Saanen 3rd Public Dialogue 27th July 1979.
We are having a dialogue, that is, a conversation between two people, friendly, serious and wanting to solve their own intimate personal problems. And so they go for a walk in the woods and talk over things together. And we are in that position, you and I, the speaker and you, we are out for a walk, lovely stream, marvellous pine woods full of morning scent, and we are talking over together. And each one of us know that words have a particular definite meaning, and that each one of us understands the meaning of the words they use. They know the words and the content of the word, the meaning of the word, the significance of the word, so they use the word which is common to both of them. And they also know that the word is not the thing and the words do not actually convey the deep inner feelings. They are feeling it out together because they are good friends, they are not opposed to each other, they are not trying to trick each other, they have known each other for long years and they have often talked about these things and so they are willing to expose themselves to each other; point out their difficulties, their problems, and each one is trying to understand the other, and hoping to help each other. That is really a dialogue. They have established a good relationship between them. So can we this morning have such a dialogue?
And we talked about yesterday, the nature of attention, care and love. So what shall we talk over together this morning?
Questioner: Could we investigate why it is so difficult for us to actually experience here and now all the psychological inhibitions we have that block us from loving?
K: Could we investigate together our psychological inhibitions, our psychological barriers now. Talk it over together, the gentleman asks.
Q: How can the mind be free of cunning intelligence which society pushes on us?
K: How can the mind be free from the cunning which thought has put together there?
Q: What is the quality of the mind that observes silently? Is it something probably new to us, or is it something that we possess already but we have forgotten?
Q: Could you say what is intelligence?
K: Could you discuss what is intelligence.
Q: Is there a difference between voluntary isolation which obviously creates conflict and the involuntary isolation, such as being blind?
K: Isolation through some kind of illness, which is forced, and voluntary, willing isolation. Is that it?
Q: Could we discuss the mechanical activity of the brain, it is shouting all the time?
K: Why does thought always occur, why is there not a freedom at any time from the movement of thought?
Q: You often tell us that fear is produced by thought but I myself have experienced that fear manifests itself with thought and it wants to structure and limit itself, and escape from itself, by thinking.
K: You say fear is the result of thought, produced by thought...
Q: No, thought is the result of fear.
K: Thought is the result of fear - you follow? He is putting fear first and thought afterwards - right?
Q: Could we talk about identification?
K: Could we discuss why the mind seeks identification, why we seek identification.
Q: I find it extremely difficult to take part in these discussions because I am always in doubt whether it is a right or a wrong question. How can I find out myself, are there any guidelines?
K: How can one find out for oneself what is a right question, and a wrong question. Is that is sir?
Q: Sir, I asked why do you call the usual meditation which is sitting down with closed eyes, self-hypnosis? I asked this question because I have the feeling that it is through that that I can understand when you say beauty is something entirely different, love is something entirely different.
K: Why are you saying that sitting down quietly, crossed legs, closed eyes and going through all that is self-hypnosis. I somehow feel that I am very close to what you are saying, why are you saying that is not meditation? Why do you say that is self-hypnosis?
Now which of these shall we take up? They are all connected with the mind. All these questions, I don't know if you have observed, listened, are dealing with the nature of thought, the nature of the mind. What is intelligence, and what is meditation - right? Now which of these shall we take?
Q: Can we go on with yesterday's talk. I had the feeling we didn't go over it completely?
K: Could we go on discussing, talking over together, yesterday's meeting because the questioner says, "I don't feel we have gone through completely to the end of it".
So we have got two questions, fundamental questions: thought with all its complexities, its mechanical habits, its constant activity, never a moment that it is quiet, meditation, and what we talked about yesterday, love, intelligence, compassion. Now which of these do you want?
