Friday, 28 June 2013

Women status in Hindu religious scriptures

I'm so much passionate about learning and understanding the root cause of any societal problem that we have in our society so that problem we can think of addressing the problems from its root. In relations to this I've been exploring about root cause of gender-based discrimination that we have in our society. It is well known fact that societal mindset is shaped by its cultural values, norms, beliefs and traditions that are created by society and human beings in the course of their development and civilisation. Therefore, it is always contextual and evolving as per the time and people's mind development and advancement as per the theory of evolution. 

Nepal was a Hindu nation for the last 47 years that was abolished in 2006 after people's movement. However, since the early time as per the offically documented evidence, Manav Nyaya Sastra, the first codified law of Nepal written during 14the century by King Jaysthiti Malla hiring five Indian learned Brahmins Nepalese had incorporated hindu holy text, Law of Manu (Manusmriti) verses since then societal mindset both rulers and general public have been always influenced by the philosophy of Hinduism. 

As per the official figure from the Census 2011 in Nepal majority (81%) follow Hinduism and from this also anyone can refer that societal mindset is govern by the philosophy of Hinduism. Relatively Nepalese women's status is considered very low compared to men as per the available evidences to date demonstrated. However, there are some difference even among Nepalese about their societal status based upon the types of their origin, Tibeto-Burman and Indo-Aryan. It is believe that Tibeto-Burman origin community members women status is better than Indo-Aryan though in this society women are considered symbol of goddesses. 

Naturally, seeking shelter under such religious sanctions, unscrupulous women disgraced women to the maximum possible extent and made them means of satisfying their lust. No one wanted a daughter. As a result; female infant came to be considered unwanted. No one wanted a daughter. Everyone was interested in having a son. The birth of the son was celebrated, but the birth of the daughter plunged family into gloom. This attitude still persists, even though certain other customs have undergone changes. In Hinduism Veda is considered the pure knowledge that educate hindus believers and shape their thoughts and belief. There are four vedas namely Rig Veda, Atharva Veda, Sama Veda and Yajur Veda. Besides these there are many others smritis and purans written based upon these holy texts.

As per the scriptures it is believed that women in ancient vedic society (India) used to be very respected. There is no exclusion of women according to the Vedas. Motherhood is considered the greatest glory of Hindu women. The Taittiriya Upanishad teaches, "Matridevo bhava" – "Let your mother be god to you." In this mantra of Brahmcharya Sukta, it is emphasized that girls too should train themselves as students and only then enter into married life. The Sukta specifically emphasizes that girls should receive the same level of training as boys.

Rig Veda:

"Parents should gift their daughter intellectuality and power of knowledge when she leaves for husband's home. They should give her a dowry of knowledge."Rig Veda 10.85.7 

"The right is equal in the fathers property for both son and daughter."- Rig Veda 3.31.1 

'Rig Veda' censures women by saying:
"Lord Indra himself has said that women has very little intelligence. She cannot be taught" - Rig Ved 8/33/17

At another placein Rig Veda  it is written:
"There cannot be any friendship with a women. Her heart is more cruel than heyna" - Rig Ved 10/95/15.

The idea of equality was most forcibly expressed in the Rig Veda (Book 5, hymn 61. verse 8): The commentator explains this passage thus: "The wife and husband, being the equal halves of one substance, are equal in every respect; therefore both should join and take equal parts in all work, religious and secular."

 "The wife should do agnihotra (yagna), sandhya (puja) and all other daily religious rituals. If, for some reason, her husband is not present, the woman alone has full rights to do yagna."Rigveda Samhita, part 1, sukta 79, sloka 872 

"O women! These mantras are given to you equally (as to men). May your thoughts, too, be harmonious. May your assemblies be open to all without discrimination. Your mind and consciousness should be harmonious. I (the rishi) give you these mantras equally as to men and give you all and equal powers to absorb (the full powers) of these mantras."- Rig Veda 10–191–3 
Like wise in so many other mantras a woman has been presented to play an essential role in family and as wife. Similarly she has been given the lead stage in society works, in governmental organizations, and for ruling the nation is also mentioned in Vedas.
Rigevda contains several Suktas containing description of Usha as a God. This Usha is representation of an ideal woman. As per the "Usha Devata" by Pt Sri Pad Damodar Satvalekar as part of "Simple Translation of Rigveda (Rigved ka subodh bhashya)" page 121 to 147 for summary of all such verses spread across entire Rigveda. In summary:
  1. Women should be brave (Page 122, 128)
  2. Women should be expert (Page 122)
  3. Women should earn fame (Page 123)
  4. Women should ride on chariots (Page 123)
  5. Women should be scholars (Page 123)
  6. Women should be prosperous and wealth (Page 125)
  7. Women should be intelligent and knowledgeable (Page 126)
  8. Women should be protector of family and society and get in army(Page 134, 136)
  9. Women should be illuminating (Page 137)
  10. Women should be provider of wealth, food and prosperity (Page 141- 146)

Moreover, 'Rig Veda' itself says that a women should beget sons. The newly married wife is blessed so that she could have 10 sons. So much so, that for begetting a son, 'Vedas' prescribe a special ritual  called 'Punsawan sanskar' (a ceremony performed during third month of pregnancy).  During the ceremony it is prayed:

"Almighty God, you have created this womb. Women may be born somewhere else but sons should be born from this womb" - Atharva Ved 6/11/3

"O Husband protect the son to be born. Do not make him a women" - Atharva Ved 2/3/23

Atharva Veda
"Girls should train themselves to become complete scholars and youthful through Brahmcharya and then enter married life."
Atharva Veda 11.5.18 

"Parents should gift their daughter intellectuality and power of knowledge when she leaves for husband's home. They should give her a dowry of knowledge."
Atharva Veda 14.1.6 

When girls ignore external objects and develops foresight and vibrant attitude through power of knowledge, she becomes provider of wealths of skies and earth. Then she should marry an eligible husband.
"Oh wife! Give us discourse of knowledge"
Atharva Veda 14.1.20 

