Saanen 4th Public Dialogue 31st July 1976
As we were saying yesterday, and the previous talks, I think it is very important, if I may point out, repeat it again, that one should be a light to oneself and not follow anybody. Naturally in the technological world you have to follow, you have to accept, you have to do all kinds of things there, but in the world of the mind, or if you like to use the word, spirit, authority cripples, destroys that light. One must come upon it for oneself. Truth is something you can't find through another, nor through any technique. And it is becoming more and more evident throughout the world that because the technological world has so extraordinarily advanced we think that the same kind of technology can be applied for ourselves, for our psychological well being. So we are apt to think, or feel, or accept, that a technique of some kind is necessary for deep understanding, having an insight, or coming upon that truth. So if I may point out again this morning that one should be most advisedly careful not to accept anything from anybody psychologically, but to investigate for oneself if one is at all serious. And from there one can learn a great deal because one is the world, as we pointed out, if we know how to read the book of ourselves, then everything is there.
Now what shall we talk about?
Q: Can we talk about energy?
Q: Can we talk about self deception and be aware of it?
Q: If I observe my sorrow, it disappears. Would you please go into it much more?
Q: What do you think of suicide?
K: What do I personally think about suicide? And what other things would you like to talk about?
Q: Can we talk more, or have a dialogue about being a light to oneself?
K: Shall we start with that? And perhaps we could include all the other questions in it.
What does it mean to be a light to oneself? So can we start from the beginning? We are not a light to ourselves now. That is a fact - right? We are confused - politically, religiously, in all our relationships with each other, there is a certain strain, confusion, conflict, and from that this question of sorrow and so on. So we are, as human beings right throughout the world, dreadfully confused. There are so many guides, so many philosophers, so many gurus with their systems, asserting, persuading, hoping that you will follow and so on. So there is this immense confusion outwardly and inwardly. That's a fact. Can we start from there?
And there are many throughout the world who think or assert that this light, or this wisdom, or this truth, god, whatever name you like to give it, is abiding in each one. That is an assumption, a theory, a traditional acceptance of what someone has asserted, or because you are conditioned to that you accept it. So the fact is we are very, very confused. Right. Could we start from that basis? We may be sometimes not confused, sometimes see things very, very clearly, and having that perception once it becomes a memory and we want to capture it, hold on to it, and fight to get it back again. But as human beings, wherever we live, in whatever clime, and whatever circumstances, this state of confusion and conflict exists. That's a fact from which we can start. If we are a light to ourselves now conflict wouldn't exist. So we must start with actually what is.
Obviously if there is any kind of confusion, whatever choice we make out of that confusion will still be confused - right? Out of my confusion - suppose I am confused - I choose a certain path, certain direction, certain gurus, certain activity. Because I am confused, out of that confusion whatever I choose will equally be confusing. I think that is equally a fact. So it becomes very important not to choose. Right? I wonder if we understand that. Not to follow a certain direction, or a path, or a system, or a method, or a guru, or this, or that, because it leads us to much greater confusion, to greater division, which is what is happening in the world - there are your gurus and my gurus, mine is better than yours, mine knows more than yours. You follow, this battle going on all around us.
So to find a light for oneself, action out of confusion leads to further confusion - right? Can we not accept it as a fact - it is like the blind leading the blind. So the first requirement, seems to me, is to be free from the desire to find truth, to find something away from 'what is'. Right? Are we meeting each other? So are we aware that we are confused? And if we are confused, then what is the action, or is there any action which will not lead to further confusion, or is there an observation of this confusion which, by the very observation is the action?
Now let me go into it a little bit more. Suppose I am confused as a human being. And I realize that whatever I do out of that confusion will lead to further confusion, further conflict, further misery. I am very clear on that point. Then I must act. Life demands action. I can't wait until I have completely unconditioned myself and then act. You follow? I must act because action is life, like relationship is life, activity, action, the doing, is part of life. So what am I to do? I know I am very confused, and is there a part of me which is not confused? You follow? Or is the whole of me confused? Is there a part of me, or somewhere in me is there clarity, is there a sense of freedom, total freedom in which there is no confusion, conflict, and all the rest of it? You understand my question?
Q: One must be very careful not to put it into words.