K: One is rather shy of that word because it is so spoilt - love of god, love of my family, love of poems, go for a lovely walk - you follow? Sex, the politicians use, the love of the country, love of god, love of Jesus, love of Krishna and so on and so on. So one is hesitant to use that word. So perhaps, if I may suggest, we will talk about that question which you have asked by enquiring first - we are discussing, we are talking over together, it is not a solitary conversation with oneself - if we could go into this question of meditation, then we may be able to understand whether it is possible for thought to be absolutely quiet, and not compelled, coerced, forced and all the rest of it. And perhaps we could take that question and go into it very, very deeply then perhaps we can also enter into the field of what is intelligence, love, compassion. And without those, which is the essence of that love, the mind can never be totally free from all its manifestations, its trickery, its deceits and dishonesty. So would it be all right if we talked about that?
K: You are not pleasing me, I don't care, if you want to talk about something else we will. All right.
The first question, if I may ask: is it possible to have a brain that is not twisted, that is not neurotic, that is very healthy, young? I am asking that as the first question. Do you understand? I am asking, to put it very simply: can the mind remain young, and not grow old, decay, corrupt, but keep its quality of youth? - youth being decision, action and vitality. Right? That is generally accepted as the meaning of youth, to have an enormous amount of energy, decision, action, and that sense of freedom. That, I think, would more or less describe what is a young mind. Would you agree to that? A definition, we can change it, I am not sticking to those words, but to have a mind that is extraordinarily clear, simple, having great energy, vitality and capable of instant decision and action. Right? Would you agree to that?
K: That is only a definition, you can change the definition, change it how you like, but let's all agree, if you accept that, that is the quality of a mind that is young, that is not hurt, that has no problems, that is living, living not in the future or in the past, but actually living in the present. That is, again I said one is using words to convey a quality of a mind that is youthful. If we agree to that definition, that definition can be changed as you like.
Now how can that mind come into being? That is the first thing. You are following?
Q: Wouldn't you need to use your body intelligence and not your mind?
K: There is the intelligence of the body, the intelligence which has been spoilt by indulgence, by drugs, by drink, alcohol, all that extravagance. Also the intelligence of the body, the body has its own intelligence if left alone, not destroyed, not corrupted by taste, by desire and all the rest of it. The body has its own intelligence, if you have observed it. So we'll leave that for the moment. All right, we must go into it much deeper, we will.
Our mind is the result of our senses - right? Isn't that so? This is science, this is just natural. And we don't exercise all the senses together - right? Are you following this? But exaggerate one or two of the senses and so there is never a balance. I don't know if you have experimented, or watched this, or are aware of your senses. Either one or two senses dominate and the other senses are in abeyance, or not totally functioning, and so there is always inequality, always imbalance in the activity of our senses - right? You are following all this, please do follow this. Don't go to sleep because we are coming into it.
So is it possible that all our senses work together totally, harmoniously? That is the first question, because our whole structure is based on senses, perception, taste, touch and all that. Now if there is imbalance in our senses, our brain, our mind is affected naturally. And from this imbalance there is neurotic activity. So is it possible - please go into it with me, it is a dialogue, I am not giving a speech - can we see the movement of the sky, the clouds, the shadows on the mountains with all our senses together? You understand my question? Will you do it as you are sitting there, observing yourself? Please, as I said yesterday, unless you apply, actually apply, do it, you can sit there for the next fifty years you will do nothing. But if you apply, actually work it out, then you will see for yourself that as long as there is imbalance in the senses the mind, which is also part of the senses, part of thought, then that imbalance invariably creates disharmony - right? Do it please, as you are sitting there, observe it, actually apply.
Q: Could you give a concrete example of what you mean by the imbalance of the senses?
K: Concrete example of imbalance of the senses. I am not good at giving examples. I think examples are wrong because you have to find out. If one gives an example that becomes the pattern. You follow? And then you say, "I must conform to that", or "No that example is not good, a better example" and so on, we battle with examples. I hope you understand this. I can think out an example: sex, drugs, various forms of sensory entertainments, where only the eye or the ear functions, not the totality of all the senses. You understand all this?
So the mind - am I, as the gentleman pointed out the other day, I am performing. He said that, I am performing and doing an excellence performance, it is a rather unpleasant word but there it is. And this is a dialogue between you and me, so don't please become quiet and just listen. So that is part of the mind.
Q: Can we explain the brain when we talk about the mind?