The bride may please everyone at her husband's home through her knowledge and noble qualities.
 "Teach the husband ways of earning wealth. Protector of children, having definite knowledge, worth thousands of prayers and impressing all directions, O women, you accept prosperity. O wife of deserving husband, teach your husband to enhance wealth."- Atharva Veda 7.46.3 
 "Oh woman! You are the keeper of knowledge of all types of actions (karma)."- Atharva Veda 7.47.1
 "Oh woman! You know everything. Please provide us strength of prosperity and wealth."- Atharva Veda 7.47.2 
"Oh woman! Utilize your vedic intellect in all directions of our home!"- Atharva Veda 14 January 1964 
"Oh groom! This bride will protect your entire family."- Atharva Veda 1.14.3 
"May this bride become the queen of the house of her husband and enlighten all."- Atharva Veda 2.36.3 
"These women are pure, sacred and yajniya (as respected as yajna); they provide us with subjects, animals and food."- Atharva Veda 11.1.17 
"Hey wife! Become the queen and manager of everyone in the family of your husband."-Atharva Veda 14.1.20 
Thoses verses proof that women used to be very respected. These women are pure, sacred, worth being worship, worth being served, of great character, scholarly. They have given subjects, animals and happiness to the entire society.
 "Ensure that these women never weep out of sorrow. Keep them free from all diseases and give them ornaments and jewels to wear."-Atharva Veda 12.2.31 
"Hey wife! I am holding your hand for prosperity."-Atharva Veda 14 January 1950 
"Hey bride! You shall bring bliss to all and direct our homes towards our purpose of living."- Atharva Veda 14 January 1961
"Hey wife! I am knowledgeable and you are also knowledgeable. If I am Samved then you are Rigved."- Atharva Veda 14 February 1971 
"This bride is illuminating. She has conquered everyone's hearts!"- Atharva Veda 14 February 1974 
"Women should take part in the legislative chambers and put their views on forefront."- Atharva Veda 7.38.4 and 12.3.52 
"O bride! May the knowledge of the Vedas be in front of you and behind you, in your centre and in your ends. May you conduct your life after attaining the knowledge of the Vedas. May you be benevolent, the harbinger of good fortune and health and live in great dignity and indeed be illumined in your husband's home."- Atharva Veda 14–1–64 

In 'Shatpath Puran (shatpath Brahman)' a sonless women has been termed as unfortunate.

'Yajur Ved (Taitriya Sanhita)'m- "Women code says that the women are without energy. They should not get a share in property. Even to the wicked they speak in feeble manner" - Yajur Ved 6/5/8/2

"There are equal rights for men and women to get appointed as ruler."- Yajur Veda 20.9 
"There should be a women army. Let the women be encouraged to participate in war."- Yajur Veda 16.44 
 "In this mantra it is enforced that the wife of ruler should give education of politics to the others. Likewise the king do justice for the people, the queen should also justify her role."- Yajur Veda 10.26 

Shatpath Puran, preachings of the 'Yajur Veda' clubs women, 'shudras'(untouchables), doga, crows together and says falsehood, sin and gloom remain integrated in them. (14/1/1/31)

In 'Aiterey Puran', preaching of the 'Rig Veda' in harsih chandra -Narad dialogue, Narad says: "The daughter causes pain"


To insult and humiliate women further, the religious books speak of women having sexual intercourse with animals or expressing desire for intercourse with them. What further insult can be heaped on women.

In 'Yajur Veda' such references are found at a number of places where the principal wife of the host is depicted as having intercourse with a horse.

For example consider the following hymn:

"All wife of the host reciting three mantras go round the horse. While praying, they say: 'O horse, you are, protector of the community on the basis of good qualities, you are, protector or treasure of happiness. O horse, you become my husband.'"
- Yajur Veda 23/19.

After the animal is purified by the priest, the principal wife sleeps near the horse and says: "O Horse, I extract the semen worth conception and you release the semen worth conception'"
- Yajur Veda 23/20.

The horse and principal wife spread two legs each. Then the Ardhvaryu (priest) orders to cover the oblation place, raise canopy etc. After this, the principal wife of the host pulls penis of the horse and puts it in her vagina and says: "This horse may release semen in me."

-Yajur Veda 23/20.

Then the host, while praying to the horse says:
"O horse, please throw semen on the upper part of the anus of my wife. Expand your penis and insert it in the vagina because after insertion, this penis makes women happy and lively" - 23/21.

In the Vedic age, the customs of polygamy was prevalent. Each wife spent most of the time devising ways and means to become favorite to her husband.

Clear references are available in 'Rig Veda', (14/45),' and Atharva Veda (3/81)'

Custom of Polygamy

The Aryans in those days used to attack the original inhabitants of this place, or other tribe within their own race; loot them and snatch away their women. Thus, militant and wicked men had more wives. This custom of polygamy helped a great deal in bringing down the women.

In 'Rig Ved' (10/59) it is written that Lord Indra had many queens that were either defeated or killed by his principal wife.

In 'Aitrey Puran', preachings of 'Rig Veda', (33/1), there is a reference to the effect that Harish Chandra had one hundred Wives.

'Yajur Veda' in the context of 'Ashva Medha' (Horse Sacraficing ceremony), says that many wives of Harish Chandra participated in the 'Yagyna' (religious sacrafice).

In 'Shatpath Puran(Shatpath Brahmin)', preachings (13/4/1/9), of the Veda, it is written that four wives do service in 'Ashva Megha'. In another Puran (Tatiraity Brahamin, 3/8/4), it is written that wives are like property.

Not only one man had many wives (married and slave girls), but there were cases of many men having a joint wife. It is confirmed from the following hymn in 'Atharva Veda': "O men, sow a seed in this fertile women"
- Atharva Veda 14/1

Both these customs clearly show that a women was treated like a moving property. The only difference between the two customs was that whereas according to former one man had a number of movable properties, in the latter, women a joint movable property.

'Vedas' also sanction 'Sati Pratha' 

Widow was burnt at the funeral Pyre of her husband. The widow was burnt at the funeral pyre of her husband so that she may remain his slave, birth after birth and may never be released from the bonds of slavery.

 " Let these women, whose husbands are worthy and are living, enter the house with ghee (applied) as corrylium ( to their eyes). Let these wives first step into the pyre, tearless without any affliction and well adorned."- Rig Veda 10.18.7 

The Garudapurana favourably mentions the immolation of a widow on the funeral pyre, and states that women of all castes, even the Candalla woman, must perform Sati. The only exceptions allowed by this benevolent author is for pregnant women or those who have young children. If women do not perform sati, then they will be reborn into the lowly body of a woman again and again till they perform Sati.- Garuda.Purana. II.4.91-100 

"A sati who dies on the funeral pyre of her husband enjoys an eternal bliss in heaven."- Daksa Smrti IV.18-19 

According to Vasishta's Padma-Purana, a woman must, on the death of her husband, allow herself to be burnt alive on the same funeral pyre.

Yajnavalkya, a legendary sage of Vedic India, credited with the authorship of the Shatapatha Brahmana, and the most important law-giver after sage Manu, states that sati is the only way for a chaste widow.- Apastamba.I.87 

The Yogini Tantra enjoins upon Brahmana widows to burn themselves on the funeral pyre of their husbands [ Yog.T. II.303-308 ]. Vaisya and Sudra widows were also allowed to do it. It was prohibited to unchaste women and those having many children. [ 1200, p.67 ]

The Vyasa Smrti gives one of the two alternatives for a Brahmana widow, ie. either to become a sati or to take up ascetism after her tonsure [ Vyasa Sm. II.53 ] [ Sm.S. p.362 ] [ 1200, p.67 ftn.136 ]. 

