Saanen 1st Public Dialogue 1st August 1973.
This is not a talk by me but a dialogue between us. A dialogue is a conversation between two people who are interested in the same thing, and fairly serious, and who are not merely expressing their opinions, but rather penetrating much more deeply beyond the mere casual opinions. I think that is the meaning of that word 'dialogue'. I think that word is better than discussion.
You know, if we could during these seven days investigate and penetrate much more deeply, in detail, any of the issues that we have. And that needs a seriousness, not a casual, superficial interest. So what shall we talk about together this morning?
Q: Sometimes there is a conflict between emotions and the intellectual reasoning.
Q: Could we talk about the meaning of life as action and relationship?
Q: I would like to talk about jealousy. Jealousy seems to be related somewhat to love and if there is no jealousy how do we come upon that thing called love?
Q: As we generally observe with the observer, how can we observe without the observer?
Q: Some people say they find reality, or that strange thing, through drugs.
K: Now what shall we talk about after all these questions? Which do you think is the most important? We have had: conflict between reason and emotion; what is the meaning of life and its relationship to action and relationship; what is it to observe without the observer because we always seem to observe with the observer; is the experience that one has through drugs the same as the experience of reality? Now which among those - did I leave out one, I think I did. We know jealousy is related to love, and without jealousy what is love? Now which of these do you think is most important so that we can discuss it, talk it over?
Q: Learning how to look.
K: Do you want to talk about that? Yes? Right. Sorry madam, we will perhaps answer your question later.
How to observe without the observer, what is the relationship between the observer and the observed, and what is the structure and the nature of the observer? Right, that's what we are going to talk over together. How does one observe? How do you listen? Let's begin with that very simply. Here you are sitting there, and the speaker here, and when you hear a question of this kind, what is your reaction to it? How do you hear that question? Please, let's go into it a little bit. How do you listen to this question? The question being, the observer, the observed, what is the relationship between the observer and the observed, and what is the observer? That is the question. Now you listen to that question and what is your reaction to it? How do you listen to it? Do you listen to find an answer; do you listen to see if you are observing anything as an outsider who is looking in; and do you interpret that question according to your knowledge? So how do you listen to that question? Please just give a little attention to this.
I heard that question: and I had no reaction to it. I have just heard it. Then I am going to investigate it. I don't hear and then form a conclusion and according to that conclusion investigate. Do you see the difference? Please, I am not talking. During these seven days I am not talking. We are, as friends, going into this matter amicably, intelligently exploring. Most of us when we hear a question of that kind are apt to translate that question and draw an abstraction from that question - an abstraction being to abstract, to draw a statement, a factual statement into an idea. The idea is an abstraction. Most of us are inclined when we listen to a question of this kind to draw a conclusion which is an abstraction. Or you merely listen without any conclusion, then the mind is capable of investigating further. But if you draw a conclusion, an abstraction, an idea, you block yourself from further investigation. Right, is that clear?
So what are we doing? Are we saying, "I don't understand, this is an impossible question, what does it mean?" - so one has to hear that statement very clearly. The statement is: what is the observer, what is the relationship of the observer to the observed, and is it possible to observe without the observer? Those are the things involved in that question. If I say to myself, "No I can never observe without the observer", I have blocked myself. So I must listen to that question without any reaction. Right? Just listen. Then let's proceed.
What is the relationship between the observer and the observed? What is the observer? So let's begin investigating what is the observer. Right? Go on sirs, what is the observer? I think your question, madam, will be answered about, what is the meaning of life and its relationship to action, and the relationship between people. It comes to the same thing. Which is, who is the observer that is always watching, always listening, always translating, asserting, dominating, choosing, discarding, aggressive? Who is this observer?
Q: The 'me'.
Q: The memory.
K: Let's go slowly into it. Otherwise we shan't penetrate very deeply. You say it is the 'me', memory. What do you mean by memory?
Q: The brain.
K: You have a memory, haven't you, of being hurt, or the memory of guilt, the memory of failure, the memory of frustration, the memory of jealousy. Now what is that memory?