K: When we use the word 'mind', sir, we are including in the mind all the activity of the senses, all the activities of thought, all the activities of emotions, whether imagined or real, romantic, sentimental, all that, the whole of human activity is the mind. At least I look at it that way. You may look at it differently, but as we are two friends talking over together I change my vocabulary, you change your word, but we mean the same thing. That is, the mind contains, holds, all the senses, all the emotions, all the romantic, sentimental attitudes, values, and also the enormous complexity of thought, the memories, the experiences, the hurts, the wounds that one has received from childhood, psychologically, inwardly, and the intention, the motive, the drive, the desires, all that is the mind.
Q: Is love part of the mind?
K: We are coming to that: is love part of the mind? Do you understand the question? Is love contained in the mind? What do you say? A dialogue please.
Q: It is not in the mind.
K: The lady says, it is not in the mind. Then is it outside the mind? Sir go into it for yourself, it is a dialogue.
Q: Perhaps the mind is part of love.
K: The mind is part of love? Go very carefully into this please. You think it out sir, go into it, dialogue.
Is love remembrance? Go into it madam, just look at it. I am asking you. Is love something that has happened and you remember it? Therefore I am asking, is love part of remembrance? You have been kind to me, I remember it and therefore I have affection for you. You know, remembering. Is love a remembrance? If it is not, is it then within the structure and nature of the mind? This is a very difficult question, please don't just slip it by. That is why I want to go into this carefully.
We have defined more or less, that definition can be changed, the nature of the mind, with all the senses and so on and so on. And all this is predominated by thought - right? That is the central activity - right? - that controls the senses, exaggerates the senses, gives importance to a certain sense and not to the others, that creates images, conclusions, aggressiveness, assertiveness. All that is the activity of thought - right? So thought predominates all our activity, including the senses, dominating the intelligence of the body - you are following all this? So thought is the central factor that is constantly operating, controlling, deciding, changing, modifying, pursuing, establishing a goal and driving towards that, and the past, with all its memories, anxieties, all that, the whole of that is the activity of the mind, which is thought - right? You are quite sure? Please discuss with me. Please.
Q: All the senses are the same.
K: All the senses in the mind are equal.
Q: The same value.
K: Same value?
K: To the mind, but the thought says this is better than that. That is all, we are saying that.
Q: When thought is dominating the senses, the senses become dull.
K: When thought exercises, dominates, the senses become dull. Could we move from this - right sir? Can we go on?
Now meditation is part of thinking, otherwise you wouldn't meditate - right? Would you? No?
Q: Is meditation the activity of thought?
K: We are going to go into it. But first see when you start meditating, sitting quietly, closing your eyes, it is the activity of thought. First because you want to achieve, or feel good in that position, doing something. So thought has brought this about through desire. No? Please this is not very complex. I am sitting in that position, cross-legged, or whatever it is, in the lotus position, close my eyes because I have been taught, or I have read, or I have heard somebody that if you do this, you will have a marvellous experience.
Q: No sir. I do it in order to watch my thoughts.
K: Wait. That is a different matter sir. You see the difference? I do it because I want to achieve certain experiences, because I have read about it, or have been told about it, and it gives you certain pleasure, you feel rather relieved, relaxed - right? And I maintain that, giving more and more importance to my feeling of certain pleasure, certain experience, certain state of mind. And I go on doing it. But the origin of that is the movement of thought - right?
Q: What you are talking about is the practice of meditation, but within this practice meditation can come about. But there is a difference, suddenly something else could happen.
K: Yes, this is the practise of meditation and in that something else can suddenly happen. Right sir?
Q: Yes. What happens is real meditation. I mean it is just a question of words.
K: Sir, we are investigating. You are jumping to conclusions, you are saying it happens. I question the whole thing.
Q: Sir, when we sit quietly to watch our minds, our eyes get naturally shut and we are quiet. We don't sit with our eyes permanently shut so as to come quiet.
K: Sir, the speaker has played with all this. Right? This is not something new you are telling me. So have patience. I have been through all this: sitting quietly, breathing, repeating, hoping for something to happen! Nonsense.
