Krishnamurti - War Abolished: One Way to Permanent Peace

War Abolished: One Way to Permanent Peace

The Currawong Publishing Company, 1943

WAR ABOLISHED

One Way to Permanent Peace

J. Krishnamurti

CONTENTS

FOREWORD

This booklet is virtually a reproduction in print of a series of talks given by Krishnamurti in 1940 at Ojai and Sarobia (California). No words have been deleted except unimportant phrases such as last week (in the phrase I was trying to explain last week). A number of obviously typographical errors in the copy upon which this edition is based have been corrected. The absurd capitals have also been eliminated. The only other difference between the original talks, as reported, and the printed Australian version is the addition of a title, a subtitle and chapter headings, for which the publishers take full responsibility.

Since Krishnamurti revolted from the Theosophists, who tried to make of him a modern Christ, he has revealed himself as a provocative thinker, with all the moral bravery necessary to promulgate unpopular opinions. He has proved himself a man among men, instead of supinely remaining an Arch-dupe among Dupes.

His central theme, in this booklet at any rate, is, You are society. Society is an extension of yourself. If you want peace in the world, see to it that you first attain peace within yourself. How to attain that peace without recourse to any stupid religiosity is set forth in this booklet.L.L.W.

CHAPTER I

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY

The world is ever in pain, in confusion; it has ever this problem of struggle and sorrow. We become conscious of this conflict, this pain, when it affects us personally or when it is immediately about us, as now. The problems of war have existed before, but most of us have not been concerned with them as they were remote, and not affecting us personally and deeply; but now war is at our door and that seems to dominate the minds of most people.

Now I am not going to answer the questions that must inevitably arise when one is immediately concerned with the problems of war, what attitude and action one should take with regard to it, and so on. But perhaps we shall talk over together a much deeper problem, for war is only an outward manifestation of inward confusion and struggle, of hate and antagonism. The problem that we should discuss, which is ever present, is that of the individual and his relationship with another, which is society. If we can understand this complex problem, then perhaps we shall be able to avoid the many causes that ultimately lead to war. War is a symptom, however brutal and diseased, and to deal with the outer manifestation without regard to the deeper causes of it, is futile and purposeless; in changing fundamentally the causes, perhaps we can bring about a peace that is not destroyed by outer circumstances.

Most of us are apt to think that through legislation, through mere organization or through leadership, the problems of war and peace and other human problems can be solved. As we do not want to be responsible, individually, for this inner and outer turmoil in our lives, we look to authorities, groups and mass action. Through these outward methods one may have temporary peace, but one can have that abiding, lasting peace only when the individual understands himself and his relationship with another, which makes society. Peace is within and not without; there can only be peace and happiness in the world when the individualwho is the worldsets about definitely to alter the causes within himself which produce confusion, sorrow, hate, and so on. I want to deal with these causes and how to change them, deeply and lastingly.

The world about us is in constant flux, constant change; there is incessant sorrow and pain. Amidst this mutation and conflict, can there be lasting peace and happiness, independent of all circumstances? This peace and happiness can be discovered, hewn out of whatever circumstances the individual finds himself in. During these talks I shall try to explain how to experiment with ourselves and thus free thought from its self-imposed limitations. But each one must experiment and live strenuously and not merely on superficial actions and phrases.

This earnest experiment must begin with ourselves, with each one of us, and it is vain merely to alter the outward conditions without deep, inward change. For what the individual is, society is; what his relationship is with another is the structure of society. We cannot create a peaceful, intelligent society if the individual is intolerant, brutal and competitive. If the individual lacks kindliness, affection, thoughtfulness, in his relationship with another, he must inevitably produce conflict, antagonism, and confusion. Society is the extension of the individual; society is the projection of ourselves. Until we grasp this and understand ourselves profoundly, and alter ourselves radically, the mere change of the outer will not create peace in the world, nor bring to it the tranquillity that is necessary for happy social relationship.

So let us not think of altering the environment; this will and must take place if our whole attention is directed to the transformation of the individual, of ourselves, and our relationship with another. How can we have brotherhood in the world if we are intolerant, if we hate, if we are greedy? Surely this is obvious, isnt it? If each of us is driven by a consuming ambition, striving for success, seeking happiness in things, surely we must create a society that is chaotic, ruthless, and destructive. If all of us here understand and agree deeply on this point, that the world is ourselves and that we are the world, then we can proceed to think how to bring about the necessary change in ourselves. So long as we do not agree on this fundamental thing, but merely look to the environment for our peace and happiness, it assumes that immense importance which it has not, for we have created the environment, and without radical change in ourselves it becomes an intolerable prison. We cling to the environment, hoping to find security and self-identified continuity in it, and thus resist all change of thought and values. But life is in continual flux, and so there is constant conflict between desire which must ever become static and that reality which has no abode.

Man is the measure of all things, and if his vision is perverted, then what he thinks and creates must inevitably lead to disaster and sorrow. Out of what he thinks and feels, the individual builds the society. I personally feel that the world is myself, that what I do creates either peace or sorrow in the world that is myself, and as long as I do not understand myself, I cannot bring peace to the world; so my immediate concern is myself, not selfishly, not merely to alter myself in order to gain greater happiness, greater sensations, greater success, for, as long as I do not understand myself, I must live in pain and sorrow and cannot discover an enduring peace and happiness.

To understand ourselves, we must first be interested in the discovery of ourselves, we must become alert about our own process of thought and feeling. With what are our thoughts and feelings mostly concerned? They are concerned with things, with people, and with ideas. These are the fundamental things in which we are interested things, people, ideas.

Now why is it that things have assumed such an immense importance in our lives? Why is it that things, property, houses, clothes and so on, take such a dominant place in our lives? Is it because we merely need them, or is it that we depend upon them for our psychological happiness? We all need clothes, food and shelter. This is obvious. But why is it that they have assumed such tremendous importance, significance? Things assume such disproportionate value and significance because we psychologically depend on them for our well-being. They feed our vanity; they give us social prestige; they give us the means for procuring power. We use them in order to achieve purposes other than what they in themselves signify. We need food, clothes, shelter, which is natural and not perverting, but when we depend on things for our gratification, when things become psychological necessities, they assume an altogether disproportionate value and importance, and hence the struggle and conflict to possess, and the various means to hold the things upon which we depend.