"If a woman's husband dies, let her lead a life of chastity, or else mount his pyre" - Vishnu Smirti.XXV.14

"It is the highest duty of the woman to immolate herself after her husband."- Brahma Purana.80.75 

The Atharva Veda says:
"O dead man following the religion and wishing to go to the husbands world, his women comes to you."  In the other world also may you give her children and wealth in the same manner. In the 'Vedas', widow is treated inhumanly. For example it is mentioned that on death of her husband, the wife was handed over to some other man, or to her husband younger brother.

Swami Vivekananda opines that even at that time women used to have sexual intercourse with a person other than her husband to beget a child. The hymn says:
"O woman, get up and adopt the worldly life again. It is futile to lie with this dead man. Get up and become the wife of the man who is holding your hand and who loves you."
- Rig Ved 10/18/8

Apparently this shows that woman is considered to be a property. Whenever and whosoever desired, could become her master. If the women was not remarried, then her head was shaved. This is evident from Atharva Veda (14/2/60).

This custom was obviously meant to disgrace her. For what connection does shaving of widows head has with the death of her husband ? The condition of widows was miserable. She was considered to be a harbinger of inauspiciousness and was not allowed to participate in ceremonies like marriage. This custom is still prevalent in some places. She has to spend her life alone In Rig Veda therre are references to slave girls being given in charity as gifts. After killing the menfolk of other tribes, particularly of the native inhabitants, their women were rounded up and used as slave girls. It was custom to present slave girls to one other as gifts. The kings used to present chariots full of slave girls to their kith and kin and preists (Rig Veda 6/27/8). King Trasdasyu had given 50 slave girls. It was custom to present slave girls to Saubhri Kandav (Rig Veda 8/38, 5/47/6).

Intercourse without marriage

A slave girl was called 'Vadhu' (wife), with whom sexual intercourse could be performed without any kind of marriage ceremony. These girls belonged to the men who snatched them from the enemies, or who had received them in dowry, or as gifts. Only the men to whom they belonged could have sexual intercourse with them. But some slave girls were kept as joint property of the tribe or the village. Any man could have sexual rlations with them. These girls became the prostitutes. The 'Vedas' also talk about 'Niyog', the custom of childless, widow or woman having sexual intercourse with a person other than her husband to beget a child.

In simple words 'Niyog' means sending a married woman or a widow to a particular man for sexual intercourse so that she gets a son. Indication of this custom is available in 'Rig Veda' In 'Aadiparva' of 'Mahabharata' (chap. 95 and 103), it is mentioned that Satywati had appointed her son to bestow sons to the queens of Vichitrvirya, the younger brother of Bhishma, as a result of which Dhratrashtra and Pandu were born.

Pandu himself has asked his wife, Kunti, to have sexual intercourse with a brahmin to get a son (Aadi Parva, chapters 120 to 123).

Chastity of woman was not safe

In the name of 'beejdan' (seed donation), they used to have sexual intercourse with issueless women. This was a cruel religious custom and the chastity of the women was not safe. The so called caretakers of the religion were allowed to have sexual intercourse with other man's wife. From 'Niyog pratha' it csn be inferred withouth fear of contradiction that women were looked upon as mere child producing machines.

In 'The Position of women in Hindu Civilization' Dr. B. R. Ambedkar writes:
"Though women is not married to man, she was considered to be a property of the entire family. But she was not getting share out of the property of her husband, only son could be successor to the property."

Gajdhar Prasad Baudh says: " No woman of the Vedic age can be treated as pure. Vedic man could not keep even the relations brother-sister and father-daughter sacred from the oven of rape and debauchery/adultery named 'Niyog'. Under the influence of intoxication of wine, they used to recognize neither their sister nor their daughter and also did not keep the relations with them in mind. It is evident from their debauchery and adultery what a miserable plight of women was society in then. (Refer 'Arya Niti Ka Bhadaphor'. 5th Edition page 14).

In the 'Vedas' there are instances where daughter was impregnated by her father and the sister by her brother. The following example of sexual intercourse is found between father and daughter in the 'Rig Veda':
"When father had sexual intercourse with his daughter, then with the help of earth he released his semen and at that time the Righteous Devas (deities) formed this 'Vartrashak (Rudra) Devta' (Pledge keeper diety named Rudra)"
- Atharva Veda (20/96/15).


"Women are worthy of worship. They are the fate of the household, the lamp of enlightenment for all in the household. They bring solace to the family and are an integral part of dharmic life. Even heaven is under the control of women. The gods reside in those households where women are worshipped and in households where women are slighted all efforts at improvement go in vain."Manusmriti 3–56

1. Legal rights of women in history accessed from

2. Sati - Brahmin Annihilation of Widows, Chapter 5, Genocide of Women in Hinduism by
Sita Agarwal accessed from

Fear quotes of Jiddhu Krishnamaruti

Until we are free from fear

"Fear is one of the greatest problems in life. A mind that is caught in fear lives in confusion, in conflict, and therefore must be violent, distorted and aggressive. It dare not move away from its own patterns of thinking, and this breeds hypocrisy. Until we are free from fear, climb the highest mountain, invent every kind of God, we will always remain in darkness."
- Jiddhu Krishnamaruti 

An innocent mind has no fear

"What brings freedom from fear, and I assure you the freedom is complete,is to be aware of fear without the word, without trying to deny or escape from fear, without wanting to be in some other state. If with complete attention you are aware of the fact that there is fear, then you will find that the observer and the observed are one: there is no division between them. There is no observer who says, 'I am afraid'; there is only fear, without the word which indicates that state. The mind is no longer escaping, no longer seeking to get rid of fear, no longer trying to find the cause, and therefore it is no longer a slave to words. There is only a movement of learning, which is the outcome of innocence, and an innocent mind has no fear."

- Jiddhu Krishnamaruti 

Fear is not merely on the surface of the mind

"To understand this problem of fear, you have to go into it most profoundly, because fear is not merely on the surface of the mind. Fear is not just being afraid of your neighbour or of losing a job; it is much deeper than that, and to understand it requires deep penetration. To penetrate deeply you need a very sharp mind, and the mind is not made sharp by mere argumentation or avoidance. One has to go into the problem step by step, and that is why it is very important to comprehend this whole process of naming. When you name a whole group of people by calling them Muslims, or what you will, you have got rid of them; you don't have to look at them as individuals, so the name, the word, has prevented you from being a human being in relationship with other human beings. In the same way, when you name a feeling, you are not looking at the feeling, you are not totally with the fact." 

How do we end fear?