K: I understand. But I am enquiring into this. I am asking myself, if I am confused, I am asking myself, am I totally confused in all my consciousness, the whole of it; or is there a part of that consciousness, which is me, which is not confused? And if I can hold on to that part which is not confused, then out of that action will be right. You understand my point?
So I must find out if there is anywhere within me, not imagined, not caught in an illusion of desire, I must find out if there is anywhere within me some spot which is really beautifully completely free of all this confusion. Right, you have understood? Or the whole of me is confused. Can a confused mind, confused consciousness, ask such a question: is there a part of me which is not confused? I wonder if you see the point of this. I am confused, my mind is troubled, in conflict, broken up, fragmented, and that mind which is fragmented asks, is there a part of me which is clear, not fragmented? You follow? It is a wrong question. Of course. It is a wrong question, but we put that question. I don't know if you see the importance of this. I am confused and I know I am very confused, but my desire is, there must be somewhere within me, some spot, some area, where there is tremendous clarity. My desire wants that, and so it creates an illusion and is caught in that illusion and says, "Yes, there is an area which is very clear". You follow?
So one must be aware at depth that this idea, or this desire to have an area where there is clarity, which is an illusion, one must become very careful about that, not be caught in it. So I am asking then, I am totally as a human being confused - religiously, politically, in my relationship, in my activity, there is regret, there is sorrow, there is pain, there is anxiety - you follow - all the human agony with which I am surrounded, of which I am part - now life demands action, life says, without relationship you cannot exist. And I discover in my relationship too there is confusion, there is conflict, there is battle between the sexes. So there it is. So what shall I do? You understand now my question? I am not admitting, or desiring an area within my consciousness where there is some clarity. I have totally put away that because I see it is the activity of desire, hope, wanting, which inevitably leads to illusion. So I completely discard that. Please this is a dialogue, I am not talking only. We are sharing this thing together, therefore you are participating in this.
So I am only confused, and I must act, and I see I have relationship - wife, husband, boy, girl, whatever it is, relationship, father, parents, whatever it is - and there too I am confused. Confusion implies conflict. Confusion implies uncertainty. Confusion implies a sense of division. I am aware of all that. So what shall I do, knowing that whatever I do will lead to further confusion, further misery, so what shall I do? Shall I wait until I have cleared all my confusion, withdraw into a world of monasteries, retreats, ashramas, you follow, communes, and all the rest of it, shall I withdraw into all that? And that implies I have to choose there too - which commune, which guru, ashrama, which retreat, but I am still confused so whatever I choose will be... right? I wonder if you see all this. So I say to myself, joining a group, retreating into a monastery, following somebody else is still part of this confusion so I will not follow anybody, I will not join any group, or retreat into any monastery, or into a commune. So I am left with this confusion. You understand what we are doing? We are brushing everything away - desire hopes to find some clarity and therefore creates illusion. So we are cleaning the deck, as it were.
And what shall I do? I am related, I have relationships, I have to earn a livelihood, I have to write, read, I have to act in life. What shall I do? Dialogue please!
Q: Who is it that wants to do something?
K: My girl or my wife or my parents say, "Do this". Society demands that I do something, earn a livelihood. It is not, I want to do something, because I realize whatever I do is confused, but society, parents, everything says, you have to act, you can't sit still on a chair and look at your neighbour. So what shall I do?
Have a dialogue with me please, it is a dialogue, a conversation between two people who are interested in the same thing, with same intensity, you understand, and therefore a communication takes place easily.
There is an unconscious desire, or a belief, or a longing, that there must be a way out from this confusion - right? So we have to go into that question. Please, we have to go into this question, which is: is the content of my consciousness, whether it is conscious or deep down, hidden, is there anywhere within the hidden area an actuality which is clear? An actuality, not an imagined actuality. So I have to examine what is hidden within the consciousness - right?
Now first of all who has divided this consciousness into the unconscious and the conscious? Who has divided it? Why does this division exist? Let me put it that way.
K: No, don't jump to it, sir. The whole Freudian, the whole psychological world and the analytical world, psycho-therapeutic world say that there is an unconscious - right - and the conscious, there is a division. And I say to myself, why is there this division? Who has invented this division? Why should I accept the division? A million people say there is a division - professors, highly qualified people, MDs and all the rest of it, they say there is a division - the unconscious, conscious. You all may be wrong. I am not saying you are right or wrong, but you may be, I don't know, but why should I accept this division? You understand.
