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

norms.... Or a healthy man? What is health? I sometimes wonder who is a normal man? Not that I have a question.

       Q: What is 'normal' is set by each society. The ordinary man wants to be with others all the time, and not alone, therefore he makes certain accommodations — that's the only definition I have.

      UG: Even such a man — the 'extraordinary' man, as opposed to your 'ordinary' man — has to live here in this society; he cannot run away and live in a cave and meditate. He is not in conflict with this society at all; he accepts the reality of the world, although it is so unreal, and functions in the world, accepting the reality accepted by everybody. It is very important: I can't sit in a cave and meditate on Brahman and say to myself "I am Brahman;" this is the only reality for such a man, and there is no other reality. The 'ultimate reality' is bosh and nonsense, it doesn't exist, it's a myth; this is the only reality. What other reality is there? As long as you are feeling the feelings of society, you are part of that society. Because you have no such thing as your own thoughts, your own experiences, or your own feelings, you can't run away from this society. You are not separate from the society; you are the society. There is no social or religious content to what I am saying.

       Q: Can I put this question back to you? What according to you is a normal man?

      UG: To me there is no such thing as a normal man. When I look at the so-called insane people, I wonder whether they are insane, or those who are treating them. I was telling a joke the other day. Some chappie in a loony bin said "I am Jesus Christ." His friend, another inmate, said "I know you are not." "How the hell do you know I am not?" said the first chappie. The other chappie said "I am the Eternal Father. I have created you. I should know you." (Laughter) It's like that here also, when I see all those people sitting there saying "Aham Brahmasmi" (I am Brahman). What is this nonsense?! Not that I am against anything.

       Q: You wouldn't ask that question of yourself — "Am I normal?"

      UG: No, I don't ask. Sometimes the only thing I read is Time Magazine — I read all this stuff, you see. Why do I read it? I'm living in this world, and I would like to know what is happening in this world. Why not? All other books tell me how to improve myself, how to change myself, how to be there, how to be that. I don't want to be anything other than what I am, so I have no interest in any of those books. Some people ask why I read crime fiction. Because there is a lot of action there. If I go to see a movie, I see cowboy films. You see, there is a lot of movement there. If I watch television, I watch only the commercials.

       Q: Are you affected by what you see?

      UG: That is also affecting you in a way — you are part of this world — you are affected by that. You are not involved, but you are affected. There is a difference between getting involved and allowing yourself to be affected. All the windows are open: it doesn't matter, this or that, anything can come.

      We have very strange ideas in the religious field — torture this body, sleep on nails, control, deny things — all kinds of funny things. What for? Why deny certain things? I don't know. What is the difference between a man going to a bar for a glass of beer, and a man going to a temple and repeating the name of Rama? I don't see any basic difference. Probably it is antisocial here; in the West they don't think it is antisocial; here we think it is. These are all escapes. I am not against escapes, but whether you escape through this avenue or that avenue, an escape is an escape. You are escaping from yourself.

      ______________

      What you do or do not do does not matter at all. Your practice of holiness, your practice of virtue — that is socially valuable for the society, but that has nothing to do with this.

       Q: Of course we are living in society; but as far as this goes — enlightenment, realization or whatever you call it....

      UG: Whatever name you use — it is your word.

       Q: ....it has nothing to do with it?

      UG: It has absolutely nothing to do with it. Why, I sometimes go to the limit of saying that it is possible for a rapist, for a murderer, for a thief,

      for a convict, for a con-man — this kind of thing can happen! To emphasize; it's not that I....

       Q: But has it happened?

      UG: It can happen, yes. I don't know, you see, maybe. That has nothing to do with it: the moral codes of conduct have no relationship whatsoever to this. Not that this man is immoral; he cannot be immoral — it is impossible for him, you see, impossible.

       Q: His behavior automatically conforms to the moral code prevalent in the society?

      UG: His behaviour patterns probably to some extent fall within the framework of the moral and religious code. But he's a danger. What I am saying is a threat to you as you know yourself and as you experience yourself. it's a threat to you.

      Q: How? UG: You cannot accept this. How can you accept it?

       Q: But if it comes automatically, where is the question of your being a danger? You can't give anybody a way to achieve it.

      UG: That is the reason why I say that this individual cannot be of any use to society. He's a rare bird, a rare plant — put him in a cage, in a museum, and look at him — he's something different, you know.

       Q: But never dangerous?

      UG: All the more, you see, because he doesn't fit into the framework.

      ______________

       Q: People say that mankind's survival will be threatened even within a century.

      UG: Do you believe that? This (species) has survived for many centuries, and it is going to find some way to survive. My point is this: Not because of love, not because of universal brotherhood, not because of all that stuff, but because of the terror of liquidating ourselves, we will learn to live together. You cannot hurt anybody without hurting yourself — not psychologically, but physically — only when we realize this, will we learn to live together. As long as each individual seeks his own security, there can be no overall security. We are talking of 'detente' in international terms, but it has to percolate down to the level of individual relationships. Only then is it possible; not through this talk of 'universal brotherhood', 'unity of life', 'oneness of life' — all that stuff has not helped, and is not going to help. Only terror will make us live together in peace whether we like it or not. You can take a revolver and make the world's strongest, most powerful man dance for you — it is a fact. This is going to survive somehow; you are not going to let the whole thing blow up. It's only a madcap, a lunatic, probably, who will take it into his head that it's time for all of us to go in one blow.

      Man has survived for centuries, and now we are all of a sudden talking about 'values' and all that kind of stuff. What for? It has not helped us to live in harmony and peace. We have created this moral problem, you see. Plants and animals don't have a religious problem; man has created this religious problem.

      You see, this has absolutely no social content at all, and I can't think of any collective action. So this individual is just like something thrown out by Nature, and whether anybody recognizes him or not is of no importance. This man cannot be of any use to this society. The day they think that I am a threat to their existence, naturally they will liquidate me. I don't mind. If society liquidates me, what is left here is of no importance to me. I don't have the missionary zeal in me, or any desire to save mankind. Who has given me the mandate to save mankind? Mankind has existed for centuries, and he is going to continue. I am not in the 'holy business'; I sing my own song. If somebody comes, I talk; if nobody comes, I go for a walk,