# What Is Right Action? ~ Part 01

- Link: https://legawa.com/hiburan/what-is-right-action-part-01/
- Published: 2008-09-27T18:52:00+07:00
- Author: Cahya

![](image001.gif@01C920CF.96E97090)

Friends, I think each one is caught up in either a religious problem or a social
struggle or an economic conflict. Each one is suffering through the lack of the 
understanding of these various problems, and we try to solve each one of these problems
by itself; that is, if you have a religious problem, you think you are going to 
solve it by brushing away the economic or the social problem and centring entirely
on the religious problem, or you have an economic problem and you think that you
are going to solve that economic problem by wholly confining yourself to that one
particular conflict. Whereas, I say you cannot solve these problems by themselves;
you cannot solve the religious problem by itself, nor the economic nor the social
problem, unless you see the interrelationship between the religious, the social 
and the economic problems.

What we call problems are merely symptoms, which increase and multiply because we
do not tackle the whole life as one, but divide it as economic, social or religious
problems. If you look at all the various solutions that are offered for the various
ailments, you will see that they deal with the problems apart, in watertight compartments,
and do not take the religious, social and economic problems comprehensively as a
whole. Now it is my intention to show that so long as we deal with these problems
apart, separately, we but increase the misunderstanding, and therefore the conflict,
and thereby the suffering and the pain; whereas, until we deal with the social problem
and the religious and economic problems as a comprehensive whole, not as divided,
but rather see the delicate and the subtle connection between what we call religious,
social or economic problems – until you see this real connection, this intimate 
and subtle connection between these three, whatever problem you may have, you are
not going to solve it. You will but increase the struggle. Though we may think we
have solved one problem, that problem again arises in a different form, so we go
on through life solving problem after problem, struggle after struggle, without 
fully comprehending the full significance of our living.

So then, to understand the intimate connection between what we call religious, social
and economic problems, there must be a complete reorientation of thought – that 
is, each individual must no longer be a cog, a machine, either in the social or 
the religious structure. Look and you will see that most human beings are slaves,
merely cogs in this machine. They are not really human beings, but merely react 
to a set environment and therefore there is no true individual action, individual
thought; and to find out that intimate relationship between all our actions, religious,
political or social, you as an individual must think, not as a group, not as a collective
body; and that is one of the most difficult things to do, for individuals to step
out of the social structure, or the religious, and examine it critically, to find
out what is false and what true in that structure. And then you will see that you
are no longer concerned with a symptom, but are trying to find out the cause of 
the problem itself, and not merely deal with the symptoms.

Perhaps some of you will say at the end of my talk that I have given you nothing
positive, nothing on which you can definitely work, a system which you can follow.
I have no system. I think systems are pernicious things, because they may for the
moment alleviate the problems, but if you merely follow a system you are a slave
to it. You merely substitute a new system for the old, which does not bring about
comprehension. What brings about comprehension is not to search for a new system,
but to discover for yourselves, as individuals, not as a collective machine but 
as individuals, what is false and what is true in the existing system, not to substitute
a new system for the old.

Now, to be able to criticize, to be able to question, is the first essential requirement
for any thinking man, so that he will begin to discover what is false and what is
true in the existing system, and therefore out of that thought there is action, 
and not mere acceptance. So during this talk, if you would understand what I am 
going to say, there must be criticism. Criticism is essential. Questioning is right,
but we have been trained not to question, not to criticize, we have been carefully
trained to oppose. For instance, if I am going to say anything which you are going
to dislike – as I shall, I hope – you will naturally begin to oppose it, because
opposition is easier than to find out if what I am saying has any value. If you 
discover what I am saying has value, then there is action, and hence you will have
to alter your whole attitude towards life. Therefore, as we are not prepared to 
do that, we have made a clever technique of opposition. That is, if anything I am
saying you do not like, you bring up all your deep-rooted prejudices and obstruct,
and if I say anything which may hurt you, or which may emotionally upset you, you
take shelter behind these prejudices, these traditions, this background; and from
that background you react, and that reaction you call criticism. To me it is not
criticism. It is merely clever opposition, which has no value.

Now, if you are all Christians – and presumably you are all Christians – perhaps
I am going to say something which you may not understand, and instead of trying 
to find out what I want to convey, you will immediately take shelter behind the 
traditions, behind the deep-rooted prejudices and authorities of the established
order, and from that fortress, on the defensive, attack. To me that is not criticism;
that is a clever way of not acting, of avoiding full, complete action.