"We are discussing something which needs your attention, not your agreement or disagreement. We are looking at life most rigorously, objectively, clearly -not according to your sentiment, your fancy, what you like or don't like. It's what we like and don't like that has created this misery. All that we are saying is this: 'How do we end fear?' That's one of our great problems, because if a human being can't end it he lives in darkness everlastingly, not everlastingly in the Christian sense but in the ordinary sense; one life is good enough. For me, as a human being, there must be a way out and not by creating a hope in some future. Can I as a human being end fear, totally; not little bits of it? Probably you've never put this question to yourself, and probably you've not put the question because you don't know how to get out of it. But if you did put that question most seriously, with the intention of finding out not how to end it, but with the intention of finding out the nature and the structure of fear, the moment you have found out, fear itself comes to an end; you don't have to do anything about it.

When we are aware of it and come into contact with it directly, the observer is the observed. There is no difference between the observer and the thing observed. When fear is observed without the observer, there is action, but not the action of the observer acting upon fear."

The Root of All Fear

"The craving to become causes fears; to be, to achieve, and so to depend engenders fear. The state of the nonfear is not negation, it is not the opposite of fear nor is it courage. In understanding the cause of fear, there is its cessation, not the becoming courageous, for in all becoming there is the seed of fear. Dependence on things, on people, or on ideas breeds fear; dependence arises from ignorance, from the lack of self-knowledge, from inward poverty; fear causes uncertainty of mind-heart, preventing communication and understanding. Through self-awareness we begin to discover and so comprehend the cause of fear, not only the superficial but the deep casual and accumulative fears. Fear is both inborn and acquired; it is related to the past, and to free thought-feeling from it, the past must be comprehended through the present. The past is ever wanting to give birth to the present which becomes the identifying memory of the "me" and the "mine" the "I". The self is the root of all fear."

Fear Makes Us Obey

"Why do we do all this:obey, follow, copy? Why? Because we are frightened inwardly to be uncertain. We want to be certain, we want to be certain financially, we want to be certain morally,we want to be approved, we want to be in a safe position, we want never to be confronted with trouble, pain, suffering, we want to be enclosed. So, fear, consciously or unconsciously, makes us obey the Master, the leader, the priest, the government. Fear also controls us from doing something which may be harmful to others, because we will be punished. So behind all these actions, greeds, pursuits, lurks this desire for certainty, this desire to be assured. So, without resolving fear, without being free from fear, merely to obey or to be obeyed has little significance; what has meaning is to understand this fear from day to day and how fear shows itself in different ways. It is only when there is freedom from fear that there is that inward quality of understanding, that aloneness in which there is no accumulation of knowledge or of experience, and it is that alone which gives extraordinary clarity in the pursuit of the real."

Freedom from Fear

"Is it possible for the mind to empty itself totally of fear? Fear of any kind breeds illusion; it makes the mind dull, shallow. Where there is fear there is obviously no freedom, and without freedom there is no love at all. And most of us have some form of fear; fear of darkness, fear of public opinion, fear of snakes, fear of physical pain, fear of old age, fear of death. We have literally dozens of fears. And is it possible to be completely free of fear?

We can see what fear does to each one of us. It makes one tell lies; it corrupts one in various ways; it makes the mind empty, shallow. There are dark corners in the mind which can never be investigated and exposed as long as one is afraid. Physical self-protection, the instinctive urge to keep away from the venomous snake, to draw back from the precipice, to avoid falling under the tramcar, and so on, is sane, normal, healthy. But I am asking about the psychological self-protectiveness which makes one afraid of disease, of death, of an enemy. When we seek fulfillment in any form, whether through painting, through music, through relationship, or what you will, there is always fear. So, what is important is to be aware of this whole process of oneself, to observe, to learn about it, and not ask how to get rid of fear. When you merely want to get rid of fear, you will find ways and means of escaping from it, and so there can never be freedom from fear."

Dealing with Fear

"One is afraid of public opinion, afraid of not achieving, not fulfilling, afraid of not having the opportunity; and through it all there is this extraordinary sense of guilt;one has done a thing that one should not have done; the sense of guilt in the very act of doing; one is healthy and others are poor and unhealthy; one has food and others have no food. The more the mind is inquiring, penetrating, asking, the greater the sense of guilt, anxiety. Fear is the urge that seeks a Master, a guru; fear is this coating of respectability, which every one loves so dearly;to be respectable. Do you determine to be courageous to face events in life, or merely rationalize fear away, or find explanations that will give satisfaction to the mind that is caught in fear? How do you deal with it? Turn on the radio, read a book, go to a temple, cling to some form of dogma, belief?

Fear is the destructive energy in man. It withers the mind, it distorts thought, it leads to all kinds of extraordinarily clever and subtle theories, absurd superstitions, dogmas, and beliefs. If you see that fear is destructive, then how do you proceed to wipe the mind clean? You say that by probing into the cause of fear you would be free of fear. Is that so? Trying to uncover the cause and knowing the cause of fear does not eliminate fear."

Fear is a psychological process

"Fear is not only a response of the adrenal glands but also a psychological process. To understand fear, not intellectually but actually to be free of it, one requires very keen observation, one has to look at it very closely. When the mind - which has been trained in a culture that accepts fear as part of life with all its violence - understands fear then perhaps we can be completely free not only consciously but also unconsciously. To go into this question of fear one has to be aware, that is one has to watch one's own fear, not the fear that one is told about or the fear of the unknown, but the actual fear that one has."

Fear can be ended totally

"The speaker is saying that fear can be totally ended. Don’t say, “It is for the illumined one” and all that nonsense. You can end it if you put your brain, your heart into it—completely, not partially. And then you will see for yourself what immense beauty there is in it; a sense of utter freedom—not freedom of a country or of some government, but the sense of the enormity of freedom, the greatness of freedom. Will you do it—today, now? From today, seeing the cause of fear, end it. As long as there is fear—biologically, physically, psychologically—it destroys us. So, if one may ask, after listening to this fact, not theory, what are you going to do? Time is the factor of fear and thought; so if you don’t change now, you won’t ever change. It is constant postponement."

Thought breeds fear

"How do these psychological fears arise? What is their origin? That is the issue. There is the fear of something that happened yesterday; the fear of something that might happen later on today or tomorrow. There is the fear of what we have known, and there is the fear of the unknown, which is tomorrow. One can see for oneself very clearly that fear arises through the structure of thought—through thinking about that which happened yesterday of which one is afraid, or through thinking about the future. Right? Thought breeds fear, doesn’t it? Please let us be quite sure; do not accept what the speaker is saying; be absolutely sure for yourself as to whether thought is the origin of fear."

