Awakening of Intelligence
Part 8, Public Dialogues Saanen 1971
The Awakening of Intelligence Part VIII Chapter 1 1st Public Dialogue Saanen 4th August 1971 'The Fragmentation of Consciousness'
Krishnamurti: Could we in these dialogues work out one problem each morning, go into it thoroughly, so that we really understand it? This is a friendly conversation between us in which we can go into a problem together and see if we cannot resolve the problem that we take each morning. A dialogue is different from a dialectical argument; it is not seeking truth through opinion, or discussion, which means reasoning, logic, argument; that will not lead us very far. Can we take one problem this morning and go into it completely, not deviating from it but go into it step by step, in detail, hesitatingly, not offering an opinion - because then it is your opinion, your argument, against somebody else's - and also not indulging in ideologies, not quoting others, but take a problem that is vital to each one of us and work it out together? That would be worthwhile, I feel. Shall we do that?
Questioner (1): Could we discuss order?
Questioner (2): Ifind that in spite of allyou have said I am still left with my inner emptiness. The urge to escapefrom it prevents mefrom looking - I am alwoys escaping.
Questioner (3): I wonder if the method we use together really makes it possiblefor us to make a radical and lasting transformation? Because this method is on the conscious level and theforces which bind us are on the unconscious level. How can we really be liberated from the unconscious conditioning and motives? For instance, if I moy give an example, I know lots ofpeople who have been followingyou for many years, they don't judge from the point of view of nationalities any more, but they judge the hippies, which is the same thing.
Questioner (4): I have a problem in understanding awareness. My mind is aware when it is going through something, it labels it, and then I become separate from the experience. When I become aware, there is a separation between the obseved and the observer.
Questioner (5): What is it to look at life completely?
Questioner (6) :You said, "I am the world and the world is me." What are the simple reasonsfor that assertion?
Krishnamurti: Which one of these problems shall we take this morning, so that when you and I leave the tent we have really understood it?
Questioner: Do you look at life as good or evil?
Krishnamurti: How do you actually look at life? Don't pretend. Don't let us become theoretical, hypothetical, and thereby slightly dishonest. Do you look at life as a whole, or do you look at life in fragments? - all broken up. Is it possible to look at this whole movement as a unitary process? And can I, who have been brought up in a certain culture which conditions me, consciously or unconsciously, to look at God and the Devil - the physical and the non-physical - can I consider this whole movement oflife, or do I break it up? And when you do break it up then, out of that, comes disorder. Now, how do you actually look at life?
Questioner: In most of the discussions I have heard you start with the premise of disorder, not from the point of view of order.
Krishnamurti: I don't posit order, I start with disorder. We are in disorder, that is clear. There is war, the division of nationalities, there is man and woman fighting each other. We are at war with each other and in ourselves, that is disorder. This is the fact. It would be absurd to posit order - there is no order! Questioner: Is there not order in natural life?
Krishnamurti: probably there is, in nature. But that is not my question. Our question is: can you and I look at this whole phenomenon of existence as one unitary movement, not broken up as the conscious and the unconscious?
Questioner: But that would be order.
Krishnamurti: We are discussing that, I don't know where it is going to lead us. We are trying to find out through conversation whether our minds are capable of looking at life as a whole, as one unitary movement and therefore without ontradiction.
Questioner: But isn't the definition of the unconscious that I am unable to look at it?
Krishnamurti: We must go into this slowly. Now suppose I cannot look at life as a whole. Am I aware that I look at life fragmentarily? Let us begin with that. Are you aware, do you know that you divide life?
Questioner (1): No.
Questioner (2): Is not "life as a whole" an abstract concept?
Krishnamurti: If we posit life as a unitary process, as an idea, then it is a concept. But if we realize that we live in fragments and ask whether that fragmentary division can be changed, then we may find out the other.
Questioner: It appears to me that I have to find out what I am first, before I can begin to change. I don't like hippies, and that's what I am! Possibly I can change it, if I first become what I am.
Krishnamurti: Look, Sir, we are not talking about change. This morning we are trying to go into the question: how do I consider life?
Questioner: If I am fragmented I can't see it as a whole.
Krishnamurti: That's it. Are we fragmented? Let's begin with that. Questioner: Maybe fragmentation is not at the conscious level, as you said, as an artist, a scientist, a priest. The fragmentation is in the , unconscious.
Krishnamurti; First of all be absolutely sure that you have discarded the superficial; that you are no longer caught in the various religioG and nationalistic fragmentary approaches to life. Be quite sure you have discarded all that completely; it is one of the most difficult things to do. But let's go deeper.
Questioner: If these dioisions do exist on the conscious level, isn't that a.. fragmentation in itself, to discard them?