Look, sir, you call me an idiot. I won't call you, you call me! Now what has taken place? I hear those words, I translate those words, and the memory, or the image I have about myself, that image is hurt, isn't it? Right? That image has been created by me, by a series of incidents which has given me the image which says, "I am a great man", or "I am this". And you call me an idiot and I don't like it, I am hurt. The image is hurt. Right? And that hurt is part of the image which is created by thought, that thought is the response of memory. So the memory says, "I have been hurt". The image, the memory, the greater image of myself as being somebody, and that image has been hurt. That has left a mark on my mind. So when I meet you next time you are my enemy, I don't like you. Right? So when you say, memory, there are a thousand memories we have - conscious as well as unconscious memories. So memory is the past. There is no memory now, or in the future. The memory that operates now is the memory of the past. That memory of the past acting now in relationship distorts observation. Right? Please, is this clear? I am not talking, we are discussing. I must keep this always in mind, otherwise I will talk, which I don't want to do.
So the past, the memory, the image, the hurt is the observer. Right? Do please. I am a Hindu, or a Catholic, or a communist, or whatever it is, and that has been drilled into me from childhood, that has become a memory. And that memory, that conditioning is the past. That past dictates or reacts to any incident in the present. That's all. Now, sir, what do you object to?
Q: Are we sure that memory is the past?
K: Are you sure? Sir, if you had no memory of the past what would happen? If I didn't know my name, where I lived, I had lost my passport, what would happen? I would be in a state of amnesia, in a state of blank. Memory is the result of experience, and knowledge. So memory is knowledge, experience, which is obviously the past. I met you yesterday, you were introduced to me, your name has been told to me. So I meet you today and I recognize you. The recognition is born out of the memory which remained when you were introduced to me. That's simple enough, isn't it? Are we sure that memory is the past? I have been hurt by you, the hurt is the past, which is the memory of your saying something to me which displeased me. This is fairly clear.
So the observer is the conditioned entity of memory, tradition, knowledge, experience. So my conditioning as a Hindu, Buddhist, or Catholic, capitalist and so on and so on, my conditioning by the culture in which I have lived, that becomes the observer. And that observer is watching everything. So the past is choosing, discerning, translating, acting. No? It's not what I say, please. It is reasonable.
Now what is the relationship of that observer to the observed? Right? Now what is the observed? Is there such a thing as the observed different from the observer? Please go with me a little bit. I am asking what is the observed - is the observed independent of the observer? You discuss, I'll listen for a while.
Q; It is the same thing.
K: You say, it is the same - how do you know?
Q: Because I have observed it. (Inaudible)
K: Sir, look, look. I am asking you, what is the relationship between the observer and the observed, and is the observed different from the observer? Because this is very important to understand. I'll go into a little bit and you will see. It is very important to understand whether the observer is different from the observed, what is the relationship of the observer to the observed, if there is a division between the observer and the observed, then there must be conflict, because any division produces conflict. So out of that conflict violence, all the rest of the things follow. So I must be very clear in the understanding of this fact, whether the observer is different from the observed, and if the observer is not then what is the observed?
Now, let's begin slowly. What is the observed? Is it different from the observer?
K: That is, when you look at the mountain, the mountain is obviously different from you. I hope so! When I look at that microphone, obviously that is different from me - and the tree and so on and so on. When I look at you, you are obviously different from me - you have brown hair, red hair, whatever it is, physically you are different. Now let's go a little deeper. When I observe my jealousy, is jealousy different from the observer?
K: We have said that madam, we have been through that. When I look at the mountain, the mountain is not the observer, when I look at the tree, the tree is not the observer, when I look at the flowing water, the water is not the observer. You are different from the observer, the 'me' who is looking at you, obviously. Now the next step: I am jealousy. Now is jealousy different from the observer?
K: Be quite sure. This is really important, please. Don't casually say, no. The whole structure depends on this - the structure of living a totally different kind of life depends on it.
Q: The moment I am aware that I am that jealousy, then jealousy ceases.
K: But I am not asking that question. I am asking, is jealousy different from the observer. The observer, I said, is the past. The observer is the experience, is the knowledge, which says, "I am jealous". Right? So I am asking, is jealousy different from the observer?
Q: Jealousy is included in the observer.
K: So you are saying, jealousy is part of the observer. Is that right? Don't be shy about it. Don't always be right, wanting to be right, I may be wrong too. So I am asking, the observer says, "I am jealous", is that jealousy different from the observer, or the observer is the observed in this case? You understand? So the observer is jealousy. So there is not a difference between the observer and jealousy. Now wait a minute, stop a minute there.