1. Daily Quote from  Jiddhu Krishnamaruti accessed from

Religion quotes of Jiddu Krishnamurti

Jiddu Krishnamurti (1895-1986), an Indian speaker and writer on philosophical and spiritual subjects was one of the most remarkable and interesting thinkers of the 20th century. Born into a pious Brahmin family, proclaimed as a young man by the leaders of the Theosophical Society as the awaited World Teacher, made head of the international elite organization known as the Order of the Star, in 1929 he completely dumbfounded his followers in one of the most singular talks ever given in the history of religion.

"Religion is the frozen thought of man out of which they build temples."

“Belief is a danger which must be totally avoided if one is to see the truth of what is.” 
(The Only Revolution, p. 166)

"Your belief in God is merely an escape from your monotonous, stupid and cruel life."

"All ideologies are idiotic, whether religious or political, for it is conceptual thinking, the conceptual word, which has so unfortunately divided man."

"Your God Is Not God

A man who believes in God can never find God. If you are open to reality, there can be no belief in reality. If you are open to the unknown, there can be no belief in it. After all, belief is a form of self-protection, and only a petty mind can believe in God. Look at the belief of the aviators during the war who said God was their companion as they were dropping bombs! So you believe in God when you kill, when you are exploiting people. You worship God and go on ruthlessly extorting money, supporting the army; yet you say you believe in mercy, compassion, kindliness. 
As long as belief exists, there can never be the unknown; you cannot think about the unknown, thought cannot measure it. The mind is the product of the past, it is the result of yesterday, and can such a mind be open to the unknown? It can only project an image, but that projection is not real; so your god is not God, it is an image of your own making, an image of your own gratification. There can be reality only when the mind understands the total process of itself and comes to an end. When the mind is completely empty-only then is it capable of receiving the unknown. The mind is not purged until it understands the content of relationship -its relationship with property, with people until it has established the right relationship with everything. Until it understands the whole process of conflict in relationship, the mind cannot be free. Only when the mind is wholly silent, completely inactive, not projecting, when it is not seeking and is utterly still -only then that which is eternal and timeless comes into being." 

“A religious mind is not caught in any experience, in any belief, in any concept, which are all the activities of the intellect, which is the thought and thought is memory. I hope you see all this. So we live in the past and the past meets the present, modifies itself and goes on, but it is still rooted in the past.” (Talk 2, Bombay, 27 January 1979)

“... to enquire very deeply into the nature of religion there must be total freedom, freedom from all orthodoxy, tradition, rituals, faith, symbols. That requires, not courage, that requires a deep sense of doubt, doubt of everything that man has put together through thought what he calls religion.”
 (Talk 2, New York, 28 March 1982, par. 24)

“So if you look to a priest for your guidance as a teacher, I say he is your destroyer or exploiter. Please, I have nothing against Christian priests or Hindu priests – to me they are all the same. I say they are unessential to humanity. And please do not accept what I am saying as final authority to you, a dogmatic statement. Look at it, consider it yourself. If you accept what I am saying, I will also become your priest; therefore I will become your exploiter.”
 (Talk 1, Auckland, 30 March 1934)

“So also with your ideals, your gods, your religions: they are the creation of the desire for escape into comfort. You yourself have made the world into a prison, a prison of suffering and conflict; and because the world is such a prison, you create an ideal god, an ideal freedom, an ideal truth.”
 (Talk 4, Alpino , 6 July 1933, par. 22)

“For most of us, religion is obviously a series of dogmas, traditions, what the Upanishads, or the Gita, or the Bible have said; or it is made up of the experiences, visions, hopes, ideas which have sprung from our conditioned minds, from our minds which have been shaped according to the Hindu, the Christian or the Communist pattern. We start with a particular conditioning and have experiences based on it.”
 (Talk 1, New Delhi, 10 October 1956, par. 20)