If you would understand what I am going to say, I would request you to be really
critical, not to be clever in your opposition. To be critical demands a great deal
of intelligence. Criticism is not scepticism, or acceptance; that would be equally
stupid. If you merely said, "_Well, I am sceptical about what you say_", that would
be as stupid as to merely accept. Whereas, true criticism consists not in giving
values, but in trying to find out the true values. Is it not so? If you give values
to things, if the mind gives values, then you are not finding out the intrinsic 
merit of the thing, and most of our minds are trained to give values. Take money,
for example. Abstractly, money has no value. It has the value we give to it. That
is, if you want power which money gives, then you use money to get power, so you
are giving a value to something which has inherently no value; so likewise if you
are going to find out and understand what I am going to say, you must have this 
capacity of criticism, which is really easy if you want to find out, if you want
to discover, not if you say, "_Well, I don’t want to be attacked. I am on the defensive.
I have everything I want, I am perfectly satisfied_." Then such an attitude is pretty
hopeless. Then you are here merely out of curiosity – and the majority probably 
are – and what I shall say will have no significance, and therefore you will say
it is negative, nothing constructive, nothing positive.

So please bear this in mind, that we are going to discover this evening, consider
together, what are the false things and the true in the existing social and religious
conditions; and to do that please do not bring in continually your prejudices, whether
Christian, or of some other sect, but rather have this intelligent, critical attitude,
not only with regard to what I am going to say, but with regard to everything in
life, which means the cessation of seeking new systems, not the search for a new
system which, when found, will again be perverted, corrupted. In the discovery of
the false and the true in the social, the religious and the economic systems – the
false and the true which we have created for ourselves – in the discovery of that,
we shall keep our minds and hearts from creating false environments in which the
mind is likely to be caught again.

Most of you are seeking a new system of thought, a new system of economics, a new
system of religious philosophy. Why are you seeking a new system? You say, "_I am
dissatisfied with the old_", that is, if you are seeking. Now I say, don’t seek 
a new system, but rather examine the very system in which you are held, and then
you will see that no system of any kind will bring about the creative intelligence
which is essential for the understanding of truth or God or whatever name you like
to give to it. That means that by the following of no system are you going to discover
that eternal reality; but you are going to find it only when you, as individuals,
begin to understand the very system that you have built up through the centuries,
and in that system discover what is true and what is false.

So please bear that in mind – that I am not giving a new system of philosophy. I
think these systems are cages for the mind to be caught up in. They do not help 
man, they are merely hindrances. These systems are a means of exploitation. Whereas,
if you as individuals begin to question, you will see that in that questioning you
create conflict, and out of the conflict you will understand – not in the mere acceptance
of a new system which is merely another soporific which puts you to sleep and turns
you into another machine.

So let us find out the false and the true in the existing systems – the systems 
of religion and sociology. To find out what is false and true, we must see what 
the religions are based on. Now, I am talking of religion as the crystallized form
of thought which has become the community’s highest ideal. I hope you are following
all this. That is, religions as they are, not as you would like them to be. As they
are, what are they based on? What is their foundation? When you see, when you examine
and really critically think about it – not bring up your hopes and prejudices, but
when you really think about it – you will see that they are based on comfort, giving
you comfort when you are suffering. That is, the human mind is continually seeking
security, a position of certainty, either in a belief or an ideal, or in a concept,
and so you are continually seeking a certainty, security, in which the mind takes
shelter as comfort. Now what happens when you are continually seeking security, 
safety, certainty? Naturally that creates fear, and when there is fear there must
be conformity. Please, I have not the time to go into details. I will do that in
my various talks, but in this talk I want to put it all concisely, and if you are
interested you can think it over, and then we can discuss it in question and answer
meetings.

So the so-called religions give the pattern of conformity to the mind that is seeking
security born of fear, in search of comfort; and where there is the search for comfort,
there is no understanding. Our religions throughout the world, in their desire to
give comfort, in their desire to lead you to a particular pattern, to mould you,
give you various patterns, moulds, securities, through what they call faith. That
is one of the things they demand – faith. Please do not misunderstand. Do not jump
ahead of me. They demand faith, and you accept faith because it gives you a shelter
from the conflict of daily existence, from the continual struggle, worries, pains
and sorrows. So out of that faith, which must be a dogmatic faith, churches are 
born, and out of that are established ideas, beliefs.

