Brockwood Park 1981
Brockwood Park 2nd Public Question & Answer Meeting 3rd September 1981
I am glad it is nice weather!
As we said the other day in answering these questions, there are too many of them. We can't answer all of them and we have chosen some which I hope will be representative of all the other questions. We can together examine the question, explore as far and as deeply as possible into the question, but there is no end to talking, to answering questions and reading. But if we don't put any of them into action, into our daily life they have very little meaning. And it is becoming more and more difficult in a very complex society to live a sane life. By sane I mean a life which is whole, healthy, normal, and therefore holy - h-o-l-y. We have lost all sense of simplicity, not in clothes, I don't mean that. Simplicity of outlook, simplicity in our life, to be not so terribly self-centred, that is becoming more and more difficult, and it seems rather difficult to live a life that is free from all the cruelties and the bestialities, and the vulgarity of life. And during all these meetings that we have had here for the last thirteen, fourteen years and all over the world there seem to be so few who really apply, who are consistently, continuously applying what we hear and to find out the truth of it and live it. And not escape into some kind of idiotic, foolish ashramas - the word ashrama means in Sanskrit, retreat. It is good to have a retreat but not in a concentration camp which the gurus have cultivated. So in answering all these questions, please we are together examining them, together we are seeing the whole implication of these questions and see if it is possible to live a life of sanity in this world.
1st QUESTION: We find ourselves living in fear of war, of losing a job, if we have one, in fear of terrorism, of the violence of our children, of being at the mercy of inept politicians. How do we meet life as it is today?
How do you meet it? One must take it for granted that the world is becoming more and more violent, it is obvious. The threats of war are also very obvious - South Africa, the Middle East and so on. And also it is a very strange phenomena that our children are becoming violent too. One remembers a mother coming to see us one year, in India. The mother was horrified because in the Indian tradition mothers are considered with great respect. And she came to see us and said, "My children have beaten me" - an unheard of thing in India. So this violence is spreading all over the world. And there is the fear of losing a job, as the questioner says; facing all this, knowing all this how does one meet life as it is today?
I don't know. One knows for oneself. I know how to meet it for myself but one doesn't know how you will meet it. First what is life, what is this thing called existence, full of sorrow, overpopulation, inept politicians, all the trickeries, dishonesty, bribery that is going on in the world, how does one meet it? So one must first surely enquire: what does it mean to live? What does it mean to live in this world as it is? How do we live our daily life, actually not theoretically, not philosophically or idealistically, but actually how do we live our daily life? If we examine it, or are aware of it seriously, it is a constant battle, constant struggle, effort after effort, having to get up in the morning is an effort. What shall we do? It comes down to that. We cannot possibly escape from it. One used to know several people who said the world is impossible to live in, and they withdrew totally, completely into some Himalayan mountains and to the Sierras of California and disappeared. That is merely an avoidance, an escape from reality. Or to lose oneself in a commune, or join some guru with vast estates and get lost also in it. Those people do not obviously solve the problems of daily life, or enquire into the change, or into the psychological revolution of a society. They escape from all this. And we, if we do not escape and are actually living in this world as it is, what shall we do? Can we change our life? To have no conflict at all in our life, is that possible? Because conflict is part of violence. This constant struggle to be something, both in the world, economically, socially, morally and inwardly, to be something is the basis of our life - the struggles to struggle.
Can we, as human beings living in this world, change ourselves? That is really the question. Radically, psychologically transform ourselves, not eventually but not admitting time. For a serious man, for a really religious mind, there is no tomorrow. This is rather a hard saying: but there is no tomorrow, there is only the rich worship of today. And can we live wholly this life? And actually, daily, transform our relationship with each other? That is the real issue. Not the world, what the world is, the world is us. One more and more sees the actual reality that the world is us. Please this is so: the world is you and you are the world and the world is you. That is an obvious, terrible fact. And if we don't meet that challenge completely, that is to realize that we are the world with all its ugliness, we have contributed to all this, we are responsible for all this: what is happening in the Middle East, in Africa and all the craziness that is going on in the world - we are responsible for it. One may not actually be responsible but our grandfathers, grandmothers and great grandfathers have been responsible - slavery, thousands of wars, Empire, the brutality of empires, of which we are a part. And if we don't feel very responsible for all this, which means responsible utterly for ourselves, what we do, what we think, how we behave, then it becomes rather hopeless, knowing what the world is, knowing that we cannot individually, separately, solve this problem of terrorism, which is the problem of governments, to see that its citizens are safe, protected. They don't seem to care. If each government was really concerned that its own people must be protected there would be no wars. But apparently governments have lost sanity too, they are only thinking party politics, of their own power, position, prestige - you know the whole game.
