Give it a thumb 
subscribe Tell a friend Aloneness in which there is no fear
It is only when the mind is capable of shedding all influences, all interferences, of being completely alone that there is creativeness. In the world, more and more technique is being developed - the technique of how to influence people through propaganda, through compulsion, through imitation, through examples, through idolatry, through the worship of the hero. There are innumerable books written on how to do a thing, how to think efficiently, how to build a house, how to put machinery together; so gradually we are losing initiative, the initiative to think out something original for ourselves.
In our education, in our relationship with government, through various means, we are being influenced to conform, to imitate. And when we allow one influence to persuade us to a particular attitude or action, naturally, we create resistance to other influences. In that very process of creating a resistance to another influence, are we not succumbing to it negatively? Should not the mind always be in revolt so as to understand the influences that are always impinging, interfering, controlling, shaping? Is it not one of the factors of the mediocre mind that it is always fearful and, being in a state of confusion, it wants order, it wants consistency, it wants a form, a shape, by which it can be guided, controlled, and yet these forms, these various influences create contradictions in the individual, create confusion in the individual.
Any choice between influences is surely still a state of mediocrity. Must not the mind have the capacity to fathom, not to imitate, not to be shaped and to be without fear? Should not such a mind be alone and therefore creative? That creativeness is not yours or mine, it is anonymous.
In our education, in our relationship with government, through various means, we are being influenced to conform, to imitate. And when we allow one influence to persuade us to a particular attitude or action, naturally, we create resistance to other influences. In that very process of creating a resistance to another influence, are we not succumbing to it negatively? Should not the mind always be in revolt so as to understand the influences that are always impinging, interfering, controlling, shaping? Is it not one of the factors of the mediocre mind that it is always fearful and, being in a state of confusion, it wants order, it wants consistency, it wants a form, a shape, by which it can be guided, controlled, and yet these forms, these various influences create contradictions in the individual, create confusion in the individual.
Any choice between influences is surely still a state of mediocrity. Must not the mind have the capacity to fathom, not to imitate, not to be shaped and to be without fear? Should not such a mind be alone and therefore creative? That creativeness is not yours or mine, it is anonymous.