K: Yes, the human mind demands to know, and there may be something in consciousness which is hidden. That's all you can say. Something hidden, not divided - you understand? I am objecting to the division. I am objecting rationally, not because I am prejudiced against division. But I say, why do we accept, millions and millions of people now in the western world and partly in the eastern world because the west is conquering technologically in every way the east, why has humanity accepted this?
Q: It is incapacity to see the whole.
K: The incapacity to see the totality of consciousness. So you say because there is this incapacity there has been this division. Watch it very carefully in yourself please. Look at it yourself. Because I am incapable of seeing the totality of my consciousness I resort to dividing it, thereby hoping I will see the whole. First I fragment it, then I put it together in the hope of seeing the whole. You understand? So first we divide and then we join them together. I say to myself, why do you divide it first? And you say, well I can't see the whole. How do you know you can't see the whole? Is it because you have divided it and you are conditioned by this division, which is your accepted tradition that it is divided? I wonder if you are following all this.
Now my question then is: as I, an outsider, if I may point out, I don't accept this division, though a million people accept it I say, no. Because what is important is to see the whole of consciousness - right? Then there is no necessity for a division. Now is that possible? You follow my next question, sir?
Q: As I live a superficial life and occasionally I delve deeply, and that delving deeply gives the idea that there is the unconscious and the conscious - the delving deeply, because I live a superficial life.
K: That is one of the reasons. One of the reasons is the incapacity to see the whole and therefore divisions take place. The other is, one lives a very, very superficial life and occasionally one digs deeply. It may be a dream, or it may be a conscious act, then you realize there is something much deeper than the surface, and therefore there is a division. Right? Go on sirs, this is a dialogue, please.
Q: It gives great strength if you believe in something.
K: Belief brings great strength - right? Now if there is a neurotic belief, that very neurotic belief gives you an enormous vitality. I don't know if you have met many neurotics. Perhaps most of us are neurotic. So they are extraordinarily vital people - 'vital' in quotes. But that is not the question here for the moment, if I may go into it.
So there are many reasons, or several reasons why there is this division, and having been made mankind is now generally accepting it. And an outsider, like the speaker, comes along and says, "Why does this division exist at all? Is it not possible to see the whole of consciousness?" You understand my question?
K: He says, in ourselves we are fragmented, in ourselves there are various divisions, and that those divisions help us to divide this consciousness and unconsciousness. So it is part of our whole life, living, which has brought about this division. Right? We accept all these reasons. Right?
Now is it possible to see the totality of one's consciousness, including that which is hidden, including what you call the unconscious? So I am asking, is it possible?
Q: The more I demand to find out if there is a possibility of total observation the more conflict arises.
K: I understand. But I am asking, is it possible - I am not saying it is, or it is not - is it possible for us to see the totality of consciousness in which is included the unconscious, the hidden? The general agreement is, that it is not possible - right? The psychologists, the professors, the MDs, all of them say, that is not possible, it is only given perhaps to the few loonies, but actually that is not possible.
Now what do we mean by seeing the totality, the whole? Do we observe anything wholly? Do we observe something completely? Or is it only partial observation?
K: I am coming to that sir, just look at yourself. Can you see, for instance take greed, or envy, can you see the total movement of greed at once? The total movement. You understand my question? What do you say?
Q: I don't know.
K: The lady says, "I don't know". All right, you have stated that, then what? You are going to enquire, aren't you, first. You don't know, but it is important to find out if it is possible to see the totality of consciousness, including the unconscious. Why isn't it possible? What prevents us from observation of the totality?
K: Madame, we have answered that question, please. Look our question, madame, is: can you see, observe, the total movement of greed? All its implications, why greed arises, what is the source of its continuity, why is it condemned, and so on and so on, the whole movement of greed, can you see it at one glance - not only the active greed, conscious greed, but also the hidden greed? Can you see the whole of that?
Q: What is hidden greed?
K: Hidden greed? I may say, I am not greedy, but deep down I am terribly greedy. Please listen to my question first. Can I see the total movement of greed?
K: No, no, I am not telling you anything. I am asking you if you can see the whole movement of greed?
Q: I can't and I don't know why.
K: You cannot. You say you cannot and you don't know why.
Q: If you are interested in something you can see the whole of it.