“For most of us, religion is obviously a series of dogmas, traditions, what the Upanishads, or the Gita, or the Bible have said; or it is made up of the experiences, visions, hopes, ideas which have sprung from our conditioned minds, from our minds which have been shaped according to the Hindu, the Christian or the Communist pattern. We start with a particular conditioning and have experiences based on it.” (Talk 1, New Delhi, 10 October 1956, par. 20)
"Organized religion does produce a number of positive effects. Primarily there is the psychological solace that comes to the individual believer. “So you, as individuals, establish various religions which act as your security. No teacher has established these organized, exploiting religions. You yourselves, out of your insecurity, out of your confusion, out of your lack of comprehension, have created religions as your guides.” (Talk 1, Adyar, 29 December 1933, par. 33)
“We give significance, meaning, to a life that has no meaning, the way we live, and the significance, the meaning is what we call religion.” (Talk 3, Rajghat, 30 November 1969, par. 6)
“Religion as the experience of some authority may bind a few people together but it will breed inevitably antagonism; the experience of another is not true, however great the experiencer may be.” (Talk, Colombo, 28 December 1949, par. 6)
“Every organized religion has unfortunately cultivated, for purposes of civilization, the feeling of guilt. ... So, religion, organized belief, has carefully maintained, cultivated this sense that you must toe the line, that you must not sin, that you must not commit ugly things.” (Talk 7, Ojai, California, 6 August 1949, par. 25)
“Without religion there is no culture, for religion is the unifying factor...” (Talk 1, San Francisco, 10 March 1973, par. 7) 
"Psychologically, all religions as fundamentally generative of illusion. Though they do provide solace, that solace is based on belief in something that is not actually seen as true, and therefore is fundamentally an escape. “So you are constantly seeking escape, and these attempts at escape you dignify with various spiritual names, with grand-sounding words; these escapes satisfy you temporarily, that is, until the next storm of suffering comes and blows away your shelter.” (Talk 1, Adyar, 29 December 1933, par. 27)
“Our whole social and intellectual structure is based on the idea of gain, of achievement; and when mind and heart are held by the idea of gain, there cannot be true living, there cannot be the free flow of life. Isn’t that so? If you are constantly looking to the future, to an achievement, to a gain, to a hope, how can you live completely in the present? How can you act intelligently as a human being? How can you think or feel in the fullness of the present when you are always keeping your eye on the distant future? Through our religion, through our education, we are made as nothing, and being conscious of that nothingness, we want to gain, to succeed. So we constantly pursue teachers, gurus, systems. “ (Ibid., par. 29)
“Religion, the etymological meaning of that word is not very clear, but it’s generally accepted, religion to be that which is going on in the world, the Christian religion, the Muslim, the Islamic, the Hindu, the Buddhist and so on, with their temples and mosques and churches or cathedrals and all the rituals that go on inside them, and all the things that are in the temples, in the churches, in the mosques, and follow, having certain faiths, belief, and the repetition of certain phrases, doing puja, rituals and so on, the whole structure of superstition – that generally is what is understood to be religion.” (Talk 1, Madras, 31 December 1983, par. 2)
Further, the individual member of a religion is pressed into a condition of psychological bondage. “If I can awaken him [man] to his own strength, to his own understanding, to his own responsibility, to his own action, then I destroy class distinction. Then I do not keep him in the nursery to be exploited as a child by one who is supposed to know more. That is the whole attitude of religions, that you can never find out what truth is – only one or two people find out – therefore let me, as a mediator, help you; therefore I become your exploiter. That is the whole process of religion. It is a clever means of exploiting, being ruthless to keep the people in subjection, as the capitalist class does in exactly the same way – one class by spiritual means, one class by mundane.” (Talk 1, Auckland, 28 March 1934, par. 12)
“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.” (Ibid., par. 23)
“Two thousands years of propaganda of the Christians, and fifteen or sixteen hundred years of propaganda of the Muslims, and two or three thousand years or more of the Hindus and the Buddhists. We are slaves to this propaganda called religion, called nations, and so on.” (Talk 1, Ojai, California, 19 May 1984, par. 11)
With this, organized religion produces a state that is essentially imitative, based on performing actions according to formulas that have little or no meaning (as in rituals) and engaged in activities that are based on rules rather than a creative response to life.
“Religion is merely mumbling words, going to the temple, or practicing a discipline – which is all repetitive, copying, imitative, habit forming. And what happens to your mind and to your heart when you are merely imitative? Naturally, they wither, do they not? ... Therefore, emotionally, inwardly, there is no creation, there is no creative response – only dullness, emptiness.” (Talk 5, Bombay, 15 February 1948, par. 8)
“As you ruthlessly seek economic security, out of which is born a morality suited for that purpose, so you have created religions all over the world which promise you immortality through their closed and peculiar disciplines and moralities. As long as this closed morality exists, there must be wars and exploitation, there cannot be the real love of man. This morality, this discipline, is really based on egotism and the ruthless search for individual security.” (Talk 3, Rio de Janeiro, 4 May 1935, par. 10)
“In the pursuit of gain you lose sight of the present. In your pursuit of gain, in your reliance on the past, you don’t fully understand the immediate experience. That experience leaves a scar, a memory which is the incompleteness of that experience, and out of that increasing incompleteness grows the consciousness of the “I”, the ego. Your divisions of the ego are but the superficial refinement of selfishness in its search for gain. Intrinsically, in that incompleteness of experience, in that memory, the ego has its roots. However much it may grow, expand, it will always retain the centre of selfishness.” (Talk 1, Adyar, 29 December 1933, par. 47)
The deepest crux of these negative effects on the individual may be summed up as a profound loss of freedom. By accepting a belief that one does not oneself actually see as true, the mind is thereby prevented from discovering truth as it actually is. “If you discern the falseness of organized belief, that through any particular belief you cannot understand reality, nor through any authority whatsoever can intelligence be awakened, then you as individuals, not as an organized group, will free yourselves from this destructive imposition.” (Talk 2, Montevideo, 26 June 1935, par. 23)
“Religions, with their beliefs, dogmas and creeds, have become tremendous barriers between human beings, dividing man against man, limiting him and destroying his intelligence.” (Talk 1, Montevideo, 21 June 1935, par. 14)
“... there must be conflict so long as there is an ideal, and that so long as the mind is concerned with the future, with what should be, it is not concerned with what is. It is fairly obvious that one cannot have a divided mind, part of the mind thinking of non-violence and the other part occupied with violence. Therefore you see that so long as there is any kind of ideal in the mind there must be a state of contradiction.” (Talk 2, Poona, 10 September 1958, par. 10)
“The outer world is but an expression of our own inner state; as we are inwardly broken up and torn by burning desires, so is the world about us; as there is incessant turmoil within us so is there endless conflict in the world; as there is no inward tranquillity the world has become a battlefield.” (Talk 10, Ojai, California, 29 July 1945, par. 3)
In addition to these individual psychological effects, the negative social effects of organized religion are equally problematic. One is that it sets up an external authority as the basis for social interaction. “Religion with its beliefs, its disciplines, its enticements, its hopes, its punishments, forces you towards righteous behaviour, towards brotherliness, towards love. And since you are compelled, you either obey the external authority which it sets up, or – which amounts to the same thing – you begin to develop your own inner authority as a reaction against the outer, and follow that. Where there is belief, where there is a following of an ideal, there cannot be complete living.” (Talk 1, Adyar, 29 December 1933, par. 38)
