CHAPTER IX

WHAT IS THE SELF

know what we mean by the self? By that, I mean the

Do we
idea. the memory, the conclusion, the experience, the various
forms of nameable and unnameable intentions, the conscious
endeavour to be or not to be, the accumulated memory of the
unconscious, the racial, the group, the individual, the clan, and
the whole ofit all, whether it is projected outwardly in action
or projected spiritually as virtue; the striving after all this is the
self. In it is included the competition, the desire to be. The
whole process of that is the self; and we know actually when we
are faced with it that it is an evil thing. I am using the word
evil' intentionally, because the self is dividing:
the self is self-
enclosing: its activities, however noble, are separative and
Isolating. We know all this. We also know those extraordinary
moments when the self is not
there, in which there is no sense
ot
endeavour, of effort, and which happens when there is love.
t seems to me
that it is important to understand how
APeience strengthens the
self. If we are earnest, we should
understand this problem of
mean by experience. Now what do we
experience? We have experience all the time,

69
 J. KRISHNAMURTI

impressions; and we translate impressin.

those
ons, and
or act according to them; we are calculating we react
on. There is the constant interplay betweer ming, and so
between what
reaction to it, and 1s seen
objectively and
oby
our
interplay between
en
conscious and the memories of
the
unconscious the
According to my memories, I react to whater.
ver
see oto
whatever I feel. In this process ofreacting to whattII see, whnat
I feel, what I know, what I believe, experience is takina
is it not? Reaction, response to something seen, isexperien
When I see you, I react; the naming of that reactio experience
is
experience. If I do not name that reaction it is not
an
experience. Watch your own responses and what is takin.
place about you. There is no experience unless there is
king
naming process going on at the same time. IfI do not recop
cog-
nize you, how can I have the experience of meeting you? It
sounds simple and right. Is it not a fact? That is ifI do not
react according to my memories, according to my con-
ditioning, according to my prejudices, how can I know that
I have had an experience?
Then there is the
projection of various desires. I desire to
be protected, to have
security inwardly; or I desire to have a
Master, guru, a teacher, a God; and I
a

T have experience that which

projected; that is I have
projected a desire which has
taken a form, to
which I have
It is my given a name; to that I react.
projection. It is my naming. That desire
me an
experience makes me say: I which gaves
met the have experience',
Master', or 'I have not met
T have
the whole process of the Master. You
naming an
know
you call
experience, is it not? experience. Desire is what
 THE FIRST AND L AST
FREEDOM

I desire silence of the mind, what is

What 1appens? I see the importance of having a silent place?
mind1,
taking
mind, for various reasons; because the Upanishads have
a quie
said so, religious scriptures have said so, saints have said it, and
ccasionally I myselt feel how good it is to be quiet,
also occasie

Lecause my mind is so very chatty all the day. At times I feel

L nice, how pleasurable it is to have a peaceful mind, a
ilent mind. The desire is to experience silence. I want to have

a silentmind, and sol ask How get it? I know what this
can I
and the various forms of
or that book says about meditation,

discipline. So through discipline I seek to experience silence.

self, the 'me, has therefore established itself in the
The
experience of silence.

I want to understand what is truth; that is my desire, my

consider
then there follows my projection of what I
longing; heard
the truth, because I have read lots about it; I have
to be
described
talk about it; religious scriptures have
many people
the very
it. I wantall that. What happens? The very want,
because I recognize that
desire is projected, and I experience
state. If I did not recognize
that state, I would not
projected
it; and that
Call it recognize it and I experience
truth. I
Aperience gives strength to the self, to
the 'me', does it not?
Then you
tne
self becomes entrenched in the experience.
no
is God' or "there is
'the exists', 'there
4y know, Master
all
God; you say that a particular political system is right and
others are not.
So0 experience is always strengthening the 'me'. The more