So can we not admitting time, that is tomorrow, the future, live in such a way that today is all important? So one has to become so extraordinarily alert to our reactions, to our confusion - you know, work like fury on ourselves. And that is the only thing we can do apparently. And if we don't do that there is really no future for man. I do not know if you have not followed some of the headlines in the newspapers, they are all preparing for war. And if you are preparing for something you are going to have it - like preparing a good dish. And apparently the ordinary people in the world don't seem to care. Those who are intellectually, scientifically involved in the production of war don't seem to care. They are only interested in their careers, in their jobs, in their research. And those of us who are fairly ordinary people, so-called middle class, if we don't care at all, then we are really throwing up the sponge. And the tragedy is that we don't seem to care either. We don't seem to get together, think together, work together. We are only too willing to join institutions, organizations, hoping organizations, institutions will stop wars, will stop butchering each other, they have never done it. Institutions, organizations will never stop any of this; it is the human heart and the human mind that is involved in this. Please we are not talking rhetorically but we are facing something really very, very dangerous. We have met some of the prominent people who are involved in all this, they don't care. But if we care and our daily life is lived rightly, if each one of us was aware of what we are doing daily, then I think there is some hope for the future.
2nd QUESTION: Is man's search for something truly religious simply an extension of his eternal acquisitiveness, selfishness or is it something entirely different, not a reaction, but a deep fundamental movement towards an ultimate reality?
This is a very complex question. Let's go into it carefully. Why do we search? Why do we seek something? We are always seeking, why? Is it that we are so utterly discontent with everything that we touch, see, smell, feel? Is it our search is really deeply for satisfaction? We may call it the search for truth - the search for god, search for happiness, search for this or that, but is it that we are all seeking some kind of deep, abiding contentment, satisfaction in one form or another? You might call it god, you might call it truth - give it any other name one likes, is it that we want an abiding, lasting, unshakable contentment, some deep security? And is there ultimately security and contentment? What is security?
Let's examine please together. What is security? We need to have security physically, to have a roof, clothes, food. That is absolutely essential. But in an overpopulated world that is still lacking. If you go to the Eastern countries, Africa or India, or those countries, where fifteen million people are born every year, adding to the population in India - fifteen million people every year. That is as much as the population of Holland every year it is added. Governments are inept to control, birth control and all the rest of it. And also the problem there is, they are religious. They believe in reincarnation and the souls are waiting to be reborn - so give as many births as possible. And those people have no security at all physically. India is having nearly seven hundred million people. There is overpopulation in Europe too. And we are all seeking security - security physically. And that too is being denied in the affluent societies like Europe and America because they are also preparing for war. They talk about having physical security, some of them, or the majority of them have physical security but always there is the threat of war that denies physical security. National division prevents security. That is, tribalism is preventing security.
And also we want intellectual or psychological security. The churches throughout the world, the temples, the mosques give you psychological security, at least they think they give it. The book - you know all that. And is there psychological security at all? Please let's talk it over together. One feels one needs psychological security, to depend on something. To possess something that is unbreakable. So we invent a belief - a belief in god, belief in something or other. It is invented by thought. And that invention we think is necessary to be secure. I am a Christian, I believe in a saviour, I worship, I hold on to that. And they do the same in India, all over the world with their own particular form of belief and faith. And when we look at it closely, intellectually even, and if you look at it much more deeply, it is fear. Fear of not being anything, fear of losing your experiences, your values, all that. And we hold on to something that is illusory. Now a man, or a woman, when we use the word 'man', the woman is included please. Don't let's become Women's Lib and all the rest of it. When man, seeking security, finds some kind of thing, however illusory, however neurotic, he clings to it. And he will fight for it, kill for it, you have seen all this. So is there any security at all psychologically? Please think it over, let's talk it over together. I want security psychologically. I find security in the belief of Nationalism. I find security in god, if I don't find it in god I will find it in some theory, in some ideal, or go off abroad, to the Asiatic world, and find something that they have thought out for the last three, four thousand years. So I am always seeking that security. And intellectually I see the absurdity of it, the foolishness of it, the illogicality of it, but yet emotionally I want to have something in me that I can rely on. Is there something?