K: Yes. I am interested in seeing the movement of greed, the whole movement. But I haven't got the energy to go fully into it. I am interested, but the vitality, the energy, the intensity is lacking. So what shall I do? Take drugs, smoke, drink, all kinds of stimulation to have more energy so that I can watch the total movement of greed? It becomes rather silly, doesn't it. So what shall I do? May I go into it? I go into it, you are not helping, find out. Can I observe the total movement of greed, total movement, the hidden as well as the conscious greed? What is movement? I said total movement of greed. Greed is a movement, it isn't static, it is constantly moving, more, more, more. So can I observe the movement?
Now what do we mean by movement? Movement means from here to there. So movement means time. Right? Time is movement, whether chronologically or psychologically, it means movement. So as long as I have this idea of movement, which is time, time is going to prevent me from observing the whole. You get some of it? If it is not clear we will go into it.
Q: It is clear but...
K: Wait, wait, I am coming to that. He asks, you are not answering the question. He says, you have moved away from the question, which is, you have introduced a new factor which is time. And then you will say, how am I to stop time? I am not stopping anything. I am merely observing. And that is the difference. I am not asking myself, how am I to stop time; I am just observing the whole factor, the whole map of greed. And one of the points which prevents me from seeing the whole map of greed is this movement - movement to end it, the movement to pursue it, the movement which says, "I must stop". I am observing all that. This observation of movement, I am not denying it, I am not trying to stop it, there is only observation of this movement.
So as greed is also a movement - right - it is part of time. I haven't got it, but I will get it. Right? So I have to find out if my mind is caught in this movement. I wonder if you are understanding all this?
K: No, sir, don't agree, it is very difficult, go slowly. We said, consciousness contains both the conscious as well as the unconscious. And part of that consciousness is greed - or take any other thing. And so I ask, can we see the totality of greed, the total movement, the nature of it, the structure of it, how it arises? To see it clearly, not theoretically but actually - right? Can you see this - the origin of it and the end of it? Is there an end to greed? I am not greedy for wealth, or money, position, status and all the horrors, but I am terribly greedy to have truth, to find truth. That to me is the most important thing and I am terribly greedy, which is part of greed. I know you don't like to think that, but it is still greed.
So can I see the whole of it, this movement? I can only see - please this is simple - I can only see the total movement of greed when there is no direction - to get rid of it, to stop it, to suppress it - all that prevents me from looking at greed totally. Right? Because, as we said the other day, direction is fragmentary, which is a motive. Motive is fragmentary. The motive gives you direction and therefore it is fragmentary. When we have a directive, that I must get rid of it, greed, then I have moved along a certain direction, therefore direction prevents me from seeing the whole. You understand this? That is, to suppress greed, to rationalize greed, to escape from greed, or to say, "I must stop greed", any activity which is directive prevents the seeing of the whole. Right? So as long as a human being, wants to see the totality of consciousness with its hidden layers, he must understand, have an insight to the fact that wherever there is a directive, that directive is divisive, therefore fragmentary, which will prevent the perception of the whole.
Q: That's all there is to it.
K: No, no, there is lots more to it. Directive.
K: No, I said, sir, greed is part of consciousness, as violence, as hope, despair, anxiety, all that is part of our consciousness. Your consciousness is the world consciousness, and so on. Part of that consciousness is greed. Can you see the movement of greed totally, not only the hidden but the obvious greed? We are saying you can only see the totality of the movement of greed when there is no direction. Which means, only when there is no motive, because motive gives direction. Right, that is simple. So if there is the demand that it is only by seeing the totality of consciousness then also the unconscious is revealed, then you have to observe without any direction. And that demands a certain attention, seriousness, because then you end greed - you follow? Then you don't play with greed. So you are then aware of the totality of it. But most people don't want to give up their greed, they like their greed. It is a tremendous pleasure to possess. So we are asking something quite different. That is very clear.
And also to see the whole, it may reveal itself through dreams. Do you want to go into all that? Are you interested in it?
Q: I'd be interested.
K: You'd be interested in anything.