you are enn e d does the

in your experience,
the more

self get strengthened. As a result of this, you have a certain

71
 . KRISHNAMURTI

strength of character, strength

of knowledge, of
et, which
vou display to other people because they
you know.
and because are not
you have the oicre
as clever as you
are,
gift of th
or of speech and you are cunning. Because th
the self is pen
acting, your beliets, your Masters, vour
so stil
s, your
a process of isolation, Our
economic system are all
therefore bring contention. You must, ifyou are
are at
at all
they
all serious
this, disolve this centre
or earnest in completely an
justify it. That is why we must understand the
the
i
processnorof
experience.
Is it possible for the mind, for the self, not to project
nor
to desire, not to experience? We see that all experiencesof the
self are a negation, a destruction, and yet we call them positive
action, don't we? That is what we call the positive way ofhif
To undo this whole process 1s, to you, negation. Are you right
in that? Can we, you and I, as individuals, go to the root of
it and understand the process of the self? Now what
bring
about dissolution of the self? Religious and other groups have
offered identification, have they not? 'Identify yourself with
a larger, and the self disappears', is what they say. But surely
identification is still the process of the self, the larger is simply
the projection of the 'me', which I experience and whicn

therefore strengthens the 'me.

All the
various forms of discipline, belief and knowledg
Surely only strengthen the self. Can we find an element
will dissolve the
w
self? Or is that a wrong question: Ila
what we want basically. We want to find somethn5.
which
will dissolve the 'me', do we not? are various

We think there arc

means, namely, identification. belief, etc.: but all of tnc
 THE FIRST AND
LAST
FREEDOM
at the same level; one is not
superior to the other,
of ther are
equally powertul in because all
e'. So can I see the "me
wherever
strengthening
it
the self, the
destructive forces and energy? Whatever name
functions, and see its
I
it, it is an isolating force, it 1s a may give to
destructive force, andI want
to find a
dissolving it. You must have asked
way of
lf"Isee the "I functioning all the time this
yout
and always
bringing anxiety, fear, frustration, despair, misery, not only to
anUself but to all around me. Is it
possible for that self to be
dissolved, not partially but
completely? Can we go to the
root of it and destroy it: That is the
only way of truly
functioning, is it not? I do not want to be partially intelligent
but intelligent in an integrated manner. Most of us are
intelligent in layers, you probably 1n one way and I in some
other way. Some of you are intelligent in your business work
some others in your office work, and so on; people are
intelligent in different ways; but we are not integrally
intelligent. To be integrally intelligent means to be without the self.
Is it possible?
Is it possible for the self to be completely absent now? You
know it is possible. What are the necessary ingredients,
requirements? What is the element that brings it about? Can

tind it? When I put that question 'Can I find it? surely I am
OnVinced that it is posible; so I have already created an
xperience in which the self is going to be strengthened, is 1t

deal of
EUnderstanding of the self requires a great
intelligence,
a great deal of watchfulness, alertness, watching

ceaselessly, so
that it does not slip away..I, who am very
amest, want to dissolve the self. When I say that, I know it

73
 I. KRISHNAMURTI

the selt. T'he moment

to
dissolve say I want
is possible still the experienei. to
that there is
dissolve this',
in
is it possibla f
the self
the selfis strengthened.
So how
ible for the
and so
One c a n See that the state oof creations
not to experience:
not at all the experience of the selt. Creation is hen the s
c r e a t i o n 1S not intellectual, is
is notthere,
because
of the
mind, is not self-projected, is something beyond al
mind to be quite shlt
So is it possible for the in
experiencing.
a state non-recognition, or non-experiencing, to be in
of
state in which creation can take place, which means whenthe

self is not there, when the selt is absent? The problem is thie
mind, poSitive
thenegative. is or
is it not?Any movement of
an experience
which actually strengthens the 'me'. Is i
That can only take
poSsible for the mind not to recognize
but not the silence
place when there is complete silence,
which is an experience of the self and which therefore
strengthens the self.
Is there an entity apart from the self, which looks at the self
and dissolves the self? Is there a spiritual entity which
We
supersedes the self and destroys it, which puts it aside?
s
think there is, don't we? Most religious people think there
such an element. The materialist says, 'It is impossible tor tne