You are not meeting my point: why do I meditate? Why does one meditate?
Q: Because we are agitated.
K: When you are agitated, nervous, anxious, crowded with innumerable problems, by sitting quietly you hope to get away slightly from that.
Q: Not forced sir, just quietly.
K: Yes, just relaxed until you are overcome again. But - forgive me - you are missing my point of view, what I am saying, which is, all this is the origin of thought, origin of desire. No? Right sir? Why are you hesitant? What's wrong with it?
Q: Can thought not see without doing it and stop because it sees it is stupid?
K: You seem to think madam, and the others, that I am opposed to meditation. I am totally, completely opposed to the meditation that you are all doing because that is not meditation, because I have been through all this.
Q: Maybe we must investigate what you mean by meditation.
K: We explained what the word means, madam. The word means to think over, to ponder, to investigate, to concentrate in order to look at your problems, and all that is involved in that one word.
Q: Sir, if you are opposed to our meditation are you not creating a division?
K: Excuse me, I withdraw that word 'oppose'. What you are doing, what is called meditation is not meditation. All right. It is the same thing sir. I am not opposed to it. I am just saying what one considers meditation, if you willing to examine what the other person has to say, he says that is not meditation. Meditation is something much more complex, more etc. So we are two friends talking over, I am not opposing you. We are talking this over. We say meditation begins with desire, with thought - right? You hear somebody from Tibet, from India, from Zen, from god knows whatever place, and he expounds what meditation is. He says, "Sit down quietly, I will give you a system to make you calm, restful, relaxed". So your thought accepts it, desires to achieve it, and you sit in that position - right? This is so obvious, what are you objecting to?
Q: Would you say because an idea started a meditation, all meditation is your own ideas?
K: That's right. That's what I am saying differently. So meditation begins with thought - right? And desire says, "I must achieve that something which I experienced yesterday when I was sitting quietly, and I want that, I want it to continue". I practise, I force, I follow a system, all the activity of thought. That's all. What are you. objecting to?
Q: Sometimes I meditate to go out from identification.
K: I have meditated for a couple of hours, the questioner says, to get away from myself - right? Is meditation an escape?
Q: A temporary relief.
K: Then take a drug, take a thing that quietens your nerves. You see you are not following all this, you are wasting time. Temporary relief, temporary excitement, temporary experience, temporary quietness, all that you call meditation. My lord, how that word has been misused. Could we get on with it a little bit?
Q: It could be you that force meditation because you say that you want to be free and therefore you look at your problems.
K: I am not sir. I am sorry you have misunderstood. I am not doing that.
Q: Could it be that one cannot force meditation, but it is automatic?
K: Sir, could we stick to one thing? We are saying, we are asking, we have gone to far, which is, what is the nature of the mind? We talked about that. And that mind is dominated by thought. Thought is perpetually in activity, when you are sleeping, when you are awake, when you are walking, when you are by yourself, it is constantly moving. And that becomes a strain - right? That becomes nervous, anxious to bring about a quietness, a relief, a sense of peace you try to meditate - quotes meditation. And achieve a little bit of that, and you practise it, and you call that meditation. I say please that is not meditation, it is something much wider, deeper, that requires a great deal of enquiry, so please listen, exchange, not say, meditation is this, meditation is that, it appeals to me, it doesn't appeal to me. Then we stop discussing. Whereas if we say, look, let's find out - right?
Q: Krishnaji, I don't know what meditation is. Could we come to what meditation is?
K: I am doing it sir.
Q: Is it possible to know what meditation is at all?
K: Is it possible to know what meditation is at all.
Q: Know it all.
K: That is what I am saying. Could we put it this way: when you deliberately set about to meditate, it is not meditation - right? Because behind that deliberate act is desire, behind that is thought having come to a conclusion, pursuing that conclusion. We say that is not meditation. You may say, you are wrong. I say, all right, let's talk it over. So thought dominates - right? That's simple and clear. No? All our activities, whether you meditate, whether you sit down, you practise, you try to force the mind to be quiet, all that is still the activity of thought.