Q: There is a difference but no division.
K: There is a difference but no division.
Q: The whole is the part. The part is the whole.
K: So, you are saying, the whole is different from the part. Right? Is that so? The whole is different from the part. What is the whole?
The whole image of me is brought about through memory, and memory tells me I have been jealous, and now I recognize it as jealousy and therefore through the process of recognition the present experience of jealousy is translated into the past. Look, he is saying, the whole is different from the part.
Q: Not divided.
K: The whole is different from the part and yet not divided. The whole is jealousy, envy, greed, anxiety, guilt, the feeling of ambition, loneliness, the lack of love - the whole is made up of all this. Right? So you take one part, which is jealousy, and look at that jealousy with the rest of the parts. So what are you doing? You look at one fragment with the many other fragments. Wait a minute, you are discovering something. Fragments make up the whole. Wait, sir, wait. Discover it, find out for yourself. The fragments of jealousy, envy, greed, deceit, lying, fear, pleasure, guilt, all that are the various parts of the whole. The whole is made up of these many parts. Just a minute. The whole is the content of these. The whole is being made up of these many things, is that the whole?
K: That's all sir, quite right. So we put names or labels, we give names or labels to many parts. I say, look what you are doing. By naming it as jealousy, by naming it as envy, by naming it as guilt, the name has become important, not the fact. Are you following this? Now why do you give names at all?
K: Wait, sir. Do enquire into it, don't jump. Why do I - just listen - I feel guilty, why do I give it a name, guilt?
Q: So that when it happens again I will recognize it.
K: Why do I do that?
Q: Because you want to push it away when you see it again.
K: Please just listen. I feel this thing called guilt because I have done something and so on and so on, and I feel guilt. Now why do I name it? Why can't I look at it without naming it? But why do I name it?
K: Please, sir you are going too fast for me. Let's go slowly. Why do I name it?
Q: I give a name to it to put it away from me.
Q: By naming it I deny it.
K: By naming I separate it. No, you are not answering.
Q: It's a habit.
K: All right, then that doesn't answer any of my questions.
Q: It's conditioning. Some people have been conditioned that away and some have been conditioned another way.
K: I am not talking about other people all the time, or some people, not all the time.
Q: We have been taught to do so.
K: We having been taught, living in this culture to do so. I am asking why.
K: Just a minute, let's go slowly. I feel guilt, I name it. Why do I name it? I name it instantly, don't I. Immediately. Why?
Q: The observer arrives at that moment.
K: You are not going into this sufficiently deeply. Look sir, give me two minutes.
I feel guilty because I have done something and so on. Why do I name it? What is the process of naming it? Go slowly.
K: Two minutes. Give me a minute sir, I am talking, if you don't mind. Two minutes and then you have the floor or the platform or whatever you want.
I feel guilt, why do I name it? I name it instantly. The naming of it is the recognition of it, therefore I have had that feeling before. Right? And having had it before I recognize it now. Through recognition I strengthen what has happened before. Right? You are following this? No? I have strengthened the memory of the previous guilt by saying, "I feel guilty". So see what has happened. Every form of recognition strengthens the past. And recognition takes place through naming. So by and through recognition I strengthen the past. Why does the mind do this? Don't answer me please. Why does the mind do this, why does it always strengthen the past by saying, "I have been guilty, I am guilty, it is terrible to be guilty, how am I to get rid of this guilt" - why does it do it? Does it do it because the mind needs to be occupied with something? You understand? It needs to be occupied, whether with god, with smoke, with sex, with something, it has to be occupied, therefore it is afraid not to be occupied. Right? And in occupation with the feeling of guilt, in that feeling there is certain security. At least I have got that thing, I have nothing else but at least I have got that feeling of being guilty.
So what is happening? Through recognition, which is the naming, the mind is strengthening a past feeling, which has happened before, and so the mind is constantly occupied with that feeling of guilt. That gives it a certain occupation, a certain sense of security, a certain action from that which becomes neurotic. So what takes place? Can I, when the feeling arises, observe it without naming it?
So I find when I do not name, the thing no longer exists. And I am afraid - listen to this carefully - the mind is afraid of living in a state of nothingness. Right? Therefore it has to have a word. The word has become tremendously important - my country, my god, my Jesus, my Krishna - the word. So the word - listen to this - the word is the past, the word is the memory, the word is the thought. So thought divides. Now I am getting too complicated. You see this?
