The Teachings of U. G. Krishnamurti. U. G. Krishnamurti

blame every German — he was a product of the times. Immediately after the War the English threw Churchill out. That was a great nation — England was really a great nation — they knew that Churchill wouldn't be of any help to solve the problems of England. I do not personally believe that it was because of Gandhi that India got freedom. The world conditions were such that the British had to be very friendly and walk out of India in a friendly way — you see, that was our tragedy. So, for how long this will continue, I don't know.

      You see, I'm not working for India in any way, so I have no right to criticize India. Because we are sitting here, this is armchair politics we are discussing. But I have no right to say anything against anybody in India, because I am not working here.

      If I find the way, I will be the first one to show you. I don't see any way. I don't believe in the revivalism of this religion, which is dead. What do you want to revive in this country? — you tell me. There is nothing to revive. Build more temples? What for? There are so many thousands of temples. Why add one more temple? That means it's only for my own self- aggrandizement, not for the religious welfare of this country. Another ashram? What for? There are so many ashrams, so many gurus.

      So, that seems to be the situation. We are all so helpless. We have hope — maybe one day India will throw up the right type of man — but the conditions are not ripe. When they will be ripe, I do not know. Suffering, you see — the attitude of the people is very strange in this country. The fatalism that India has practiced for centuries is responsible for the present sorry state of affairs in this country.

       Q: Do you think that the efforts of all those sages — persons like, for example, Sai Baba — are all useless?

      UG: What is he doing, Sir? What is he doing? And if he's an avatar as he claims he is, and if he can't do, who else can? — tell me. So something is wrong somewhere.

       Q: So it is all futile?

      UG: I feel it is futile. They can't do anything.

       Q: They are doing miracles, producing something out of the void.

      UG: What good is that? What good is that — miracles? But he cannot perform the miracle of all miracles, which is necessary to transform the whole of life, the whole way of thinking. Can he do that?

       Q: A large number of people, including so-called intelligent people, are attracted by him.

      UG: The intelligent people are the dullest and dumbest people (Laughter) — they are the most gullible people. I am not referring to Sai Baba in particular. I don't know anything about Sai Baba. I am not interested in miracles, you see. He is the number one holy man in this country because he draws huge audiences, uh? So, in that respect (Laughs) he is number one, and there are number two, three, four, you see — we have classifications according to the number of people they draw.

      So, what he can do, I don't know. It will be the miracle of all miracles — I'm not interested in materializing watches, Swiss or HMT watches — but this will be the miracle of miracles, and if there is any avatar in this world who can perform that miracle, I'll be the first one to salute him, that's all. He can't do it. Nobody can do it.

      It's not the avatars that can help; it's the individual that can help. It is an individual problem, so it is not the avatar who can help. There is a savior in every individual, and if that savior is brought out, blossoms, then there is a hope. But when?

       Q: The Upanishadic seers, I think, were all people who blossomed individually.

      U.G.: Sir, if there was anything to the teachings of the Upanishads, there wouldn't have been any need for Buddha to come. Why did he? They created the opportunity, the need for a man like Buddha — he came after the Upanishads. You see, the Vedic stuff deteriorated, then the Upanishadic seers arrived on the scene; and they messed up the whole thing, so Buddha came; and afterwards, so many people. Buddhism deteriorated in this country, so Sankara had to come; and Sankara's followers did exactly the same thing, so there arose the need for Ramanujacharya to come — it's the same thing, you see — and, after him, Madhavacharya. Where is the room for all these teachers?

      So, probably there is again a need for another teacher — God alone knows. If He is there around the corner, I don't know. Even the avatars we have in our midst seem unable to perform this miracle which is necessary to save this country and the world.

       Q: What is your concept of God? Very often you say that God alone can help.

      UG: No, that's a manner of speaking. (Laughs) Man has to be saved from God — that is very essential because ... I don't mean God in the sense in which you use the word "God"; I mean all that 'God' stands for, not only God, but all that is associated with that concept of God — even karma, reincarnation, rebirth, life after death, the whole thing, the whole business of what you call the "great heritage of India" — all that, you see. Man has to be saved from the heritage of India. Not only the people; the country has to be saved from that heritage. (Not by revolution, not the way they have done it in the communist countries — that's not the way. I don't know why; you see, this is a very tricky subject.) Otherwise there is no hope for the individual and no hope for the country.

      Not that he should become anti-God or an atheist. To me, the theist (the believer in God), the non-believer in God, and the one that comes in between and calls himself an "agnostic" — all of them are in the same boat.

      I personally feel that there is no power outside of man, you see — no power outside of man — whatever power is out there is inside man. So, if that is the case — and that is a fact to me — there is no point in externalizing that power and creating some symbol and worshipping it, you know? So that's why I say that God, the question of God, is irrelevant to man today. I don't know if I make myself clear.

      It's not that you should burn all the religious books and tear down all the temples. That is too silly, too ridiculous, because what temples and religious books stand for is in the man, uh? — it is not outside. So there's no point in burning all those libraries and making a bonfire of all the religious books the way that Tamilian Ramaswamy Naicker did — that is too silly; that is not the way to do it, you see.

      So, that's why I say God is irrelevant — because man has to rely more and more on his own resources. The heritage you are talking about has produced this man here today, all that is there in him. So, not what is there in the Upanishads, not what.... All those teachers — what they thought and what they experienced is part of this man. So, that has to express itself in a new form, otherwise there is not much....

      If you talk of God it has no meaning at all; everybody becomes a believer in God or a non-believer in God and ends up fighting on the battle-field. What is the point in their reviving Islam? What is the Islam all these people are talking about? And they're quarrelling amongst themselves, the subdivisions, just the way the Indians are fighting among themselves, the small religions. So, that is why I say God is irrelevant to man in the modern context. What 'God' stands for is already there in man — there is no power outside of man — and that has to express itself in its own way.

       Q: So you believe in the theory of evolution?

      UG: You see, Darwin's theory is not to be considered at all — his basic statement that acquired characteristics are not transmitted from generation to generation has proved to be wrong. Maybe there is something to evolution — maybe — but what exactly do we mean by "evolution?" You see, the simple things become complex, hm? Man has become such a complex individual today that he has to move in the opposite direction. I don't mean, by saying "in the opposite direction," that we have to advocate involution. You see, there is no question of going back and starting with the year number one; man has to start where he stands today.

      But