“Our whole system of thought and action and living is based on individual aggrandizement and growth at the expense of others. That is a fact, is it not? And so long as that fact in the world exists there must be suffering, there must be exploitation, there must be the division of classes; and no forms of religion can bring about peace, because they are the very creation of human cravings, they are the means of exploitation.” (Talk 1, Auckland, 30 March 1934)
“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.” (Talk 1, Auckland, 28 March 1934, par. 17)
But for K the deepest negative social effects lie in what he refers to as their divisiveness. “To me religion is the false result of a false cause, the cause being conflict, and religion merely a means of escape from that conflict. So the more you develop and strengthen the sectarian divisions of religion, the less true brotherhood there will be; and the more you strengthen nationalism, the less will be the unity of man.” (Talk 6, Ojai, California, 23 June 1934, par. 14)
“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.” (Talk 6, Ojai, California, 23 June 1934, par. 28)
“We will have misery and tribulation so long as religion is organized to be part of the State, the hand maiden of the State. It helps to condone organized force as policy of the State; and so encourages oppression, ignorance and intolerance. How then can religion allied with the State fulfill its only true function, that of revealing and maintaining eternal value?” (Talk 4, Ojai, California, 17 June 1945, par. 3)
“... organized religions have nothing to do with the sayings of the great teachers. The teachers have said do not kill, love your neighbour, but religions of vested interest encourage and support the slaughter of humanity. (applause) By encouraging nationalism, supporting a special class, with all its organized belief, religion participates in the killing of man. Religions throughout the world not only exploit through fear, but also separate man from man. Such organized religions cannot in any way aid man in the realization of truth.” (Talk 4, Mexico City, 3 November 1935, par. 11)
“Probably one of the few religions in the world that has not shed blood is Buddhism and perhaps after it Hinduism...” (Talks and Dialogues, Sydney 1970, 5th Public Talk, par. 6)
“... there is starvation, there is war, religion has totally failed – it has no more meaning anymore, except to some old ladies and slightly demented people.” (Talk 1, New Delhi, 15 December 1966, par. 3)
And: “ Seeing this throughout the world – and it is your job while you are being educated to see this whole pattern – how will you bring about order? An inner revolution is necessary so as to bring about right relationship between human beings; every other form of revolution brings about more misery. The question is how to bring about right relationship between man and man – not through force, not with bayonets, not through organized religions, not through ideologies – for these have all failed. So how is that revolution, that right relationship to take place?” (Talk Students, Rishi Valley, 30 October 1967)
“Religion is the understanding of the thinker and the thought, which means the understanding of action in relationship. The understanding of action in conduct is religion, not the worship of some idea, however gratifying, however traditional, whoever has said it. Religion is understanding the beauty, the depth, the extensive significance of action in relationship.” (Talk 3, Rajahmundry, 4 December 1949, par. 4, 5)
“Religion is the understanding of the thinker; for what the thinker is, that he creates. Without understanding the process of the thinker and the thought, merely to be caught in a dogma is surely not the uncovering of the beauty of life, of existence, of truth.” (Ibid., par. 3)
In developing this theme of self-understanding, K’s insights disclose three major aspects of true religion. The first centers around the process of the mind’s engaging in a kind of disillusionment, in which it realizes what he calls the denial of the inventions of the mind. “It is a total denial of everything which the mind has invented for its own security.” (Talk 7, Bombay, 13 January 1960, par. 29)
“Religion is not the acceptance of some dogma, tradition, or so-called sacred book. Religion is the inquiry to find the unknown.” (Talk 1, Madanapalle, 12 February 1956, par. 19)
“That complete aloneness, in which there is no fear, has its own extraordinary beauty; it is a state of love, because it is not the aloneness of reaction; it is a total negation, which is not the opposite of the positive. And I think it is only in that state of creation that the mind is truly religious.” (Talk 7, Bombay, 13 January 1960, par. 29)
The second, more positive, aspect of the truly religious mind K describes as the ‘pursuit of the sacred.’ “I am using that word ‘religion’, as the urge, the intense pursuit of that which is sacred, if there is anything sacred.” (Talk 4, Ojai, California, 15 April 1973, par. 2)
“So this morning I would like, if I may, to go into this question of whether there is something really sacred, something immeasurable, which cannot be fathomed by the mind.” (Talk 6, Ojai, California, 21 August 1955, par. 2)
“But that which is truly sacred is beyond the measure of time, it is not to be found within the field of the known.” (Ibid., par. 13)
“Then is there something sacred, not invented by thought? There is nothing sacred in the temples, in the mosques, in the churches. They are all the inventions of thought. So, when you discard all that, is there something sacred, that is nameless, timeless, something that is the outcome of great beauty and total order which begins in our daily life.” (Talk 4, New Delhi, 7 November 1982, par.26)
“When there is silence, there is immense, timeless space; then only is there a possibility of coming upon that which is the eternal, sacred.” (The Wholeness of Life, p. 145)
“That which is mysterious, not in the sense of the mystery that thought has created, that great sense of mystery which scientists are also enquiring into that mystery, that mysterious thing is sacred. It has no symbol, no word. You cannot experience it, because if you experience there is still the experiencer who is the centre, who is the ‘me’ that will experience, therefore still division.” (Talk 7, Saanen, 27 July 1975, par. 32)
“So where there is this emptiness and space there is vast energy. And that energy is sacred.” (Talk 4, Brockwood Park, 6 September 1981, par. 28)
“Is there anything sacred, holy? Obviously the things that thought has put together in the religious sense – investing sacredness in images, in ideas – are not sacred at all. That which is sacred has no division, not one a Christian, another a Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim and all the rest of the divisions. That which thought has put together is of time, is fragmentary, is not whole, therefore it is not holy...” (The Wholeness of Life, p. 197)
“And when it is capable of saying, ‘I really know nothing’, that state of complete emptiness which is complete disassociation with the world, and all the world which has made the ‘me’. I wonder if... are you following all this? Then that nothingness is the most sacred thing.” (Discussion 7, Saanen, 7 August 1973, par. 119)
“And when you have compassion then there is truth, that which is truth is the most sacred thing.” (Talk 6, Madras, 26 December 1976, par. 28) “But the beauty about which I am talking offers no stimulation whatsoever. It is a beauty not to be found in any picture, in any symbol, in any word, in any music. That beauty is sacredness, it is the essence of a religious mind, of a mind that is clear in its self-knowing.” (Talk 10, Saanen, 1 August 1965, par. 16)
“... this order, with its virtue and peace, can only come about when you come directly into contact with disorder in your daily life. Then out of that blossoms goodness and then there will be no seeking any more. For that which is, is sacred.” (The Awakening of Intelligence, p. 216-7)
“So the experience of ‘it’ is not possible, but it is there when the mind has gone through this whole business of existence with clarity, in which there is no fear and the understanding of that enormous thing called death and suffering. And out of that comes great compassion.” (Talk 7, Saanen, 27 July 1975, par. 32)
Here it is important to point out that K seems to have moved through two phases regarding the language that he used to speak of the ‘sacred:’ one that we might loosely call ‘theistic,’ in which he uses the term ‘God;’ the other, a ‘non-theistic’ or ‘atheistic’ phase, in which that term was no longer used and even explicitly rejected. In so describing these phases, we must be clear that neither is to be understood, as the terms are usually taken philosophically, as belief positions; for K rejected all beliefs, including both theistic and atheistic, as irrelevant and even impediments to understanding. “If we are brought up in the belief of God, or in opposition to that, thought is influenced, a habit is formed, from generation to generation. Both belief and non-belief in God prevent the understanding of God.” (Talk 7, Ojai, California, 7 July 1940, par. 15)