And is love the activity of thought? Right? Go on sir. Let's talk it over. Does the activity of thought bring about right relationship between two people? Because if you haven't established right relationship with one another you can sit on your legs crossed for the rest of your life. Unless you lay the foundation of relationship, having no conflict and so on and so on, any form of meditation is just an escape into another series of illusions.
So is love the activity of thought? I love you. I really do. Isn't it strange!
Q: ...some of us do not know love.
K: How sad it is. Somebody, sir, somebody comes and tells you "I love you, old boy, I love you", you don't go on with your thinking do you? You just listen to him. You don't.
Q: Isn't that...
K: You are all so infantile.
And we are asking, is love the activity of thought? Is love the activity of the senses? Is love the activity of desire? Please find out, investigate in your life. When you are controlled, when your sex becomes all important, which is the activity of the senses.
Q: We have to be aware of this activity then.
K: One has to be aware sir, but first know the nature of one's mind. Through awareness one discovers this, that means you have to look at it, look at your desires, the sensory desires. Wanting food, the taste of food, compulsive eating food of a certain kind because it tastes nice, exercising a certain capacity of the eyes, optical, seeing something always, or the sensory responses of sex. These are the dominant factors in our life and you are trying to move away from that.
Q: Love for me can only be without thought.
K: Are you saying sir, thought is part of love?
Q: No, I am saying love is the product of thought.
K: Love is the product of thought. Sir, when you say, it can only be, it must be, you have already come to a conclusion, you have stopped investigating.
Q: You asked the question, is love part of thought?
K: Yes, is love part of thought? Which means does love contain the whole movement and the complexity of thought? You understand? If it contains thought, is that love? You don't even go into it, look at it.
Q: It is a state of being. Anicca.
K: Steady, you are using Sanskrit. Careful! I am also pretty good on languages sir, don't play. You are all so... We have gone beyond this madam. Please go on.
Q: I just wanted to ask you a question about meditation, if I may. I seem to have been under the illusion, the delusion, that the best things of which I do has effortless meditation. Now is this my illusion completely?
K: We must understand when you say, "I meditate effortlessly", what do you mean by that word 'effort'.
Q: The mind now begins and ends with a process, in which all I need do is release the mind, my thinking process to it. I don't make any effort to release, it just happens.
K: Sir, when you know you are meditating, it is not meditation.
Q: I don't know I am meditating.
K: Have you listened to what I said sir?
Q: Yes sir.
K: When you know you are meditating, it is not meditation. Oh, you don't know. You don't see the beauty of all this. You are just going on and on and on.
Q: I am trying to find out, sir.
K: Why do you meditate at all? You have never even asked that question. What you call meditation, why do you do it? Is it that they have brought it from India, from Tibet, from Japan and you like to play with it?
Q: Sir, when one is angry, for example, when I have been angry, or I have a problem, I am in conflict. If I do, we are both agreed it is not meditation, but just sitting down quietly to watch my thoughts.
K: Yes sir, that is just when you are angry, to examine it, to go into it, it is not meditation.
Q: It is not meditation, but it is useful.
K: Yes, sir, yes sir. I agree. To be aware that you have been angry, to go into the whole question of anger, that is not meditation.
Q: But is that useful Krishnaji?
K: Not the meditation that you are talking about. I said when you know you are meditating, it is not meditation. Swallow that pill and look at it!
Q: Cannot it take me away from the realm of thought?
K: Meditation helps me to get away from myself, from my thoughts. Then go to a cinema.
Q: That can block me, not help me.
Q: Can love take him away from the realm of thought?
K: Can love take him away from the realm of thought - you understand the question? Can love bring about freedom from the realm of thought? Can love free the mind from the activities of thought? What do you say? Don't look at me. What do you say?
Q: Sir, thought itself...