So fear is part of our consciousness, and as long as there is fear, which is a directive, therefore you can't see the whole. Dreams. There are obvious dreams, obvious physical, biological pressures and dreams. We are not talking about that. What are dreams and why should we dream at all? You understand my question? During the day the brain is very, very active - observing, you know what it goes through, thinking, chattering, denying, accepting, quarrelling, conflict, that is going on all the time. Registering insults, registering flattery, the whole movement is going on during the day. And during the night the movement still goes on - no? Right? Unless there is an end at end of the day of all this movement of chattering, quarrelling, seeking prestige, power, position, all that, if that doesn't end at the end of the day it then carries on - right? This is a fact. Are we moving together?
So dreams are the continuation of our daily activity, only in different forms, through pictures, ideas, you follow, all that, symbols. So the same movement of confusion, conflict, misery goes on. So our question is: can this movement of our daily life, as we know it, the conflicts, end each moment? You understand? Not at the end of the day because the brain can only function when it is absolutely in order, properly - you understand? So it demands order. You can find this out for yourself, it is very simple.
Q: We don't have the time to go into the bottom of every question.
K: I am going to show it to you. The lady says, we haven't time to go into the bottom of every problem, every question, every conflict. We haven't got time. We have got plenty of time: as each thing happens, look at it and end it. You have got instantly plenty of time. But we like to play with it. We won't go into that for the moment.
Q: What about psychologically?
K: Even psychologically, please. We are saying, dreams are a continuation of our daily conflicts, miseries, confusions, carried over during sleep, during which the brain is still active because it is trying to bring order while you are asleep. You understand? Because it says, "I can only function if there is order. If there is disorder I get disturbed, I get neurotic, so I must find order." To have order means security for it. This is obvious, all these questions. Are there psychologists here, they would tell you.
So it demands order, which means security, for it to function healthily, normally. But as our daily life is so disorderly it tries during the sleep to find some kind of order. So is it possible during the day, any problem that arises, psychological, human problem, as it arises to let it flower, end? Let it flower - you understand? Suppose I am angry, I let it flower, it doesn't mean I go and beat you up, or say words, but I watch the anger flowering in myself and withering. You follow? So when there is such activity of appearance, manifestation, flowering and withering as you go along during the day, at night the brain has order so it can rejuvenate itself - you understand all these things - so that it is clear.
So we are asking, as the human being living in modern society, with all its complexities, becomes so confused, and life demands, and relationship demands, that he should act, what shall he do? You remember that was our first question. So in exploring what to do, we say, can you see the whole? It is only when you see the whole there is correct action. We cannot see the whole of consciousness because we have always got some direction - unpleasant, or pleasant, hidden or open, but it is always there. And therefore that prevents the observation of the total map.
Q: I have a feeling that I need to understand.
K: Understand who? Understand the speaker? I am afraid so. The speaker is only a mirror in which you are seeing yourself - right? When you see yourself the mirror becomes unimportant, break it up, throw it away. And I mean it.
So we are observing ourselves, not what the speaker says is ourselves, which you have to understand, but you have to understand, know, look at yourself. Yourself is confused. Please, that is simple. Totally confused. And as long as you do not perceive the totality of that consciousness, whatever you do will lead to further confusion and misery. To perceive the totality of that consciousness there must be no directive. You understand? Directive means motive, the motive says, "I must understand my consciousness, I must get rid of this, I must..." and all the rest of that childish stuff. So when there is an observation without a direction the unconsciousness is open. You understand? It is all revealed, with one breath you see the whole thing.
Q: We don't do it.
Q: If I have no motive why should I do anything?
K: If I have no motive why should I do anything - is that it? If you have no motive, you say, I have no desire to do anything. You have a motive when you want to have shelter - right? Shelter, a home, a roof on top of you. There is a motive when you want to be clothed, because it is cold. There is a motive when you are hungry, food. Is that same movement carried over to the psyche? You follow my question? There are motives biologically, organically. It may be that we are so conditioned by that, we carry that over to the psychological area, where we say, "I must have a motive to live, otherwise I can't act". You see the difference? Biologically, organically, there is a motive for food, clothes, and shelter, money, I must work, there is a motive. It may be that we are so conditioned by that we move that same urge into the psychological field. And when in the psychological field there is any motive then you divide up life, break it up, and therefore you don't see the totality of life - not my life, or your life, the totality of human life.
Q: We are fragmented.
