Saanen 2nd Public Dialogue 2nd August 1973.
I am sorry you are having such bad weather! What shall we talk over together this morning?
Q: You said the other day that will is a form of resistance, it is the outcome of choice between this and that, and how can we live in this world without choice and without will and resistance, and not be influenced by the world around us?
K: Any other questions you want to discuss?
Q: Do attention, understanding and love go together?
Q: What is the origin of emptiness in us? And how does comparison arise, does it arise out of a wound, out of a hurt?
Q: Do you call energy compassion?
Q: What will make us see or act with regard to what you are talking about?
K: Sir, can't all these questions be answered - I think they will - if we take the first question, which is: how can we live in this world without choice, out of which comes the activity of will, and live in this world without being influenced by the environment, by the culture in which one lives? Could we take that question, and I think all the other questions probably will be included in that? May I? Is that all right?
Why do we have to choose at all? That's the first thing. Second, what is the substance and the structure of will? And what is action which is not influenced by the environment, the culture in which we live? Right, sir? That is the question. Now why do we have to choose at all, what is choice - to choose?
Q: It is a reaction.
K: No, the word to choose. Why do we have to choose? Is it part of our conditioning, is it part of our culture, which has been put into the mind, that life is a process of choice, that is, to discriminate between the real and the false, between the foolish and the wise, between right and wrong, between the good and the bad, between a good substance, material, and bad material - the whole structure of choice. Is it part of our culture that you must choose? And why must we choose? And when does this demand to choose arise? You are following all this? Why do I, or you, have to choose at all - choice being between this and that, the good and the bad, the active and the inactive, you know, choose between the two, why?
Please if I may suggest, let us not indulge in theories, in ideologies, in speculative thinking, but actually observe in ourselves when does this process of choosing arise. Do you choose between that road and this road when you know exactly where you want to go and this particular road leads to that, then there is no choice is there? It is only when I do not know where I want to go, or when I am uncertain between this and that, then choice arises. I have to ask, I have to find out which road to take; but when I am very clear in my direction, is there choice at all?
Outwardly when I know where I live, where one lives, the house, the road, the path to it, there is no choice involved in it at all, you just go. It is a direct action without the confusion of choice. Right?
Q: Unless the road is blocked.
K: Oh, of course, if someone blocks the road you stop the car and go round it and go on, or go some other way. But there is no choice there - the blocking the road, or the police putting a barrier, is just another form of not thinking directly about something.
Next: inwardly I don't know what to do. I don't know whether this is right or that is wrong. I am confused. Right? So where there is confusion there must be choice. No? When I am very clear then there is no choice. Either the path I take, or the act which I have to do comes very clearly when there is no confusion. When the mind is confused I have to choose. I think that is fairly clear. So choice arises when there is confusion. When you have to vote for somebody - between Mr.Smith and Mr.Brown - then the trouble arises. Then you enquire about Mr.Smith and Mr.Brown, and go into all that business, and then choose, that you will vote for somebody, not Mr.Brown. But inwardly when one is confused, and one is confused - whether god exists or not, whether you should join a particular sect, whether you should belong to a particular political party, the economic system, the capitalist or the socialist, and so on. When there is uncertainty, when there is no clarity, when there is confusion then choice arises. Right? I think that is fairly clear.
Q: There is another form of choice when you choose between a pear or an apple.
K: Yes. It comes to the same thing, sir. Eating an apple or having beer, if you like beer you drink, if you don't like an apple, you don't, there is no choice about it. Your tongue or your tummy dictates what you should eat.
So as far as one sees where there is confusion there must be choice and being uncertain the choice gives you the direction, and to follow it you must resist every other form of influence. Right?
Now why are we confused? Let's start from there. What is the reason, why is the mind so extraordinarily confused, about everything - you understand? About whether I should smoke, or not smoke, drink or not drink, take LSD or not, whether I should do this or that, inwardly, outwardly, why is the mind so deeply confused? Are you - I am not talking to you personally, but asking generally - are you aware that you are confused - aware in the sense, know, be cognizant of, feel that you are very confused, both at the conscious level as well as the unconscious level? Is one aware of that. Whether you should become a doctor or a scientist, whether you should follow that particular guru or that particular teacher, whether you should take up economics or philosophy - outwardly. And inwardly you have found you cannot rely on anybody, anything, on any idea, and so the mind is confused. Right? Is one aware? Go on sirs, let's talk. I am not giving a talk.
