whole problem. When the mind faces the problem directly without the interference of idea and memory, it becomes possible for it to act creatively without causing any fragmentation of consciousness. It is the duality of thinker and the thought that keeps the thought process continuously in action. As long as this duality–thinker and thought, observer and observed etc., exists, there could be no solution to the problem. Action based on idea is a process of becoming resulting in time, space and efforts, which is a distraction in the direct perception of ‘what is.’ The action of the silent mind is truly creative and that comes into being with the cessation of thought of the thinker.

He remarks,

‘As long as thought is anchored in belief, in ideology, it can only function within its own limitation, it can only feel-act within the boundaries of its own prejudices; it can only experience according to its own memories which gives continuity to the self and its bondage. Conditioned thought prevents right-thinking which is non-evaluation, non-identical.’^[16]

Krishnamurti however, does not mean that by cessation of thought is total destruction of thinking apparatus. The point is, when the mind is free from its preoccupation, the energy relieved is utilized for the awakening of intelligence, which is the intuitive response of discernment. When there is discernment there is right-thinking and right thinking is possible by the rejection of the thought process. Such thinking is referred to by him as negative thinking, which is the operation of intelligence. To him, higher form of intelligence, which is negative thinking, comes only when the thought process has stopped and the mind is fully aware and alert. In that alertness, the whole of the problem is perceived which resulted in integrated action, action which is full, right and complete. The action of mind motivated by an end to be achieved, creating duality of ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’ is the action ordinarily known to everyone. This action is called ‘positive’ since it affirms the self. Whereas the action of the silent mind is ‘negative’ for it negates the self.

Krishnamurti also talks of ‘will’ in regards to the solution of problems. He has categorised into two levels. Firstly, there is the will of want, which is effort and secondly, the will of comprehension, which is discernment. The will of want is ever in search of reward, of gain, and so it creates its own fears. It is the expression of the process of desire, self-identification and self projection. On the other hand, the will of discernment comes into being with the cessation of want. The will of want implies ever recurring experience, efforts and time and the will of discernment is effortless and spontaneous action.

He remarks,

‘The individual is the expression of the will of want and in the process of its activity, want is creating its own conflict and sorrow. From this the individual tries to escape into idealism, into illusions, into explanations, and so still maintains the process of the ‘I.’ The will of comprehension comes into being when there is the cessation of want with its ever recurring experiences.’^[17]

To him, if there is right comprehension of the fact that there could not be true discernment as long as the will of want continues, this very comprehension brings the ‘I’ process to an end. There is no another or higher ‘I’ to bring the ‘I’ process to an end. Even no environment and no divinity could bring the process to an end. But the very perception of the process itself and the very discernment of its folly and its transient nature bring it to an end. In other words, the ‘I’ process is self-sustaining and self-active through its own ignorance, tendencies and cravings. It has to bring itself to an end through the cessation of its own volitional wants. If one deeply understands the significance of this whole conception of the ‘I’ process, then one would see that he/she is not the mere environment, the mere creator and the originator of action. Through the cessation of one’s own volitional activities, there is reality and bliss.

Thus, Krishnamurti has illustrated various ways and means to the solution of the problem of human existence. The most significant point from his illustration is that, action based on idea and identification is fragmentary resulting in further fragmentation of consciousness. No action of will of the mind could bring about the cessation of fragmentation in consciousness and the unity of mankind. Idea based on pre-occupation frees the mind from the illusion of the self and the intuitive perception of ‘what is.’ To him the only solution of one’s problems is the discovery of what is truth. That is the only revolution which would radically affect one’s existence and one’s everyday life. According to him, truth can only be discovered in the choiceless awareness of the psychological structure of the self and limitation of the conditioned existence. Therefore, self-knowledge constitutes the only practical and effective approach to the problems of existence.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Krishnamurti, J. (2008). ‘The First and Last Freedom.’ Chennai: Krishnamurti Foundation India, p. 262

[2]:

Krishnamurti, J. (2007). ‘The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti.’ Volume II, Delhi: Motilal Banarshidass Publishers, p. 8.

[3]:

Krishnamurti,J.(1947). ‘Public Talk.’ Madras. Retrieved from http://etresoi.ch/krishnamurti/o/observed-47-11-02.html, dated, 31^st March, 2016.

[4]:

Lutyens, M. (2002). ‘The Krishnamurti Readers.’ Haryana: Penguin Books, p. 27.

[5]:

Krishnamurti,J. ‘Krishnamurti’s Notebook.’ Retrieved from http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/print.php?tid=2372&chid=70611, dated, 24^th September 2015.

[6]:

Krishnamurti, J. (2010). ‘Beyond Violence.’ Chennai: Krishnmaurti Foundation India, pp. 30-31

[7]:

Krishnamurti, J. (2008). ‘The First and Last Freedom.’ Chennai: Krishnamurti Foundation India, P. 264

[8]:

Shringy, R. K. (1996). ‘Philosophy of J. Krishnamurti: A Systematic Study.’ New Delhi: Munshiram Manaharlal Publishers, p. 148

[9]:

Verbatim Reports of Talks and Answers to Questions by Krishnamurti, Italy and Norway, (1933). Retrieved from http://www.jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/print.php?tid=60&chid=4420, dated, 9^th Dec. 2016

[10]:

Krishnamurti, J. (2007). ‘The Collected Works of J. Krishnamurti.’ Volume III, Delhi: Motilal Banarshidass Publishers, p. 13.

[11]:

Krishnamurti’s Fourth Talk in The Oak Grove, Reflections on the Self, April 28, 1946. Retrieved from http://jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti-teachings/print.php?tid=196&chid=4548, dated, 10^th Dec. 2015

[12]:

Krishnamurti, J. (2006). ‘Commentaries on Living, Second Series.’ New Delhi: Penguin Books, pp. 98-99.

[13]:

Krishnamurti, J. (2006). ‘Commentaries on Living, Second Series.’ New Delhi: Penguin Books, p. 73.

[14]:

Krishnamurti, J. (2008). ‘The First and Last Freedom.’ Chennai: Krishnamurti Foundation India, p 97

[15]:

Krishnamurti, J. (2008). ‘The First and Last Freedom.’ Chennai: Krishnamurti Foundation India, p 95

[16]:

Krishnamurti’s Ninth Talk in The Oak Grove, July 22, (1945). Retrieved from http://jkrishnamurti.org/krishnamurti teachings/print.php?tid=190&chid=4543, dated 16th July, 2016

[17]:

‘The Mirror of Relationship,’ Krishnamurti’s 3rd Public Talk, 16th June, 1936, Pennsylvania. Retrieved from http://www.jiddu-krishnamurti.net/en/1936-1944-the-mirror-of-relationship/krishnamurti-then mirror-of relationship-13, dated 12^th Sept. 2015