K: It is a very good question. The mind is incessantly active, sleeping, waking, day dreaming, sitting quietly, when it is not under control up pops the thought. So does love free the mind from the activities of thought? No. You see what you have done? You are using love as a means of escape from thought. But if you have understood the nature of thought - please follow this - and thought gives its own right place, then you don't have to move away from it, thought has established itself in its right place. You understand this? Love is not an escape, or an avoidance, or moving away from thought.
Q: Is that meditation?
K: Sir, as I said, when you know you are meditating, sitting in that position, breathing, repeating a mantra, and all that, when there is that activity, it is not meditation. I will tell you why, if you will listen. All that is the activity of desire and thought. Obviously. A guru comes along, I don't know why they do, unfortunately they do, comes along and he says, "Do this and you will have the most marvellous experience of god", or of enlightenment. "You will have extraordinary experience". And he lays down certain systems, methods, practices, and we being gullible, not having the quality of scepticism to question him, we say, "All right Swami," - or Lord, or whatever you call him and we practice it. And in the very practising of it you have certain quietness, certain experience and that delights you. You say, "At last I have got something". Right? And I say that is the activity of desire, activity of thought, which has projected an image of something to be experienced. And that image can be experienced only through certain practices, certain repetition of words, especially in Sanskrit, that sounds far better! So we repeat it. But it is still the activity of thought and desire. So unless you understand this, what is the nature of thought, what is the nature of desire, and thought gives itself its right place, then you will be everlastingly battling with thought, with all the images that it has created. That is very simple. No?
Q: Is love denied by thought?
K: He asked, when there is thought is there love? No. But if there is no thought you can be in a state of amnesia.
Q: Is psychoanalysis a form of meditation?
K: This is getting worse and worse! Is psychoanalysis a form of meditation? Do you know what psychoanalysis is? Investigating into the past. Psychoanalysis, analysing oneself, either by the professional, psychotherapist, psychologist, psychoanalyst, Freudian, Jungian, Adlerian and innumerable names, or you investigate yourself, analyse yourself. Who is the analyser and what is he analysing? Is not the analyser the analysed? So he is playing a trick upon himself. You don't see all this. So analysis, and the psycho-therapeutics of various group therapies, you know all that is going on, various forms of psychotherapy, is not meditation. Good lord! Think what we have reduced meditation to.
Q: Sir, isn't this process of observation which you have been talking about for the last ten days, is that not also thought?
K: As we explained earlier in these talks, there is only observation, not the observer - right? You are agreed to that? You know what that means madam? The absence of me. The absence of all the past, just to observe without the word, without the name, without association, without remembrance, just to observe.
Q: Meditation is a sort of process.
K: Look sir, there is no process - you see that is what I am pointing out, sir. The moment there is a process for meditation that process is the result of thought. And thought has laid down the process in order to achieve something. You people don't listen.
Q: You never decide to start meditating? How do you start meditating?
K: Does the speaker decide to meditate? I have answered the question. We have said, sir, that when you decide to start meditation, it is not meditation. When you put yourself in the hands of another who will teach you how to meditate, it is not meditation. When you follow a system, it is not meditation. When you accept the authority of another who says, "I know, you don't know, I will tell you what to do", it is not meditation. And so on and so on and so on.
Q: Please when you go out walking you don't think about meditation, but when you see something very beautiful you have the feeling...
K: That's right. The lady says as you are walking in the wood, quietly not carrying all the burdens of your problems, suddenly you have a certain sensation, feeling, and you are watching, and thought comes over and takes charge and makes it into a memory, and wanting it more. All that is not meditation.
Q: Is it not love just to observe?
K: Is pure observation love? You see. Look sir, have you observed that way, pure observation? To observe without remembrance, without naming, without a conclusion, just to observe.
We have spent an hour and a quarter nearly, discussing verbally what is mediation, what is love. We haven't come to anything.
Q: Are we trying to get somewhere?
K: I am not.
Q: May I say something?
Q: (Mostly inaudible, but the essence seems to be: that there is a thought that is unconditioned)
K: The gentleman says, in essence, that there is a thought which is unconditioned. There is a thought, or there is thinking which is unconditioned. I don't know anything about it.
Q: Sir, but thought must find its own place.