There is something only when I realize completely that all the theories, the beliefs, the dogmas, the nationalisms are illusory; the very realization that they are false is the action of intelligence. I wonder if you see that. To realize something that is illusory, that is false, that has really no substance behind it, that very realization is the action of intelligence. That intelligence is the total security. Are we meeting each other? I have accepted say, for example, suppose that I have accepted some kind of belief which has given me, and my fathers, my grandfathers, generations, a certain security, and I realize - their grandson realizes that what they believed, what they have put upon me is illusory, it has no meaning. That perception itself is intelligence and that intelligence is total security. Nobody can destroy that intelligence. That intelligence is common to all of us, it is not my intelligence, or yours. It is the intelligence of perception. It is the intelligence that says these leaders, inept politicians, the gurus, all that is so nonsensical. The realization, the perception is the abiding intelligence, which is the everlasting security. Do we see that? Not theoretically, not as an ideal but actually say "This is it" - do you follow? It gives you an extraordinary sense of independence, a sense of deep freedom, because that intelligence guides. It is not your will, your opinion, your values, your prejudices, but that intelligence is watching, guiding, helping.
And we must distinguish, I think, between reality and truth. Could we say reality is everything that thought has created? The tent is a reality, it is created by thought. The chair on which one is sitting is created by thought. But the wood is not created by thought. Nature is not created by thought, the tree is not created by thought. Don't say "Who is creating it" and go off into something mystical, god and all the rest of it. We are talking about perceiving the actuality, the reality which is the actual and truth. So we are saying all the things that thought has created is reality. Nature is not created by thought, the tiger, if you have ever seen one in the wild, as we have on several occasions, almost touched it, that is not created by thought, it is much too vast. And thought has created, made the surgeon, communications, the buildings, and all those things that are in the temples. All that is reality. Truth is not put together by thought. Truth is something free of time, thought and something that is beyond all perception. So if we are clear on these two matters: reality and truth, then we will never get confused about these terms. And it is only intelligence that can perceive that which is eternally true, not sacrifice, worship, prayer, all that, they are all done at the instigation of thought, or the invention of thought. But truth demands compassion, love, and with compassion and love goes intelligence. Intelligence is not separate from compassion. Compassion is not separate from love. It is all one. And without that truth cannot possibly exist.
3rd QUESTION: What is right action that we meet everything in our lives?
First of all let us examine together how we have broken up action. There is the political action, social action, religious action, idealistic action, action based on some experience, theory. So our action is broken up - business action, family action, sectarian action, the local action of the parish, the action of the lobbyists who are interested in their own particular safety, or safety of a particular investment and so on. They are all broken up actions. That is a fact, that is a truth. And there is also personal action based on one's own will, one's own anxiety, relationship with another. So our existence, which is our daily life, is totally broken up. I wonder if one is aware of that at all? Or we just drift from one action to another, go off in the morning at 9.0 o'clock to the office, that has a particular action there. Come back home and there is another action. I wonder if one is deeply aware of this fact, that our life is broken up, carefully departmentalized: the surgeon, the carpenter, the priest and the politician, and we are the laymen with our own action. So if one realizes that one's life is actually broken up into various departments of actions, contradicting probably each other, insufficient in themselves from each other, and time to integrate all of them together, which most of us are trying to do, that becomes impossible, this integration. You can't integrate two opposites. I don't know if you see this. Yet that is what we are trying to do. So if one realizes, actually perceives, or is aware that one's life is broken up then one asks: is there an action which is whole, not broken up? Such action is applicable to everything that you do. I wonder if you are following this? Are we together in this?
I realize that my life, if I realize it, is broken up; I realize it is broken up. I know too that it cannot be integrated. Integrity is something entirely different. So I ask myself: is there a life, not superficially but deeply, is there a life that is not broken up? Is there a life which is not pursuing an ideal - which means also broken up. If I am violent and I have the ideal of not being violent, I have already broken it up. I don't know if you follow this. I have already divided my life. So I realize the ideal is futile. When I am violent why should I have the ideal of non-violence? I know this is one of the things that have been brought over from India, this adoration of non-violence, politically, religiously and all the rest of it, and the speaker has discussed this point with the originator in India, and it is so impossible, we have talked with people who are so deeply rooted in some prejudice. Or they call them idealists. But the fact is: any form, any division, any sense of breaking up one's life will inevitably bring about conflict. That is, if I am violent I do not need the ideal of non-violence. But I am violent; what is important is to understand that violence, see the cause and the perceiving the cause is the ending the cause. It is like a surgeon who sees that I have some disease and says it must be operated on, and it is finished. Similarly if I am violent, to see that I am violent, discover the cause, and that cause can be eradicated, obviously. But if I pursue the ideal of non-violence I am moving away from the fact. The ideal is not fact. The opposite is never the fact. What is factual is what is happening now. Right? If I am violent I face it, I look at it, I go into it, I see the cause of it. I see the cause is the thinker who thinks he is violent. I don't know if you follow all this? No. I'd like to explain this a little.