Now to me – and please bear this in mind, I want you to criticize, not accept – 
to me all beliefs, all ideals are a hindrance because they prevent you from understanding
the present. You say beliefs, ideals, faith, are necessary as a lighthouse which
will direct you through the turmoil of life. That is, you are more interested in
beliefs, in tradition, in ideals and faith, than in comprehending the turmoil itself.
To understand the turmoil you cannot have a belief, prejudice; you must look at 
it completely, hold it with a fresh mind, with a mind uninfected, not with a mind
which is biased with a particular prejudice which we call an ideal. So where there
is a search for comfort, security, there must be a pattern, a mould, in which we
take shelter, and therefore we begin to preconceive what God must be, and what truth
must be.

Now to me, there is a living reality. There is something eternally becoming, fundamental,
real, lasting, but it cannot be preconceived; it demands no belief, it demands a
mind that is not tethered to an ideal as an animal is tied to a post, but on the
contrary, demands a mind that is continually moving, experimenting, never staying.
I say there is a living reality; call it God, truth, anything you like, which is
of very little importance – and to understand that, there needs to be supreme intelligence,
and therefore there cannot be any conformity, but rather the questioning of those
things false and true in which the mind is caught up. And you will see that most
people, most of you who are religiously inclined, are in search of truth, and that
very search indicates that you are escaping from the conflict of the present, or
you are dissatisfied with the present condition. Therefore you try to find out what
is the real; that is, you leave the condition which creates conflict and run away
and try to find out what God is, what truth is. Therefore that search is the denial
of truth, because you are running away – there is escape, desire for comfort, security.
Therefore, when religions are based as they are, on the giving of securities, there
must be exploitation; and to me religions as they are exist on nothing but a series
of exploitations. What we call the mediators between our present conflict and that
supposed reality have become our exploiters, and they are priests, masters, teachers,
saviours; because I say it is only through understanding the present conflict with
all its significance, with all its delicate nuances – it is only thus that you can
find out what is the real, and no one can lead you to it.

If both the inquirer and the teacher knew what truth is, then you could both go 
towards it; but the disciple cannot know what truth is. Therefore his inquiry after
truth can only exist in the conflict, not away from conflict, and therefore, to 
me, any teacher who describes what truth is, what God is, is denying that very thing,
that immeasurable thing which cannot be measured by words. The illusion of words
cannot hold it, and the bridge of words cannot lead you to it. It is only when you,
as an individual, begin to realize in the immense conflict, the cause and therefore
the falseness of that conflict, that you will find out what is truth. In that there
is everlasting happiness, intelligence; but not in this spurious thing called spirituality
which is but a conformity, driven by authority through fear. I say there is something
exquisitely real, infinite; but to discover it man must not be an imitative machine,
and our religions are nothing but that. And besides, our religions throughout the
world keep people apart. That is, you with your particular prejudices, calling yourselves
Christians, and the Indians, with their particular beliefs, calling themselves Hindus,
never meet. Your beliefs are keeping you apart. Your religions are keeping you apart."
_But_", you say, "_if the Hindus could only become Christians, then we would have
a unity_", or the Hindus say, "_Let them all become Hindus_." Even then there is
a division, because belief necessitates a division, a distinction, and therefore
exploitation and the continual struggle of distinctive classes.

We say religions unify. On the contrary. Look at the world split up into narrow 
little sects, fighting against each other to increase their membership, their wealth,
their positions, their authorities, thinking they are the truth. There is only one
truth, but you cannot go to it through any sect, through any religion. To discover
what is true in religion, and what is false, you cannot be a machine; you cannot
accept things as they are. You will if you are satisfied, and if you are satisfied
you won’t listen to me, and my talk will be useless. But if you are dissatisfied
I will help you to question rightly, and out of the questioning you will find out
what is truth, and in that discovery of what is true you will find out how to live
richly, completely, ecstatically; not with this constant struggle, battling against
everything for your own security, which you call virtue.