Krishnamurti: We'll come to that. By going into the conscious and seeing how fragmentary it is, we will naturally come upon the other. Then they will come together, because we have divided life as the conscious and the unconscious, the hidden, and the open. That is the psychoanalytical, the psychological point of view. To me personally that does not exist. I don't divide into conscious and unconscious. But apparently for most of us there is this division.
Now, how are you going to examine the unconscious? You have said there is this division between the conscious and the unconscious, and one may be superficially free of the divisions that culture has brought about. How are you going to examine the unconscious with all its fragmentations?
Questioner (1): Hadn't we better examine whether there is a conscious and an unconscious, andfind out whether or not they exist?
Questioner (2): What is the definition of the unconscious?
Krishnamurti:Apparently the definition of the unconscious is it is what we don't know about. We think we know what superficial consciousness is, but we don't know what the unconscious is. Just listen to what that gentleman said: we have made this division but is that a fact?
Questioner: If the unconscious is not afact, after one talk at Saanen we would be liberated!
Krishnamurti:There is the conscious and the unconscious. I don't say the division exists, but that's what we have taken. Do you know your conscious mind - what you think, how you think, why you think? Are you conscious of what you are doing and what you are not doing? You think you understand the conscious but you may not actually understand it. Which is the fact? Do you really know the conscious? Do you know the content of the conscious mind?
Questioner: Isn't the conscious mind, what we understand, by definition?
Krishnamurti: You may understand one thing and you may not understand another. You may understand one part of the content of the conscious and another part you may not know anything about at all. So do you know the content of your conscious mind?
Questioner: If we knew it there wouldn't be this chaos in the world.
Krishnamurti: Of course, naturally.
Questioner: But we don't know it.
Krishnamurti: That's my point. We think we know it. We think we know the operations of the conscious mind, because there is a set of habits: going to the office, doing this and that. And we think we understand the content of the superficial mind. But I question it, and I also question very much whether the unconscious can ever be investigated by the conscious. If I don't know the content of the conscious mind, how can I examine the unconscious with its content? So there must be a different approach to it altogether.
Questioner (1): How do we know the unconscious exists?
Questioner (2): By its manifestations.
Krishnamurti: You say, By its manifestations." That is, consciously you may be doing something, but unconsciously the motive may be entirely different from the conscious urge.
Questioner: Negative action.
Krishnamurti: Of course. Please let us try to understand each other. If the content of the conscious cannot be known completely, how can that conscious, which is superficial, which does not know itself, examine the unconscious with all its hidden content? Now you have only one means of examination, which is: to look at the unconscious consciously. Please see the importance of this.
Questioner: Isn't it true that for any inward conscious manifestation there is also a parallel outward manifestation?
Krishnamurti: Obviously. Can we put it this way: do I know the content of my consciousness? Am I aware of it, do I understand it, have I observed without prejudice, without any kind of formula?
Questioner: I think the problem is deeper. What you know, what you are aware of, that is your conscious, everything you are not aware of, don't know about, that is your unconscious.
Krishnamurti: I understand; that is what he said just now. Please give a few minutes thought to what somebody else has said, which is: if I don't know the content of my superficial consciousness, can that consciousness, which is not complete in the understanding of its superficiality, examine the unconscious? That is what you are doing now, aren't you? You are trying to observe the unconscious consciously. No?
Questioner (1): This is impossible. We cannot do it.
Questioner (2): There is no frontier between consciousness and the unconscious.
Krishnamurti: Therefore what will you do? Don't indulge in theories. Look, I have been brought up with a highly traditional Brahmanical background; the tradition of it is ruthless. From morning until night you are told what to do, what not to do, what to think. From the moment you are born you are conditioned. It is done consciously every day, by the Temple, by the mother, by the father, by the environment, by the culture which is Brahmanic. Then you move to another conditioning, and again to another conditioning. There is conditioning after conditioning. All this is laid upon you by society, by civilization, by accident, or by intention. Now, how are you going to divide this and that? - they are all interrelated. I may reject the Brahmanical tradition very quickly, or I may not, or I may think I have done it, yet still be caught in it. How am I to understand this whole content?
Questioner: I am that content.
Krishnamurti: Of course, consciousness is its content! Please see that. My consciousness is made up of the Brahmanical tradition, the theosophical tradition, the World Teacher - all that; the content of all this consciousness is that. Now can I look at this whole content as one, or do I have to look at it fragmentarily? Wait, see the difficulty first. Is there a content so deep down that I don't know it? Can I forever only know the superficial content? That is the problem. Now how am I to uncondition the mind which has such a content?