Is violence different from me? Let's go into it slowly. We will meet each other. I have this sense of anger - if I have. First of all let us define what is violence. Violence is anger, hate, anger, imitation, conformity, obeying - all that is part of violence. And I happen to be violent - suppose - and I see by looking at it very carefully the causes of it. Step by step I see it. And I do not know how to deal with it, to eradicate the cause so I invent the non-violence as a lever to get rid of violence. Right? So I am escaping from a fact to non-fact. So I stop that movement and I realize I am escaping. Then I see I am violent: is violence separate from me? Or I am violent? You follow? Violence is part of me, like anger is part of me, greed is part of me, suffering is part of me, anxiety, pain, depression, loneliness, is me. But thought has separated the me from violence. I don't know if you realize this. So I am always acting on violence - suppressing it, rationalizing it, finding excuses for it, but when I realize the thinker is the thought - right? - the observer is the observed then the division comes to an end. And where there is division there must be conflict. So please follow this: I have totally eliminated conflict. You understand? I am not separate from violence but I have been educated for generations that I am separate. And my habit, my condition is to fight violence, which is part of violence. So I realize the observer is the observed, the experiencer is the experience. I don't know if you see this. So I realize that. So I have eliminated from my mind the whole idea, concept, habit of conflict. Are you doing this with me? Which is, to remain completely with that word, the word 'violence' and the remembrance of past incidents which brought violence, the word is the remembrance, the picture, and that picture, that symbol, that word, is me - right? Please this is logic, it is sane: look at it. It is me. And so I stop, the mind stops acting, but remains with it, it doesn't escape from it. So when you remain with something entirely, completely with all your attention, the thing disappears completely. So one eliminates altogether violence. But if you pursue non-violence you will never end it because in the pursuit you are sowing violence all the time. I wonder if you understand this?
So the questioner asks: what is right action? We said there is right action only when we see that we are broken up, our life is broken up, and from that awareness one asks the question: is there a life which is not broken up. living in this modern world, can I live without different contradictory actions? Going to the office, coming home, being a surgeon, coming home, a scientist, coming home - you follow? - all broken up. And the result of this contradictory, broken up life will inevitably bring violence, strain, heart failure - you know, the whole circus.
So we are asking: is there a life that is whole? Not what is right action, but can one live a holistic life? That is, when I go to the office I am always the same - you understand? When I come home I am what I am. I may be a good carpenter, a plumber a technician, but I am living a live which is whole. Do we understand each other? When there is that wholeness of life, that itself is right action. Do whatever you do, out of that is right action. There is no right action per se, but there is right action when I realize the broken up, contradictory life with all its complications, that very realization brings about a perception of the whole. Is this happening with you now? For god's sake! That is why sirs you may listen to the speaker for the next hundred years but if one doesn't actually realize as we are sitting here together, the action of intelligence is holistic. And that intelligence cannot be cultivated. It isn't a thing you go to school and learn to be intelligent, or become sensitive by going to college and being told how to be sensitive. But if one sees the actuality without any desire to alter it and fuss around with it, if one sees actually what is happening, that very perception is intelligence. And out of that intelligence is always right action.
4th QUESTION: What is the right relationship to money?
If you haven't any you have no relationship to it! (Laughter) Like the speaker, it is very simple! But to be serious: what is right relationship to money? Why has money become so important? Let's enquire into it. We are not the Delphic Oracle, or laying down the law, or telling you what you should think or do, but we are trying together to understand the problems of life, which are very complex, which need deep examination impersonally, objectively, sanely. So this is one of the problems, money. Why has money become so important? Is it because we have become worldly? I am using worldly in the sense of attached to the things that thought has put together. That is the first question I am asking. It is a complex question, we will go into it.
Is it because money gives us freedom? You can travel if you have lots of money, you can become powerful, become Lord this and that. If you have money you have a status, you are respected, you are looked up to. This is happening. If you have money you can do almost anything - go against all the laws. You see this everyday. Money is not supposed to be transferred from one country to another but if you are wealthy you have a secret account in Switzerland - you know all this - or transfer great wealth to America and so on. And if you have money you can enjoy yourself. So money has become extraordinarily valuable in all those senses.