ned
self to be destroyed; it can only be conditioned and restraincu
politically, economically and socially; we can hold it hmuy
within a certain pattern and we can break it; and therefore
can be made to lead a high life, a moral life, and no
interfere with anything but to follow the social pat and

to function merely as a machine'. That we know. There are

other n o t really
people, the so-called religious ones -

they ar
 TUE FIRST AND LAST FREEDOM

reigious, though we call them so -who say, Fundamentally

ch
there is suc. an element. If we can
get in touch with it, it will
dissolve the self.
I there such an element to dissolve the self? Please see what

. are doing. We are forcing the selt into a corner. If vou

a VOurself to be forced into the corner, you will see what
We should like there to be an element which is
will happen.
timeless, which is not of the self, which, we hope, will come
and intercede a n d destroy t h e selt - and which we call God.

Now is there such a thing which the mind can conceive?

There may be or there may not be; that is not the point. But
when the mind seeks a timeless spiritual state which will go
the self, is that not another form
into action, in order to destroy
of experience which is strengthening the 'me'? When you
believe, is that not what is actually taking place? When you
believe that there is truth, God, the timeless state, immortality,
is that not the process of strengthening the self? The self has

projected that thing which you feel and believe will come and
destroy the self. So, having projected this idea of continuance
n a timeless state as a spiritual entity, you have an experience;
and such experience only strengthens the self, and therefore
what have you done? You have not really destroyed the selt

different quality; the selt

Dut only given it a different name, a
l there, because you have experienced it. Thus our action
from the beginning to the end is the same action, only we
think it is evolving, growing, becoming more and more
eautiful; but, if you observe inwardly, it is the sanme action
going on, the sam functioning at different levels with
diferent labels,
different names.

75
 I. KRISHNAMURTI

whole process, the cune

When you see the
nary inventions, the intell1gence of the self, how it
ning, extraordi-
itself up through identification, through overs
virtue, Oue
experience, through
behet, through knowledo wouga
hen you
mind is moving in a circle, in a cage.
see that the its own
When you are aware
making, what happens: At, fully
cognizant of it, you not extraordinarily .
then are
dinarily quiet not
through compulsion, not through any reward, not
any fear? When you recognize that every vement of the

mind is merely a form of strengthening the self, whe

n you
observe it, see it, when you are
completely aware of it
in
action, when you come to that point - not ideoloics.

verbally, not through projected expernencing, but when you

ally,
are actually in that state - then you will see that the min

being utterly still, has no power of creating. Whatever the

he
mind creates is in a circle, within the tield of the self. When
the mind is non-creating there is creation, which is nota

recognizable process.
Reality, truth, is not to be recognized. For truth to come,
belief, knowledge, experiencing, the pursuit of virtue -al|
this must go. The virtuous person who is conscious of
pursuing virtue can never find reality. He may be a very
decent person; but that is entirely different from being a man
of tuth, a man who understands. To the man of truth, trutn

has come into being. A virtuous man is a righteous man,a

because
a ighteous man can never understand what is truth
virtue to him is the covering of the self, the strengtheningot
the self, because he is pursuing vitue. When he says I must
be without reed', the state of non-greed which he

76
 THE FIRST AND LAST FREEDOM

anly
experiences only Strengthens the selt. That is
why it is so
portant to be poor, not onlyin the things of the world but
and in knowledge. A man with worldly riches
also in belief or
an rich in wledge and belief will never know anything
a
darkness, and will be the centre of all mischief and misery.

Rut if vou and I, as individuals, can see this whole working of

self, then we shal know what love is. I assure you that is
the
she only reformation which can possibly change the world.
self. Selt cannot recognize love. You say I
Love is not of the
of it, in the very
love': but then, in the very say1ng
experiencing of it, love is not. But, when you know love, self
self is
is not. When there is love,
not.