Now if one is aware that one is confused - let's go very slowly - how do you know you are confused? Is it because you see somebody not confused, very clear, or thinks he is clear, and you envy that person, and say, "I wish I could be like that", therefore in comparing yourself with another you realize you are confused? Have a little patience. Is that why you are aware that you are confused, through comparison?
K: Please just listen. I am asking a question, let's answer directly. You ask me if I am confused. I really don't know. I haven't thought about it. Now I am thinking about it. That is, I am becoming aware that I am confused. Does the knowledge of that confusion arise through comparison, because I see somebody having a very clear mind, directed, purposeful, and comparing myself with that person, or with that group, I see I am confused. Or without comparison I am aware that I am confused because I have to choose, I am all the time uncertain, going from this to that, to that. Now which is it?
K: Both? Go slowly. Both. Are you aware that you are hungry because someone is well fed? Yes, you know you are hungry, you don't compare. You don't go to a restaurant and read the menu and say, "By Jove, I am hungry" - you are just hungry. So one is aware that one is confused. Now what is the process of this confusion? What do you mean by confused? Let's examine it, please. What do you mean, "I am confused"?
Q: I don't know what to do.
K: You don't know what to do because there are so many values between this and that. Is that the reason you are confused?
Q: I lack clarity.
K: The same thing.
K: Sir, examine it in yourself. I wish you would. Look at yourself and see - this is not a group therapy and all that business, I am just asking; I have a horror of that - I am asking you to observe, look at yourself and find out if you are confused. Are you confused partially, and not wholly? And the mind that is not confused says, "I am confused". One fragment of the mind says, "I am not confused, I know exactly what I want. I see very clearly", but the rest of the fragments are confused. Right? Is that what you call confusion? Or, you are just confused right through? By confused, we mean, uncertain between this and that, between this value and that value, between what you should do, which will be right, which will not bring great suffering, which will not bring about clutter and so on and so on. Can one say to oneself, is the reality, the actuality, that one part is not confused and therefore says the rest is confused, the rest of the fragments, or do you say, I am really deeply confused, because the culture in which I have been brought up says, conform, the culture in which I have been brought up says, be ambitious, fight, struggle, be violent, accept this ideology, or that ideology; and that culture has imposed on the mind certain definite activities. Now the mind sees what this culture has done - wars, appalling violence, destruction of nature, pollution of air, everything this culture has absolutely destroyed, nearly. And I reject all that, the mind rejects all that and I don't know what to do, and I am confused - you follow? Now which is: partially confused, physically you know you are not confused, you want your sex, you want your food, shelter, clothing, there there is no confusion. If you can't get what you want you get violent and all the rest of it. Or throughout your whole activity of the mind there is confusion.
Q: We are in contradiction.
K: Of course, that is part of our confusion. So what do you do - there are two things: when I am partially confused, that is, there are many fragments, layers, areas in my mind where there is confusion. There are other parts where the mind is very clear. Then there is a contradiction between that. See what happens. When there are certain areas where there is confusion, and certain other areas where there is not confusion, then there is a conflict between the two. That indicates, that very conflict indicates a division and therefore a conflict. Conflict means confusion. Right? Please. Or the mind is totally confused. The mind doesn't know where to turn, it has turned in various directions - faith, accepted the authority of the State, the politicians, the priests, the books and so on, and suddenly feels that doesn't lead anywhere. So it is faced with complete blank, you understand, confusion. So there are these two states: the one that is aware that it is partially confused in certain areas, and the other part is not; and the other is a total sense of confusion. Right? Now which is it that you are?
Q: Both may happen.
K: All right, then what do you do?
K: Both can't happen at the same time. Listen to what I have said, sir. You can't have two thoughts at the same time. You can't have at the same moment, the same instant the one which is the area which is confused and the area which is not confused, and the total confusion, you can't have them at the same time. You may get it a second later, or a few minutes later. So which is it in your mind, the areas that are confused and the areas that are not confused; or total confusion - because each of them have a different action?
Q: I only see partially.
K: Why? Why does the mind here, this mind, why does it see partially. When the picture is presented to you why do you see it partially? Are you blind? Or you don't want to see? Or you think there is a very deep, inward life that will clarify this whole confusion. You understand? That is one of the tricks that the mind has played upon itself, saying, there is a higher self - you know, all that. My mind rejects all that because all that is invented by thought. So I am faced with these two facts, and I know, I am aware, that each fact brings about a totally different kind of action.