Q: Is it more and more difficult when the word strengthens the past?
K: Yes, after so many years - I have felt guilty for years. And I realize now what I have done. Now does that take a lot of time to get rid of? Is that the question sir? Does a well-established habit take time? This is a well-established habit of feeling guilty all the time.
Q: Even animals have memories. Why should we get rid of memories?
K: I never said we must get rid of memories, madam. Look, I must have memory in order to go to my house. I must have memory to talk English. I must have memory to come here and sit on this platform. I must have memory for the language that I use. I have memory of riding a bicycle, or driving a car. So memory is absolutely essential, otherwise I couldn't function. Memory is knowledge, we must have knowledge. And that knowledge - listen to this, what takes place - that knowledge is words. Right? Now I have had the knowledge of previous guilt. When I call the present feeling guilt, I have strengthened the previous knowledge. And that knowledge is the observer. So the observer looks at that feeling which I have now and calls it guilt. And therefore in calling it guilt the knowledge of the past is strengthened. It is fairly simple and clear.
Q: Who is the observer? Is the observer different from the many fragments?
K: He is one of the fragments, isn't he?
Q: What does he do?
K: Wait, sir. We haven't come to action yet. We have just come to the point, what is the observer. That is all we have talked about so far. We have said, the observer is the conditioning, the conditioning is the culture in which they have been brought up, with all the memories, knowledge, experience. And that culture has educated me in guilt. And the observer, we say, is different from the feeling of guilt. And we are saying, is the observer different from the thing which he calls guilt, or are they both the same? Of course they are both the same when you give it a name.
Now let's proceed. What is the observed without the observer? Right? Now what is the relationship between the observer and the observed? Does this all interest you? You are quite sure I am not boring you? Because you see if you go into this very deeply you will find that you eliminate conflict altogether, completely. And that's part of our culture, to be in conflict perpetually until we die. Now we are pointing out something which will totally eliminate conflict altogether. So we are asking, what is the relationship of the observer to the observed? What is the relationship of the observer when he looks at the mountains?
Q: Generally the relationship is coloured by prejudice.
K: The observer looks at that mountain. He recognizes it as a mountain. So he calls it a mountain. The relationship between the observer and the thing called mountain is based on the image which it has through education to call it a mountain. He has an image what mountains are, and when he sees that mountain he calls it a mountain. So the image, which he has built through knowledge, recognizes that thing and says, that's a mountain.
Q: He says it is beautiful.
K: Yes, he says it is beautiful, it has got snow on it, I want to be at the peak, and so on. So the relationship between the observer and the thing which is so high, he recognizes it because he has been instructed to call it mountain, educated to call it mountain. Now I see I always look at things through the images which my education and culture have given me - man, woman, we and they, and so on and so on. So can the mind observe without the word, without the image, without the conditioning? I see very clearly that when I observe, I observe through an image - the image or the symbol or the word put together by thought. The thought has created the culture, and that culture has shaped my mind, and the mind says, when it sees that thing very high, it calls it a mountain. Now can the mind observe without the image?
K: Madam, we are not talking about dreams, please. Don't complicate the thing, it is complicated enough. Just go step by step.
I am asking - must I go through it again? - can you observe that thing very high without the word, without the image?
K: Wait a minute. I am asking - we will make it a little more complex a little later. Can I observe that mountain without the observer who is the past? The mountain is the present, can I observe that without that without the image which is the past? Come on!
K: You can. When you observe that way, is it an identification with the mountain? Obviously not. You are not the mountain - thank god! Or you may be, I don't know.
Q: Can the word be a new one, we are always using something old.
K: Call it any name. I said sir, can you observe it without the word, without the image - it may be a past image or the present image, just to observe without the image and the word. That's fairly easy. Now can you observe me, or your friend, your wife, your girl friend, and so on, can you observe without the image that you have about her or him?
Q: A child can do this.
K: But we are not children. We are not babies. Please, don't let's go back to the baby. I am asking you, can you observe - please listen - can you observe the speaker, your neighbour, your wife, your husband, your girl friend, your boy, without the image?
Q: Normally we cannot.
K: So wait. Normally we cannot. Generally we cannot. So we look at another, however intimate, through the image we have built about the other. Right? Now why does the mind so this?