Again, this fear which is created through the search for security, this fear seeks
shelter in society. Society is nothing else but the expression of the individual
multiplied by the thousand. After all, society is not some mysterious thing. It 
is what you are. It is pressing, controlling, dominating, twisting. Society is the
expression of the individual. This society offers security through tradition, which
we call public opinion. That is, public opinion says that to possess, to possess
property, is perfectly ethical, moral, and gives you distinction in this world, 
confers honours; you are a great person in this world. That is what, traditionally,
is accepted. That is the opinion which you have created as individuals, because 
you are seeking that. You all want to be somebody in the state, either Sir Somebody
or Lord, you know, and all the rest of it, which is based on possessiveness, possessions;
and that has become moral, true, good, perfectly Christian, or perfectly Hindu. 
It is the same thing. Now we call that morality. We call morality adjusting yourself
to a pattern. Please, I am not preaching the reverse of it. I am showing you the
falseness of it, and if you want to find out you will act, not seek the opposite.
That is, you consider possessions, whether your wife, your children, your property,
you consider that perfectly moral. Now suppose another society came into being where
possessions are evil, where this idea of possessiveness is ethically forbidden –
driven into your mentality as possessiveness is now driven in by circumstances, 
by condition, by education, by opinion. Then morality loses all significance, morality
then is merely a convenience. Not the right perception of things, but the clever
adjusting to circumstances – that you call morality. Suppose that you want, as individuals,
to be not possessive, look what you have to fight! The whole system of society is
nothing but possessiveness. If you would understand it and not be driven by circumstances
which are not called moral, then you, as individuals, must begin to break away from
that system voluntarily, and not be driven like so many sheep to accept the morality
of un-possessiveness.

Now you are driven whether you like it or not, whether you think it is sane or not;
you are driven by conditions, environment, which you have created, because you are
still possessive, and now perhaps another system will come along and drive you to
the opposite – to be non-possessive. Surely it is not morality; it is just sheepishness
to be driven by environment to be possessive or non-possessive. Whereas, to me, 
true morality consists in understanding fully the absurdity of possessiveness and
voluntarily fighting it; not being driven either way.

Now, if you look, this society is based on class-consciousness which is again the
consciousness of security. As beliefs grow into religions, so possessions grow into
the expression of nationality. As beliefs separate people, condition people, keep
them apart, so possessiveness, expressing itself as class-consciousness and growing
into nationality, keeps people apart. That is, all nationality is based on the exploitation
of the majority by the few for their own benefit through the means of production.
That nationality, through the instrument of patriotism, is a means of war. All nationalities,
all sovereign governments, must prepare for war; it is their duty, and it is no 
good your being a pacifist and at the same time talking about patriotism. You cannot
talk about brotherhood, and then talk about Christianity, because that denies it;
no more here than in India, or in any other country. In India they can talk about
Hinduism and say we are one, all humanity is one. Those are just words – hypocrisy.

So all nationalities are a means of war. When I was speaking in India, they said
to me (at present the Hindus are going through that disease of nationalism), "_Let
us look after our own country first because there are so many starving people; then
we can talk about human unity_", which is the same thing you talk about here. "_Let
us protect ourselves and then we will talk about unity, brotherhood, and all the
rest of it._" Now, if India is really concerned with the problem of starvation, 
or if you are really concerned with the problem of unemployment, you cannot deal
merely with New Zealand’s unemployment problem; it is a human problem, not the problem
of one particular group called New Zealand. You cannot solve the problem of starvation
as an Indian problem, or a Chinese problem, or the problem of unemployment as an
English, or German, or American, or Australasian problem, but you must deal with
it as a whole; and you can only deal with it as a whole when you are not nationalistic,
and you are not exploited through the means of patriotism. You are not patriotic
every morning when you wake up. You are only patriotic when the papers say you must
be, because you must conquer your neighbour. We are therefore the barbarians, not
the one invading your country. The barbarian is the patriot. To him his country 
is more important than humanity, man; and I say you will not solve your problems,
this economic and nationality problem, so long as you are a New Zealander. You will
solve it only when you are a real human being, free from all nationalistic prejudices,
when you are no longer possessive, and when your mind is not divided by beliefs.
Then there can be real human unity, and then the problem of starvation, the problem
of unemployment, the problem of war, will disappear, because you consider humanity
as a whole and not some particular people who want to exploit other people.

So you see what is dividing men, what is destroying the real glory of living in 
which alone you can find that living reality, that immortality, that ecstasy; but
to find it you must first of all be individuals. That means you must begin to understand,
and therefore act, to discover what is false in the existing system, and thereby
you will, as individuals, form a nucleus. You cannot alter the mass. What is the
mass? Yourselves multiplied. We are waiting for the mass to act, hoping that by 
some miracle there will be a complete change overnight, because we do not think,
we do not want to act. So long as this attitude of waiting exists, there will be
greater and greater struggle, more and more suffering, lack of comprehension; life
becomes a tragedy, a worthless thing. Whereas if you, as individuals, act voluntarily
because you want to understand and discover, then you will become responsible, then
you will not become a reformer, then there will be a complete change, not based 
on possessiveness, on distinctions, but on real humanity in which there is affection,
there is thought, and therefore an ecstasy of living.

 

AUCKLAND NEW ZEALAND 1ST PUBLIC TALK 28^(TH) MARCH, 1934