Now let's look at the area that is confused and the area that is not confused. Therefore in that there is a self-contradiction, in that, as there is a division, there is conflict, tension, and all the ugliness that comes out of conflict, and from that there is action. That is the action we know. Most of us know that kind of action - an action born of self-contraction, one fragment fighting other fragments, the division, and out of that conflict and division comes an action which is always breeding further misery, further activity of confusion. Right? Does your mind see that - not verbally but actually see the truth of it? If the mind sees the truth of it then what takes place?
Q: There is no authority.
K: Of course there is no authority and all that, I understand that, sir. Now go a little bit further: what takes place when the mind sees, has an insight into the nature and structure of this question, which is, areas that are clear, areas that are confused? And out of that confusion choice, will, action. The mind sees the truth of it.
K: You are so quick in answering this. You haven't really investigated. Go into it and you will see for yourself. Now how does the mind see the truth of this statement? When you say, "Yes, I understand, I see there are areas in me that are confused and areas in me that are not confused. And one area that is not confused says, 'I must bring the other areas into clarity, I must do something about it'". So there is a contradiction, there is struggle, there is division, there is conflict and so on and so on. Out of that arises an action which breeds further confusion. Now you see the truth of it. Right? What do you mean when you say, "I see the truth of it"? When you say, "I understand it" - not verbally but deeply.
Q: I recognize it.
K: No, please. Recognition implies having been recognized - you know, it has happened before therefore you recognize it. Cognition is a fact of the moment. Recognition is the fact of what has happened before. You see the difference. Cognition and recognition.
K: I am asking a question, sir, do listen please. We have made that statement; somebody says, "I understand that very clearly, I see the truth of it". What is the quality of the mind that says, "I understand, I see the truth, I have an insight into it" - what is the quality of that mind?
Q: I have been told I am free when I have so many choices, a whole field of choices and because I can choose I have been told I am free. You come along and say, because you choose you are not free.
K: All right, sir, we will come to your question presently. But let's come back to the original question which I am asking. When you say, "I understand, I have an insight, I really see the truth of the whole process of the area confused and the area not confused. I see the whole thing very clearly", now what is the state of the mind, or the quality of the mind that says, "Yes, that is the truth"?
Q: One is attentive.
K: No, sir don't quote back at me. Enquire as though for the first time.
K: No, I said, what is the quality of the mind that says, yes, that is the truth?
Q: Nobody can reply to that question when you really see it and it is a fact to you.
K: Look, somebody comes to me and points this out. I listen. I am not frightened of him, he is telling me, look. Look at this, an area that is confused and an area that is not confused, which makes up your whole mind. Look at it. Listen to what I am saying. And I listen. I don't resist, I don't fight him, I don't say, you are right, or wrong, I want to find out. So I listen to discover and observe. I observe that is a fact: parts of me are confused, parts of me are not confused. That's a fact. And he says to me, look first. That is, is that a fact or an idea that you are confused, part of you and part of you not, just an idea and not 'what is'? You are following all this? So I have translated - please do listen - I have translated what he has said into an idea, and the idea says to me, "Yes I am confused, that is so", the idea tells me but not the fact. You see the difference? I have drawn a conclusion, an idea from what he has said, and the idea says, yes, you are right. Therefore that idea has no validity in action. What has validity in action is not to draw a conclusion from what he has said but to observe. Right? Now can my mind observe that statement, listen to that statement without drawing a conclusion, or making an idea out of it. I say, I can do it, therefore I will watch. And when I watch I see how absolutely true it is, absolutely, there is no doubt about it. It is so. Then what takes place?
K: Then what takes place? I'll show it to you. Who is the entity that says, "This area is confused, this area is not confused"? You are following? That is a fact. I see in myself these two areas. Who is the observer that says, "Yes, this is a fact"? Are you following all this? If there is an observer, which we discussed yesterday, if there is an observer then he says, "What am I to do faced with these two facts" - right? If there is no observer but merely observation there is only then 'what is'. Now what takes place? Leave it there for the moment, we will come back.
The other statement is: I am really confused, I don't know what to do - right through, there aren't parts of me that are clear and other parts that are not clear, I am right through confused. In my relationship I am confused and because I am battling with my wife, or with my husband, or girl or boy - battle. I depend on him, I am afraid of him, I feel jealous, anxious, guilty. All that is an indication of confusion, obviously. So I say to myself, yes that is perfectly true, I am right through confused. Right? Which is it you are in? Come on sirs, this is fun!