K: It is the same thing as before. Why do I create an image about you, and why does the mind do this all the time?
Q: It is my security.
K: Just listen. Don't deny, look at it. It is my security. If I had no image of you, my relationship with you would be uncertain. Right?
Q: It wouldn't.
K: No, madam, you suppose that.
K: You may, madam. But most of us don't feel that. So have a little patience with us. I have built an image about you because you have hurt me, you have given me pleasure, sexual or otherwise, you have been a companion, you have nagged me, you have bullied me, you have dominated me, I have built a picture about you. That's a reality. And that image is the past. And I look at you through that image. Now why does the mind do this all the time? You tell me I am a fool, immediately an image - you follow. Why does the mind do this all the time?
Q: It's the way you defend yourself.
K: So, wait a minute, you are saying the image building is to defend oneself. What is the 'oneself'? Is that not also another image? So you are defending one image by another image. Right? Now why does the mind do this all the time?
Q: It doesn't all the time.
K: Not all the time, most of the time.
Q: Because it is afraid.
K: So you are saying it does it because it is afraid. What is it afraid of?
Q: Of not being.
K: Wait a minute, sir. You say, of not being. We are not discussing, having a dialogue verbally, actually we are experiencing, you know, going through this, not just words, words, words. You say, the mind does this because it is afraid, it is afraid of not being. Now, what is it that wants to be?
Q: I don't know, sir.
K: Wait, sir we are going to find out.
Q: The feeling is there.
K: I know the feeling exists. Now what is this thing that is protecting itself by saying, "I must be" - the being?
Q: I don't know.
K: We are going to find out, sir. I am not questioning. I am asking, sir. The gentleman said, we are afraid of not being. And I asked, what is this fear based on? What is this fear of not being? What is it that wants to be? You understand, sir? What is it that wants to be and not being it is afraid, therefore what is it that says, "I must be"?
K: Does it mean life, daily living? Bread-and-butter, security, shelter, is that what it is afraid of not being, not getting food, clothes and shelter? Surely not, that is part of it. So what is it afraid of not being? Don't say, mind, memory. Please investigate it.
Q: Of having no identity.
K: Now when you use the word 'identity' you must use the word 'with'. Identity with what? Please, just listen. I want to identify myself with my country - I see that is too absurd - with the flag - that's too absurd - with the church - that's too absurd. But I want to identity myself. Now what is myself and what is it to be identified with myself? Is there a myself, or is the myself a series of words, images, which thought has put together calling it myself? And with that I want to identify. How silly I am!
Q: But the feeling of myself is there.
K: I know it is there. That is the illusion. Wait sir. That is our culture, that is our verbal statement, that is the way we live. We say, "I have identified myself with my country, with my god, with my flag, my politics, and so on" I have been identifying with all those and I say, "How stupid of me, that has led to a lot of mischief, now I want to identify with myself". You see I have discarded all the identifications outside of me, now I want to identify myself with myself. What is myself? It is obviously a lot of images and words. And so I say, look what I am doing. I am always trying to establish a fact which becomes a non-fact. Always trying to defend itself with an idea, with an image, with a conclusion, and those are all words. That you discard. So the mind is afraid of being completely empty. Right? Therefore it says, "I must be". Now the mind never finds out what takes place if it is really empty. You follow? It is so afraid of being empty, therefore it must be occupied with the kitchen, with my sex, with god, with politics, with Mao, with a dozen things, because it is so afraid to be completely empty.
Now we must come back, sorry. The observer is the past, and the observed is the present. Right? The mountain is the present. The feeling of jealousy is the present, but I identify it with the past. Now can the observer observe without the past, only the present? Which means, not naming jealousy, and if you do not name it does jealousy exist? Wait. Look, sir, I am jealous because you have got a nicer car than I have, or more money, you look better, you look nice, you are smart, you are frightfully bright, intelligent, and all the rest of it. I am jealous of you. That's a fact. The feeling is there. And I have given it a name, I have said, "I am jealous", and I see by calling it jealousy I have strengthened the feeling. And I say to myself, how silly, I realize this. Now can the mind observe without naming the feeling which is the present? Right? Then what takes place? I have not named - the mind has not named jealousy, it sees the reason of it, the logic of it, the intelligence of it, and it says, "I will not name" - not as a will, it is finished. Then what takes place?