And without money you can't do much. You want some clothes and so on you must have some money. But the question is really: why has money in our life, apart from buying necessary things or having something which is pleasant, nice picture or a nice vase or some beautiful ornament, apart from all that - or a beautiful garden if you are lucky - apart from that why do we lay such emphasis on money? You answer it please.
I do not know if you realize what religions have become, organized religions, vast wealth, they are really business organizations in the name of god. This vast wealth of the gurus, incredible wealth, which all of us - not all of us, some of us have given to these gentlemen. And so money has become important. And when you go to the temples and so on, there is always money being asked. Are we so occupied with money? Naturally the poor man who has no money, he is naturally thinking about it. But those of us who have a little money, are we occupied with it? Is our main concern or occupation money?
That awakens another question which is: why are our minds perpetually occupied? - occupied with something or other. If you are occupied when you are talking about meditation, then you are occupied with it. God - you follow? Everything from the housewife to the highest religious authorities are occupied - why? You understand my question? This is not an irrelevant question, it is relevant because our occupation with money or with sex, with this or with that, indicates the state of our own minds, our own hearts. To be occupied with something. Does it mean that this occupation with business, with money, with sex, with god, with the guru, with the politician and so on and so on, keeps our brain full? You understand my question? Is it that we are afraid not to be occupied? Please look at it. Look at ourselves, which is: am I occupied from morning until night and when I go to sleep the brain is also occupied, with dreams, with all kinds of sensations. So there is never a moment when the brain is not occupied. Is that so? And when the brain is so occupied there is no space and so the brain becomes more and more shallow. You can see this happening. Is it because we are frightened of not being occupied, therefore having no space, the brain having no rest at all, therefore wearing itself out - right? The wearing itself out is part of senility - right? So is there a possibility of not being occupied? Merely to look, to observe, not be occupied with observation. Just to look, to observe so that the brain has a rest, not to record because our brain is all the time recording. I don't know if you are following all this? If it interests you? Then your brain becomes extraordinarily alive, pliable.
Have you ever observed without a single thought? To observe a tree, to observe the water, a sheet of water with the light on it, to observe a woman or a man without all the consequences of that observation, the sensations, so that your mind is really free from occupation. How can a brain that is occupied ever observe? You understand my question? How can a mind - a brain rather that is always occupied with something casual, daydreaming, with the kitchen or with god, they are all the same, all occupations are the same, there are not superior occupations or inferior occupations, we are talking about occupation per se. Such a mind is really the most bourgeois mind in the world, including the Communists. Is chattering part of this occupation, talking, talking, talking, endlessly - you follow? Now are we aware of this occupation, and experimenting with ourselves to see if it stops? Then to find out whether there is fear and pursue that fear - you follow? Go to the very end of it and end it. As we talked about it at previous talks. Then see what happens to this brain which has space, which has quietness, which is not occupied. If you say, "How am I to do it? Tell me the steps, the method how not to be occupied", then those steps, those methods becomes your occupation, you are back in the cycle. But if you see the consequences of occupation, and see the fact of it, you move away from it. So if one is occupied with money, why? Either you are poor, which is natural then you have to be concerned about it, but even if you are poor to be occupied eternally from morning until night, and a man who is very rich is also terribly occupied, how to keep the money,increase it - you know the whole business.
So the real question is: can the mind be free from all occupation? If I may repeat some incident: we were in the Himalayas once far away from all noise and in a cottage, and a group of monks, sannyasis came rushing into the cottage to tell me something. They knew the person who was occupying it. So they came to see me and they said, "We have just come from a man who is far away in the hills who is full of knowledge. And we have just come and we are filled with that knowledge." And I said "What is that knowledge?" And we went into it. At the end of it we discovered the solitary person living in the Himalayas was really not solitary at all. He has carried all the world's knowledge up there and so he is never alone, never quiet. And he is full of that knowledge and can therefore perhaps can never experience something totally original. A mind which is occupied can never experience something original. It is only the mind that is free, if I can use the word, that is empty.
We were talking with a scientist some days ago and we were saying that emptiness is very important in life, not vacuum, not being just vague and daydreaming but really a mind that is not occupied has space and is totally empty. And we were saying that such a mind is full of energy. And the scientist agreed. He said "Where there is emptiness it is not empty, that very emptiness is energy". I am telling you something. So let us think about it, look at it.