If I am totally confused, not which road I take, we have left that, if I am totally inwardly confused what to do, then I have to ask, what is this confusion, how has it arisen? Now, just a minute. When I ask that question I am not asking in order to analyse. I have explained before that analysis is paralysis. Now I am asking that question, why am I confused, what is confusion? And I am asking that question and therefore observing, not analysing. I hope you see the difference. Right? Are we proceeding? Do we see the difference between analysis and observation? The word 'analysis' means to break up, the meaning of that word in a dictionary means to break up. Observation is looking without breaking up. Right? So the two are entirely different: one leads to paralysis, as we pointed out, the other to a totally different kind of action. Now when I say, why am I confused, I am not paralysed, I am not analysing, but am just observing. Because I observe the thing comes out. You understand? The whole thing is revealed. I wonder if you understand this. Am I making myself clear? Somebody say yes, or no, for god's sake.
Q: One is confused.
K: That's right, sir. We have gone into that. What is this entity that analyses, that observes, that puts things into words, into images, into symbols, into conclusions? We have said the observer is the past, the observer is the outcome of knowledge, experience, memory, words. That's the observer. The observer then can analyse. You follow? And gradually paralyse himself into inactivity. Or mere observation without the observer, which we went into yesterday. Therefore in that there is no analysis whatsoever. When you look you see everything, everything is revealed, you have insight, you see very clearly all the details. But in observation it is total.
I see in analysis it is the thinker, thought, but in observation there is no thinker. That's our difficulty. I observe without a single thought, knowing the thinker creates all the process of thoughts, analysis, all that. So I say, that is false. Here I am, I want to look - not I. There is only observation, not, I observe. Sir, this has happened to one dozens of time, don't make a mystery out of this. You look at a map, just an ordinary map, and when you look at it very closely it reveals the whole thing, doesn't it? Where the cities are, how many miles between this and the village, the narrow road, the main road, the autoroute and so on, it shows everything, doesn't it? It reveals everything. In the same way, look at it. But if you want to go in a direction, a particular place, then you are only concerned with that road. Here there is no direction, you are just observing, therefore it reveals the whole thing.
Q: When I observe, as you are suggesting, I am not confused, but yesterday I was confused. And that confusion is going to come when I leave the tent. At the moment I am not, but it will come back in a big way and therefore I am caught in it.
K: Sir, when you observe both the past confusion, everything is shown when you observe. Wait a minute, let's go back.
I know, my mind knows, this mind knows - when I use 'I', please - this mind sees very clearly there are certain areas that are confused, and other areas that are not. And by observing that very closely, without any choice, by observing that very closely I see what is involved in it - the conflicts, the decisions, the choice, and the action, and more confusion, and so on. I see that very, very clearly. Therefore clarity of perception has dissolved that. Clarity of perception, the light of perception has dissolved that. But I am confused right through. And if I am so confused right through, the mind is confused right through, then to observe it without any movement of thought - is that possible? Because most of us don't like to be confused, or even admit that we are confused, therefore we fight, we are seeking clarity. Which is out of confusion you are seeking clarity, therefore that clarity must be confused. I don't know if you see all this? Therefore the mind is not seeking clarity at all, or wanting to get out of this confusion, it just observes 'what is'. Now what takes place? It is the movement of thought as desire that says, "I must get out of this", that creates more confusion. Obviously. But when there is no movement of thought at all but only an observation, is there confusion? Don't accept what I am saying please. It is your bread-and-butter, not mine.
So, see what one has found if you go into it very closely: the mind sees the truth of this, the truth of the areas of confusion and the areas of not confusion, the whole nature, the structure of it, the activity involved in it, sees the whole picture, and has an insight into it, therefore sees the truth of it. Seeing the truth of it, out of that comes wisdom - you understand - and also it says, "I am really confused", and not wanting to escape, not wanting to overcome it and all the rest of it, it remains completely with the fact, with 'what is'. So it sees that inaction, that is not action, is the state of complete release from confusion. Is this Greek?!