Q: Duality comes to an end.
K: He says, duality comes to an end, therefore there is only the present. Right? I have not named it, the mind has not named it, therefore what takes place? You haven't done it. If you had done it you would see it.
Q: What does naming imply?
K: Naming means comparing, conforming to the past, strengthening the past and therefore creating a duality as the past and the present, which is jealousy, all that is involved in naming. Now when the mind doesn't do all that, what takes place?
Q: There is only 'what is'.
K: Now you are guessing. Now I'll put the question differently. What is the relationship between me and you, my wife, my husband, my daughter, my son, etc., if I have no image? What is my relationship with you if I have no image about you?
K: Sir, you have to find this out, you can't answer this. Look, sir. I have lived with you and all the troubles, the travails, the anxiety, all that has built an image in my mind. Now I have no image and what is my relationship with you when I have no image about you? You can't answer this question, can you? If you are really honest you can't answer this question. You can only answer it if you have really no image at all. And that is one of the most radical things in life, not to have an image about the mountains, about you, about the person I live with and all the rest of it, not to have a single image, about the country, nothing. Image means opinion, idea, conclusion, symbol, the thought that builds up all the images. Then what is the relationship between you, who have an image, and the person who has no image? Don't answer me. This you have to find out. That is love. The other thing is not love. Right?
So is the observer different from the observed? Outwardly yes. Inwardly the observer is the observed. Therefore there is no duality, and when there is no duality what is left? Actually what is. Right? Actually what is. Can the mind observe 'what is' without giving it a name - name means symbol, imitation, conformity, recognition - just observe 'what is'.
Q: Why do we need memories?
K: We need memory in order to ride a bicycle. I need memory in order to talk an English and so convey something to you, if you are interested in what I want to communicate. I need memory to function in a factory, in a business and so on. But that memory is the image in relationship. Right, sir? Now that memory in relationship is the image. I have built an image about you, and you have built an image about me, therefore our relationship is between these two images. And that is what is so important to us - the image I have about you and the image you have about me, and we live with these images. This relationship is called love, in this relationship there is attachment and all the rest of it, and we cling to it, the image. And we say the mind does it because it feels secure in having something, in having an image. If it has no image it is empty, and we are afraid of being empty and therefore we say we must be something.
So can the mind observe the present, the 'what is' without the memory, the image, the conclusion, the opinion, the judgement, the evaluation of the past? Just to observe 'what is'. Sir, let me put it round the other way. Go much deeper, very much deeper. I love my brother, my son, my wife, my girl, my boy, and he dies. The fact is he is dead. That is 'what is'. Right? Can the mind observe 'what is' without any movement of thought which is the past? You understand?
Let's go on. Look, my son is dead, that is a fact. Then what takes place? The image I have built about my son through the years makes the mind feel empty, lonely, sorrowful, self-pity, and the hope that I will meet my son next life, go to a medium, a seance, get in touch with him, all that business. Which is, the mind doesn't observe, live completely with 'what is'. Without the image. Then what takes place? You understand? Come on sirs. I have no self-pity, I don't say, "Oh, I wish my son had lived, he would have been such a marvellous human being because..." - you follow? I have no movement of thought at all. The mind lives only with the fact that my son is dead. Then what takes place? Have you ever done this? Yes, or no?
Q: My mind becomes quiet.
K: No, sir I am not talking of quietness. Look, sir, this happens to every human being, living: death is there - the birds, anything. What takes place in you when you look at the fact without a single image? I can't tell you unless you come to it.
Q: You see what actually is.
K: Yes, sir, I said that. Living, being with actually what has taken place, not deviate, run away, let thought say this and that, nothing.
Q: It is quiet now.
K: You will find out. I hope nobody dies whom you love, or you think you love, I hope you will never suffer but when you come to that, which inevitably comes to everybody in the world, not only those people living in Vietnam and Cambodia but every day it is happening around you, then you will find out what it means to live with 'what is' completely, without a single image. I insult you, I say terrible things about you, can you listen to me without the movement of thought which creates an image which hurts, can you listen? Try it. Do it, and then you will see what an extraordinary change takes place. A change in which there is complete negation of every form of image, therefore the mind is never burdened with the past. It's like having a young mind, you understand. All right, tomorrow we will continue.
Saanen 1st Public Dialogue 1st August 1973.
Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.