K: You are still fragmented. So we are asking: can this totality of consciousness be observed? And we are saying, it can be observed totally, including the unconscious, all the travail that is going on in the unconscious, as well as in the conscious, a lot of worms squirming! And all that is revealed when we are observing without the observer - you understand? The observer is the past, the observer is the motive, the observer says, "I must not do this", etc., etc. The observer is the past and the observer gives motive for observation, and therefore it can never see the totality of it. The observer is the observed - right? That consciousness which is observing is himself, but he likes to divide it and say, "I am different from my consciousness", which is obviously silly. So observation takes place only when there is no observer as the past, who gives direction. Then when there is perception of the whole there is action, not fragmented.
K: Sir, sir, just a minute. Is the good opposite of the evil? You understand my question? The good. Is the good opposite or different from the bad, the evil? You understand my question? The gentleman says, I am always attempting to identify myself with the good. And we are saying, is the good different, or opposite, opposed to evil?
Q: I identify myself with truth.
K: No, you can't use the word truth, please just a minute, we will come to that point, sir. We are asking a much more fundamental question, which is: is the good opposed to evil?
Q: Good and bad are part of the same thing.
K: Please, just stick to one thing. This is really a very serious question. You understand? Because this has been one of our battles in life - the good and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly, the evil and the beneficial, and so on and so on.
Q: They are different, but not separate.
K: I don't understand that. Is the good, when you say opposite, is it related to the bad? Or is good totally independent of the bad? Do look.
K: Sir, not avoidance, just look at it per se, in itself. Do we know the good because we know the bad, the evil? Do you know you are dull because you compare yourself with someone who is bright? Please, this is one of the...
Q: We always do that.
K: The gentleman says, we always do that, we compare ourselves with somebody who is bright and then call ourselves dull. That is what we do all our life. But we are challenging, we are questioning that. I know that is the normal, traditional thing, we know all that, don't bring that up. It is so obvious. But we are asking, is the good opposite of the evil? If it is the opposite it has roots in the evil. No?
Q: They are two aspects of the same phenomenon, two sides of the same coin.
K: Two aspects of the same phenomenon, two sides of the same coin. But sir, that is just words. I want to go much deeper than that, you are just sticking at words.
K: You are not looking, you are not investigating, you are just saying something. Do please investigate, that is the purpose of these dialogues which we have had for the last four days, and tomorrow is the last dialogue. We are saying, please investigate, don't say, it is pleasure, it is this, it is that. We know all these things. Is the good opposite to the evil? If it is the opposite then the good has roots in the evil. Right? I only know that I am dull when I compare myself with you who are bright - right? So my dullness is rooted in your cleverness. Or, are the two different? If they are different, how do I know what is evil? And what do I know about the good? The good, not the relative good, not the opposite of evil. Then how do I know what is good? I only know what is good in comparison. If I don't compare - you understand - if I don't compare myself with you who are bright, and then through comparison I find myself I am dull, if I don't compare, then am I dull? I don't know.
K: I don't think we have understood. This is too difficult. Look, sir. All religions have this problem: the devil, the good angels and the bad angels. The good and the bad. This has been right through all religions, from the ancient Sumerians to the present day. Which is, there is this conflict between this and that. There is only conflict between this and that if they are related. If they are not related, how do I know what is good if they are not related? Only by comparison. And comparison means measure, measure means thought, is thought the product of good? You understand what I am saying? No, you don't. If the good is the product of thought then it is merely a fragment and therefore not the good. But there is a good which is not the product of thought, therefore it is nothing to do with the opposite, it is.
Are we in communication with each other, sharing something with each other, have you got something this morning? Or are we just carrying on in the same old way?
Q: (In Italian)
K: The gentleman says, you are at one level, we are at another level, can't you come down to us? Or can't we come up to you? And we can only come up to you, the gentleman says - I don't say this - when we have the same interests, at the same moment, with the same intensity, then we meet each other. That is, we meet each other when both of us have got the same interest, same intensity, and energy. So there is never communication, the questioner says, because we are always bobbing up and down. And can't you see our difficulty and break through our difficulty and do something about it? So you are putting the burden onto me. And as I have said many times, I am not your guru, I am not your leader, and I am not your teacher. You are the teacher, you are the guru, you can learn everything about yourself if you know how to read your book, which is yourself. But you don't want to read it, you won't take the trouble to look at it. And it is all there, because you are the world and the world is you, and therefore the whole thing is buried in you - the agony, the suffering, and all the rest of it.
Saanen 4th Public Dialogue 31st July 1976
Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.