Look: I never realize I am totally confused, I have pretended to myself that I am not confused, but when I am forced to the wall by logic, reason, action, I say, yes, I admit honestly I am really deeply completely confused. But I have to live in this world, therefore being confused I do all kinds of things, and this action produces more conflicts, more confusion. That activity is what we call living, that's what we call positive action born out of confusion. The mind sees that very clearly, that is the truth of it, that is the wisdom. And thought moving away from this confusion is an escape, is an action, a positive action. Right? So inaction, not action, when there is total confusion, is complete action. I wonder if you get this. Do you understand? The mind does not act out of confusion. Right? Which means what? As long as there is deep confusion it will not act. So I have to live in this world therefore I have to act. So what is action which is not the outcome of confusion? You are following all this? Therefore action is a movement which is the outcome of the perception of that truth and the action comes when there is the intelligence out of that perception. I wonder if you see this. It is this intelligence born out of wisdom that acts, not confusion.
So one has to live in this world. I have passed through areas of confusion, areas of non-confusion, the mind has realized the full meaning of all that. And the mind also realizes the state of complete confusion, and sees the truth of that. So perception has revealed the truth and out of that perception wisdom comes. Obviously. And intelligence is the action of that wisdom in daily life.
Q: Is wisdom...
K: No. Am I to go through all this again. No, sir. Let's put it differently. The culture in which the mind has grown, been cultivated, educated, has accepted confusion as the standard of life. It says, yes, I am confused and let's get on with it, don't make a lot of noise about it, let's get on with it. And one nice day I realize I am really confused, parts of me, parts of me not, and so on. The culture has brought me up in this, has educated this mind, educated it to live in confusion and disorder. And it has brought a great deal of sorrow, misery, and the mind says, there must be a way out of all this. And it begins to learn to look at itself. It realizes it can only look at itself when there is no movement of thought, because thought has created this mess, this culture, so it realizes it can only observe clearly when there is no movement of thought. Is that possible? So it tests it out. It doesn't accept it, it says, I am going to test it, find out if it is possible. So it looks at things, the mountains, the hills, the rivers, the trees and the people. It can look outwardly comparatively easily, without the interference of thought. But it becomes much more difficult when it looks inwardly. The inward perception is always with the desire to do something about that which it perceives. And so one realizes it is again the activity of thought. So it regards everything, observes, and realizes as long as there is an observer this process of choice, conflict must exist. So is it possible to observe without the observer, which is the past, experience, all that. Observe without the observer. That demands great attention. That attention brings its own order which is discipline. There is no question of imposing an order. That very experiment, that very testing of observation without the observer brings its own order, its own sense of complete attention. And the mind observes without the observer, and remains totally unmoving, immobile with regard to 'what is'. Right? Then what takes place?
See what the mind has done: it has not been able to resolve 'what is', so it has wasted its energy in trying to escape from it, suppress it, analyse it, explain and so on, wasted its energy. When it has not wasted its energy, to remain completely with 'what is' the mind has all its energy. You understand? Not a spark of energy wasted - there is no escaping, there is no naming, there is no trying to over come it, suppress it, make it conform to a pattern and so on - all those are a wastage of energy. Now when that energy is not wasted the mind is full of this energy and is observing actually 'what is'. Then is there 'what is'? Then is there confusion? And to see all that is not only the truth but the wisdom of it. And out of that wisdom comes intelligence which will operate in daily life, which will not create confusion. You understand? At the moments of negligence it may do something, it will correct it immediately. You follow? So that intelligence is all the time in operation - which is not my intelligence or your intelligence.
Have we take the journey together - a little bit at least?
Q: In such kind of action there is no actor.
K: Now what is the action of that intelligence in relationship? You understand? I am moving away from it. Life is relationship - between man and woman, between nature and man, or woman, between human beings. And so I am asking, what is the action of that intelligence which is born out of wisdom, which comes out of the perception of truth, what is the action of that intelligence in human relationship - because I have to live in this world? Right? I have a wife, children, family, the boss, the factory, shop and so on and so on, so what is the action of that intelligence in my relationship with another? Come on sirs, ask.
Q: How can you say beforehand what will happen?
K: How can you say what the action of intelligence will be beforehand. I don't know what the action of intelligence is beforehand but we are enquiring now, what is the action of that intelligence in relationship? I am related to you, I am actually related to you because you are sitting there and I am sitting here, you are listening to me, we are sharing this together, we are observing this thing together, 'cooking' it together, therefore we are related - not in the sense of being intimate but as human beings we are related because it is common problem, it is our human problem. So we are asking: we are related, how does this intelligence act in this relationship?
Q: It must be love. Out of that intelligence comes love.