5th QUESTION: You say liberation is not an individual matter but concerns humanity as a whole, yet liberating insight has been the unique achievement of individuals like the Buddha and the Christ, and perhaps yourself. How can it be a matter of the whole of humanity?
The question is clear isn't it? First of all let's leave the Buddha, the Christ and the speaker alone, they are not important. You know what disciples are? Disciples destroy the teacher, they invent a lot of theories, a lot of nonsense, write about it, they are the interpreters, and when there are interpreters you know what takes place. So let's look at the question very carefully, if we can liberate ourselves from these figures.
Is insight, the liberating factor which is insight, is it an achievement? First. Is it only granted, or given to the few? Is it something that demands an utterly unselfish life? Is it something that is not personal? To go into this one must go still deeper, further, which is: the world is me and I am the world. That is a fact for me, to the speaker. The speaker is not separate from the world the world is not different from him. We have gone into this very sufficiently. Human consciousness with all its content, which is belief, experience, knowledge, memory, fear, pleasure, suffering, pain, anxiety, loneliness, despair and all the pain of the world is common to all mankind. This is so. It is common to all of us, whether we live a million miles away or very close. So we are the world psychologically and you are the world. Now is liberation, illumination or that enlightenment, only reserved for the extraordinary few? Or if you had that tremendous insight into the wholeness of life your consciousness is totally different - right? Naturally because that liberating insight frees you from all the content of that consciousness - the pain, the anxiety, the loneliness, sorrow, depression, all that is wiped out. It is a fact if you do it, and it can be done. And it is not reserved for the few. But we human beings are not persistently, continuously applying, we are slack. We do this one day and we are weary of it the next day, we go off. So the ball is never in our court, it is always in other people's court. So if we are capable of maintaining not by will but by perception, by seeing the fact, and remaining with the fact without any movement away from the fact, then the fact undergoes a radical change. You can see this if you do it. That is, if I remain completely with violence, that is, not try to do something about it because I am violent, then the very attention you give to that factor of sensation which is called violence, when there is this light of attention on it, it disappears completely, for ever. If you do it you will discover it for yourself.
And if you as a human being who recognises that you are the entire humanity, psychologically, the entire humanity and therefore you are extraordinarily irresponsible, without any feeling of guilt, then your consciousness undergoes a change - obviously. That is the liberating factor of insight. If you have that liberating factor of insight and you have transformed your consciousness, you are bringing a factor of something new into the whole consciousness of humanity. You understand? I do not know if you have not followed a recent experiment which has been written about - I don't want to go into all this. I have started so I must finish it. They have put some rats in a tank of water and there were two outlets. One a dark one, and one with a light. When the rat climbed up the ramp and went to the light which he thinks he can escape through, he gets a shock, so it comes down and goes to the other, which is black. Then it escapes through that. And generally the father, the mother rat takes time to discover this. Then its children learn much quicker. Please it is not genetic. They learn much quicker. So without taking many experiments, after a few experiments they go off through the black and they escape. And they were doing this in England, in Australia and perhaps in some part of America, totally different, not communicating with each other. And the rats in Australia - please listen to this - the rats in Australia discovered much quicker the black way of escaping, not through light. You understand this? I am not going to explain it if you don't. It is very simple. Without genetics entering into it, the rats in England took time to learn and the grandchildren or great great grandchildren learnt much quicker. Two attempts and back out. The same thing happened in Australia. The doctors were not communicating with each other. So they have discovered there is a group consciousness, as well as chemically, it is so. You understand? So this group consciousness exists and therefore when there is one rat who learns much quicker, that quickness is transformed, is given to the whole consciousness. You understand? So if we - you can see from that. Do you get it? We have been talking about this for years, only the rats have illuminated this, our minds! Very interesting. Look how we are operating ourselves. We don't see something true immediately. It takes time. Then we learn and genetically we transform. We don't say - oh, I won't go into it.
We are saying if you transform yourself through the liberation of insight, you are communicating it to the whole of consciousness of man. You understand? This is happening, like the great rulers of the world, or the great killers of the world, have affected the human mind - right? Attila, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Napoleon and on the other side Buddha and so on, they have all affected the human mind, human consciousness. But if we actually daily live this intelligence, the insight which liberates, then you are bringing to the whole of the consciousness of man a totally different air, different value, different movement, which is not based on knowledge, it is based on insight and intelligence. You understand?
Sorry we have taken an hour and a half. We will meet on Saturday. May I get up please?
Brockwood Park 1981
Brockwood Park 2nd Public Question & Answer Meeting 3rd September 1981
Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.