In the ‘theistic’ phase, very early in his speaking career, although he asserts it nowhere else later, K stated clearly that he had actually realized God. “Please – and I am not saying this with any conceit – I have found a way; not a method that you can practise, a system that becomes a cage, a prison. I have realized truth, God, or whatever name you like to give it.” (Talk Oslo, 5 September 1933, par. 15)
“God, Truth, or whatever you may choose to call reality, cannot be described. That which can be described is not the real.” (Talk 7, Ojai, California, 7 July 1940)
“Memory is the residue of incomplete experiences; therefore, truth, or God, or what you will, is the unknown and it cannot be formulated.” (Talk 4, Bangalore, 25 July 1948, par. 16)
“When you do something with your whole being, in which there is no sense of frustration or fear, no limitation, in this state of action you are yourself, irrespective of any outward condition. I say, if you can come to that state, when you are yourself in action, then you will find out the ecstasy of reality, God.” (Talk 1, Ommen, 4 August 1938, par. 13)
Further, its indescribability not withstanding, in various passages K refers to ‘God’ in ways that indicate that he understood that term as denoting a number of characteristics. One of these is his clear rejection of God as being personal. “Now reality or truth or God, or whatever name you like to give to it, is not egotistic, personal consciousness.” (Talk 3, Buenos Aires, 19 July 1935)
“The capacity to see the whole is Reality, is God, is everything in the Universe.” (Talk 1, Bombay, 26 November 1958, par. 23)
“The mind that is not seeking a culmination, a goal, an end, shall discover truth. Then divinity is not an externalized, unfulfilled desire, but that intelligence which is itself God, which is beauty, truth, completeness.” (Talk 7, Ojai, California, 24 June 1934)
“It is also important to find out what your relationship is to that Creative Reality, God, or what you will – names are of no importance.” (Talk 1, Poona, 24 January 1953, par. 19)
“... that which may be called reality, God, truth, or what you will, is a state of constant renewal, a state of creativeness.” (Talk 2, Brussels, 17 June 1956, par. 2)
“Life itself is action, endless action that has no beginning and no end. It is something that is everlastingly in movement, and it is the universe, God, bliss, reality.” (Talk 2, Bombay, 30 November 1958, par. 10)
“Now to me there is reality; there is an eternal living reality – call it God, immortality, eternity, or what you will.” (Talk 2, Stresa, 2 July 1933) Finally, in describing what might be called overall qualities of God, he equates it with peace, beauty, love. “And that creation is truth, God, or what you will – it has no meaning then. Then that explosion, that creation, is peace; you do not have to seek peace. That creation is beauty. That creation is love.” (Talk 7, Bombay, 3 March 1965)
“So, it seems to me that the function of education is to bring about a release of energy in the pursuit of goodness, truth, or God, which in turn makes the individual a true human being and therefore the right kind of citizen.” (This Matter of Culture, p. 187)
“When there is no illusion ‘what is’ is god or any other name that can be used. So god, or whatever name you give it, is when you are not. When you are, it is not. When you are not, love is. When you are, love is not.” (The Urgency of Change, p. 18)
But K’s theistic language was abandoned in his teachings around 1970-71. Thereafter we find no further use of the term ‘God’ other than as an illusion, very much in the manner of Feuerbach, that is created by the mind in its search for security and permanence. “In belief of God, there is great security, but that God, you have invented it. So you are seeking security in an illusion which you think is real and that gives you a great sense of security; that means you are neurotic in a belief which is your own invention.” (Talk 3, Bangalore, 12 January 1974, par. 31)
“K: When there is absolute silent, total silence, therefore no movement of any kind, when it is completely quiet, there is a totally different kind of explosion which is......
P: Which is God.
K: I refuse to use the word ‘God’ but this state is not an invention. It is not a thing put together by cunning thought because thought is completely without movement.” (Tradition and Revolution, p. 146; 9 February 1971; par. 48-9 on CD-ROM)
“The moment I say there is God, the thinking about it is within the field of thought. The man who has not thought at all, to him there is no God.” (Tradition and Revolution, p. 104; 21 January 1971; par. 26, 27 on CD-ROM)
“And where there is the ending of fear, there is no god. You understand? It is out of our fear, out of our desire, we invent the gods. When a man for him, in whom there is no fear, completely no fear, then he is totally a different human being and he needs no god.” (Talk 3, Madras, 1 January 1983, par. 25)
In his later talks and writings, drawing from the etymological origin of the term ‘religion’ as ‘binding back or together’ (though pointing out the uncertainties noted by scholars concerning that etymology), K focuses more on the third aspect of real religion as ‘gathering together all energy, at all levels, physical, moral, spiritual, at all levels, gathering all this energy which will bring about a great attention. And in that attention there is no frontier, and then from there move. To me that is the meaning of that word: the gathering of total energy to understand what thought cannot possibly capture.’ (Conversation 11 w. Allan Anderson, San Diego, 25 February 1974, par. 5); that is, living in and through intelligence. In this context, he makes it clear that although intelligence transcends the limits of conceptualizing reason, he also points out that reason has its appropriate place. “It really means to bring together all your energies to enquire, to look, to observe, to find out what is truth, if there is any reality beyond the reality of thought, if there is something timeless which is beyond all reason, though reason must be exercised.” (Talk 2, New York, 28 March 1982, par. 24)
“There must be complete freedom, and in that freedom there is a great, tremendous energy because there is an emptiness – not nothingness, emptiness. In that there is that which is beyond all time. This is meditation. This is religion.” (Talk 2, New York, 15 April 1984, par. 21)
“It is this transformation of the individual that constitutes religion, not the mere acceptance of a dogma, a belief, which is not religion at all.” (Talk 2, Madanapalle, 19 February 1956, par. 5)
“Religion is love; ... You can love, be compassionate, only in the present, in the immediate.” (Talk 3, Colombo, 20 January 1957, par. 33)
“We mean by religion absolute freedom, freedom from fear, freedom from conflict, freedom from problems, freedom from sorrow so that a mind, a brain that is completely free, it’s only then there is that quality of love and compassion. Then that state alone can find out what is sacred.” (Talk 1, Madras, 31 December 1983, par. 15)
“Religion, after all, is the discovery of love, and love is something to be discovered from moment to moment. You must die to the love that you have known a second before, in order to ever know anew what love is.” (Talk 9, Bombay, 24 December 1958, par. 15)
“And the religious mind, the religious spirit, is not divorced from beauty.... Beauty implies the highest form of sensitivity – not for pictures, but the sensitivity of a mind that is alive, fresh. And therefore for that mind everything, even the most ugly thing, has its own beauty – this is not an idea.” (Talk 7, New Delhi, 13 November 1963, par. 25)
“Religion is an action which is complete, total, which covers the whole life not separated as the business life, sexual life, scientific life and the religious life.” (Talks and Dialogues, Saanen 1968, p. 101-2)
“Religion, in the deepest sense of that word, is the factor of creation.” (Talk 1, New Delhi, 24 November 1973, par. 17)
“Surely, religion is a way of life: a way of life that is whole, that is not fragmentary, in which there is no conflict whatsoever, which means there is no contradiction in oneself, contradiction of opposing desires, opposing ideas and demands, a total non-fragmentary life, a whole life, a total mind, a whole mind which doesn’t think one thing and do another, doesn’t say one thing and act contrary to what has been said.” (Talk 3, Rajghat, 30 November 1969, par. 10)
“And religion is the uncovering of that which is most holy, which has no name, which is the absolute truth, the origin of everything.” (Talk 4, Colombo, 16 November 1969, par. 10)
“... the real function of religion is to transform man totally, so that he lives in complete harmony, which means complete order and therefore righteous behaviour. That is the total meaning of a religious mind.” (Talk 4, New Delhi, 2 December 1973, par. 1)
“One religion is not going to conquer the rest of the world. They want to – the Hindus want it, the Christians... (laughs) And the mechanical world, which is now being put together, is not going to bring about a new society, a new culture, only religion has always done it – not the present religion. So there needs to be a religion, of not faith, not belief, not rituals, not authority.” (Talk 4, Brockwood Park, 6 September 1981, par. 27)

1. J. Krishnamurti’s Critique of Religion

2.Daily Quotes of Jiddhu Krishnamurti