K: I don't know. That's an idea. You see, sir, my mind will not accept a theory, an idea, a conclusion, speculation. It will only - my mind, not yours - this mind will only move from fact to fact, from 'what is' to 'what is', and nothing more.
Q: We must use words in this dialogue, and the moment we use words we are concerned with ideas, but the kind of dialogue you are insisting upon is almost impossible for most of us.
K: Sir, look: there is communication through words and communication through non-words, non-verbal as well as verbal communication. If I know how to listen to you, to the words that you are using, to the meaning of the words that you are using, which is common to both of us, if I really know how to listen to you verbally, then I also know how to listen to you non-verbally, because I can pick it up.
I am asking a very simple question which will lead to a great deal of investigation, which is: what is the action of that insight which has brought about this quality of intelligence in my relationship with another human being? Until I solve this my relationship must create misery, not only for you but for me also. So I must apply my whole being to find out, it isn't a casual, superficial investigation, because my life depends on it. I don't want to live in suffering, in confusion, in this appalling mess that civilization, culture, has put me in. Therefore my intelligence says, find out. Because you cannot live alone, there is no such thing as living alone. There is only isolation, which this culture has encouraged - in the business world, in the religious world, in the economic world, in the artistic world, in every world, in every sphere, it has encouraged me to be isolated. I am an artist, I am a writer, far superior to everybody else, I am a scientist, or I am the nearest to god.
So I know very well what isolation is, and to live in that isolation and have relationship with another means absolutely nothing. So my intelligence says, that's absurd, you can't live that way. Therefore I am going to find out how to live in relationship and what the activity of that intelligence is in that relationship.
Shall we go on with this tomorrow?
Q: No, now.
K: You want to go on with it now? You see I am doing all the work and you are merely listening.
Sirs, I want to know, please, test it out for yourself and ask yourself this question: you see what this intelligence is, it is the outcome of having an insight into the reality of 'what is', and the observation of that is wisdom and the perception of it is truth. Truth and the daughter is wisdom, and the intelligence is the daughter of wisdom. I have seen that. Now I am asking myself what is the action of that intelligence in relationship? In relationship has it any image, is my mind building an image about you who live in the same house as I do? You may nag me, you may bully me, you may threaten me, dominate me, you may give me sexual pleasure and so on - does the mind build images?
K: Don't ever say, no, sir, find out! That requires great attention, doesn't it, you can't just say, yes, or no. It requires complete attention to find out if you have an image, and why the image comes into being.
K: No, no, sir. I have no image. Just listen, sir. I am stopping you from saying, yes, or no. That's all. Let's investigate. Let's share this problem together. When you say, no, or yes, you have stopped it. But if you say, look, let's find out, let's enquire, what is involved in this. In that I haven't created an image about you at all, I have said, please stop, look what we are doing.
Am I - is the mind, my mind, this mind, creating an image? If it is then it is not the activity of intelligence because it sees how images divide people, as nationalities have divided people, religions have divided people, gurus have divided people, the books, the Bible, the Bhagavad Gita, the Koran, and that book, have divided people. So the image, symbols, conclusions divide people. Where there is division there must be conflict. And therefore an action born out of conflict is a non-intelligent action. So intelligent action is an action which is without friction, without conflict. And when I am related to you and I have an image, it is a stupid action, an unintelligent action. So I see that. Am I creating an image about you when you call me a fool, when I depend on you for my physical pleasure, or depend on you for my money, for your support, for your companionship, for your encouragement? So dependence is an action of a mind that is not intelligent.
So I am beginning to discover, learn, what relationship is when intelligence comes into being. You are following all this? It is so astonishingly simple, really simple.
Q: It is simple but not easy.
K: What is simple is the easiest thing, most practical. Not all your complicated things, they have lead to impracticality, to all this mess which is the result of utter futility. What is simple, look: to see the truth that images divide people. That is simple, isn't it? And seeing the simplicity of it is the act of intelligence, and that intelligence will act in my relationship with you. So I am watching how that intelligence is going to operate. You understand? I am related - you are my wife, my mother, my sister, my girl, whatever it is, I am watching. I am watching to see how that intelligence operates. You understand, sir? And it sees the moment you create an image you are back into the old world, you are back into the rotten civilization. And the mind is watching, learning, and therefore intelligence opens the door to a life that is completely simple.
Saanen 2nd Public Dialogue 2nd August 1973.
Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.