Put away all self centred activity Krishnamurti

We are asking a question, is there an action in which there is no limitation? The self is limited, the being. Self is knowledge. The self is a bundle of memories. So, as long as that self is acting, there is limitation. So, is there an ending to the self? Ending, not continuing. That's the first question. To end the whole – may I use the word consciousness? – with all its memories, with all its fears, sorrows, pain, anxieties, depression, faith, belief, the whole content of consciousness is the movement of thought. Right? Agree? That is the self, that is knowledge. We said the self is a whole series of memories, it's abundant. And as long as that action is born from there, it's limited. Therefore consciousness. You agreed to this? So, can the self end? It's only then there is action which is not limited. It's logical. Can the self end? And the self is so deceptive, it can hide behind the most holiest things, and the most extraordinary imagination, and in the scientific – it can hide like a cockroach. Right? Can that self end? Sir, the word mantra – you have heard that word – means that. The original root meaning of that word is ponder, think over, meditate on not becoming, and also put away all self-centred activity. The meaning of that word is that – root meaning. You understand what I am saying? Meditate not becoming, which is an immense factor. That means there is no psychological evolution for the me. There is no me to evolve. But we think there is me continuing, in heaven, in hell – you follow? I write a book, there it is, immortal. Or you throw it in the waste bin, for God's sake. So can the self, which is a whole series of memories and time, can that completely end, knowing that it is the most deceptive thing? Right, sir? Find out. I say it can totally end, and live in this world. VB – Well, if it is indeed, it can end. And you are saying you are still in this world. K – Absolutely. VB – It means that, for example, this person who has no self, but who is in this world, drives a car. K – Of course, then he has to use it. VB – But then it means that that knowledge is there. K – Yes, of course. VB – So that action out of knowledge is present. K – Of course, but we said also. VB – Now, this is the question I am asking you. K – Sir, simple, you can see it yourself, don't ask me, it is simple. VB – No, let me put it this way. K – Sir, I have to write a letter, which means a great deal of knowledge, writing a letter, the sequence, the work. It means tremendous knowledge involved in writing a stupid letter. That knowledge is necessary. VB – And it is self-centred action. K – It is not. VB – Why not? K – If the self is not, that is not. VB – But how could it not be self-centred action according to your definition of self, since it is a bunch of memories? K – No, not my definition. Please, do we agree? Don't say... VB – No, no, no, here is where we get... Wait a second, we agree, but I repeated at least a couple of times that to me there was a difference between knowledge and self-centred knowledge, that not all knowledge was self-centred knowledge. And that there was a possibility... K – I said, sir, the self is knowledge. VB – Yes. So if there is no self, there is no knowledge. That follows. K – But I can use... Just a minute, careful, this is careful. So we have to enquire into something totally different, which is, what is intelligence? VB – OK, I am willing to enquire into that, but why do we have to do that? K – I will tell you why in a minute, I will show it to you. Where there is intelligence, that intelligence can use knowledge. And intelligence is not born of knowledge. VB – Well, where is it? K – I will take it slowly. You may all disagree, tear it to pieces, but I will go into it. Right? So we have to enquire what is knowledge. If knowledge can say, well, I will use this and nowhere else. Knowledge has a certain place, but psychologically, etc., etc., it has no place whatsoever.