K: Thought has its own place. Not what you said sir, the lady says that. Is there a thought which is not conditioned, is there a thought which is not limited? There may be, but I wouldn't call it thought. Thought, as generally understood, is the process of thinking. Thinking is the movement of memory, movement of experience, movement of knowledge. The whole process of that is thinking.
Q: I don't use thought as you describe it.
K: Right sir.
Q: I would ask what does intuition mean to you?
K: Intuition can be projected by desire.
Q: Not only.
K: You don't even listen. It is so impossible to discuss when you are so definite about your point of view, then I am afraid that becomes a barrier and one doesn't investigate the other.
May I finish this strange dialogue that we have had up to now?
K: We started out by asking: what is the relationship of thought to meditation and to love? We went into the question that our mind contains, or is the result, of the senses, the emotions, crooked, sane, irrational, illusory and so on, the sentiments, the judgements, the evaluations, the memories, the hurts, the anxieties, all that, which is under the umbrella of thought. Thought is the central factor. And as thought is the result of knowledge, and knowledge is always limited and therefore with knowledge goes ignorance, thought is fragmented, broken up, limited. And when thought says, "I must meditate, I must find out truth, I must achieve enlightenment", thought is playing games with itself. That is obvious. So meditation has nothing to do with thought. When you sit down and deliberately meditate, it may be pleasant, it may give you certain relaxation, you may have certain pleasurable experience, but all that is a deliberate action by thought and desire to achieve a certain result. Therefore that is not meditation.
And what is the relationship of thought to love? That is what you were asking madam. Love - this becomes rather difficult - love is free from thought. Love is not the product of thought. If it is, it is still part of desire, obviously. So love is independent, is free from all the activities, and chicanery, dishonesty, desires, sensations, sex. That is not love. Where love is the 'me' is not. Obviously. The 'me', the ego, with all its arrogance, conceits, aggressiveness, humility, pretension to humility, rather, all that is the ego. What has that got to do with love - you understand?
So love is beyond thought. Then what is the relationship between meditation and love? When one deliberately, purposefully, actively participates in so-called meditation, that meditation leads to illusion, and that illusion has no relationship with love.
But there is a meditation, if you are interested in it, which is not deliberate, which has nothing whatsoever to do with desire. There is a meditation which must be totally undesired, totally free of thought. And to find that meditation - I am not offering it as a reward - if you are interested in it you have to go into the question of desire, give it its right place, whether desire has any place at all, and also thought has to find its own place and remain there. Then meditation becomes something totally different from what you are doing.
That is, one has to find out what is reality and what is truth. Reality is also an illusion - do you understand? The reality of these mountains, the hills, the groves, the meadows, the river, that is reality, you can see it. And also reality is all the illusions, like nationality, like your beliefs, your dogmas, your rituals, your saviours, your Krishnas, all that, those are all illusions. They might have existed - might - but what we have made of them is illusion. That's a reality. Go into a church, into a temple, into a mosque, that is a reality. That is all the product of thought. Right? Of course. So reality has to be understood, seen. Reality, everything that thought has created, the atom bomb, the atom existed before thought investigated and created the bomb. Thought did not create nature, but thought has used nature. The chair that one is sitting on is made by thought out of wood. And truth has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. To find that is meditation. To begin to establish right relationship with human beings, not the everlasting battle between sexes, between human beings, killing each others, terrorizing each other, destroying the earth and so on. If we don't stop that, what is the good of your meditation?
Sir, first you have to be good, by your goodness you can bring about a good society. And if you are not good inside, good, I am using that words specifically because it is not the goodness, "Be a good child", I don't mean that. We will go into that perhaps tomorrow, another day. But if there is not goodness in you, you cannot produce a good society. And without goodness in you, you can meditate until Doomsday, go to India, go to Tibet, where you visit various monasteries, and attend various gurus who say this, and deny that, you know play that game. It amuses you but don't deceive yourself saying "That is meditation, I have meditated". Right? So if you have no love in your heart, your meditation will be destructive.
Saanen 3rd Public Dialogue 27th July 1979.
Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.