Questioner: You said thatyou were taking the example ofa Brahmanical conditioning, which is still looking at itfragmentarily. Butyour relationship with a father, or a mother, or with somebody who was awfully nervous, or who frustratedyou - this would be even more important. If you ask, "How do I uncondition the mind, or how do I uncondition myself", I would say: how do I change?
Krishnamurti: It is the same thing, Sir.
Questioner: For instance, I believe that first you must become what you are.
Krishnamurti: What are you? You are all that conditioning. Are you aware of all your conditioning? Before we talk about change, first we must ask: am I aware of my conditioning? Not only superficially but in the deep down layers. As the gentleman pointed out, I may be caught in a Christian, Communist, or Brahmanical tradition; but also I have lived in a family where the mother may have been brutal or nervous. Fortunately in the family in which this person grew up, there were thirteen children and nobody cared!
Questioner: I have the feeling that I am unconditioning myself by listening toyou. Krishnamurti:That's it, just listen, that is what I want to get at. Let's move!
Questioner: Attention must uncondition the mind.
Krishnamurti: No, Madam. That is speculation. Just let us follow this please. I am all my content: the content is my consciousness, the content is experience, knowledge, tradition, upbringing, the nervous father, the brutal or the nagging mother. All that is the content which is "me". Now am I aware of this content? Don't shrug your shoulders and say "I don't know; otherwise you can't move forwards. If you are not aware - I am afraid you are not, if I may point out - then how do we proceed?
Questioner: The mind is aware that it is conditioned. It sees the conditioning.
Krishnamurti: I understand. Look, I can see part of my conditioning; I can see I am conditioned as a Communist or a Muslim, but there are other parts of this. Can I investigate consciously the various fragments which compose the "me", the content of my consciousness? Can I consciously look at all this?
Questioner: But we are not separate from it.
Krishnamurti: I understand. How am I to look at the various contents of my consciousness? Or is that a totally wrong process?
Questioner: It must be.
Krishnamurti: We are going to find out, don't say, "It must be."
Questioner: I don't see how one can envisage all of these parts. It seems that if one can hold oneself to what one is seeing actually around one in theforeground of one's sight, withoutjudgment or preconception as to how one should look at it, then one begins to see even the subconscious.
Krishnamurti: I understand. But you have not yet answered my question, which is: can you look at the content of your consciousness? - you being part of that content. If you cannot know the content of your consciousness, how can you say, "I am right", or "I am wrong", "I loathe this or that", "This is good", or "That is bad", "The hippies are nice", "The hippies are not nice"? You are not in a position to judge at all. So, can you know the content of your own consciousness?
Questioner: What is aware of the conditioning? That is the important thing, surely.
Krishnamurti: So let's go on a little bit. Does one realize one's consciousness is its content? Do you understand my statement? The content makes up consciousness. So consciousness is not separate from its content; the content is consciousness. Is that absolutely clear? Now, what do you do then? The fact is, the content makes up your consciousness; being a Communist, a Christian, a Buddhist, the influence of the father, the mother, the pressures of civilization, whatever it is, all that is the content. Do you say, "That is a fact"? Begin with that. Keep to it. Then what do you do?
Questioner: I see that the usual process of my trying to act on what I see, is in itself a fragmentation; and when that is seen clearly, I stop acting on what I see.
Krishnamurti: No, you are missing my point.
Questioner: We cannot do anything - there is nothing to be done.
Krishnamurti:Wait: don't move from there.
Questioner: This process must lead to the world order.
Krishnamurti: That's just it. The world order, or disorder, is the content of my consciousness, which is in disorder. Therefore I said, "I am the world, the world is me." The "me" is made up of all the different parts of the content, and so is the world. The fact is, the content of my consciousness is consciousness. How do I proceed from there to unravel the various contents, examine them, throw out some, keep some. Who is the entity that is examining? That entity, which seems separate, is part of my consciousness, which is the result of the culture in which I have been brought up. The second fact is: if there is an entity which examines each fragment of that content, then that examiner is part of the content, and that examiner has separated himself from the content for various psychological reasons of security, safety, protection; and also it is part of the culture. So on examination I find that I am playing a trick I am deceiving myself. Do you see this?
The division as the examiner, as the observer, separating himself from the content, analysing, rejecting or keeping - all that is also the result of the content. Do I see this very clearly? If I do, then what is action? I am faced with this problem. I am tremendously conditioned, and part of this conditioning is the desire to be secure. A child needs to be secure; the brain needs to be completely secure so as to function healthily. But that brain, wanting to be secure, may find security in some neurotic belief or in some neurotic action. So it has found security in tradition and holds on to it. And it has found security in this division as the observer and the observed, because that is part of the tradition; because if I reject the observer I am lost!
So I am now faced with the fact that division as the observer and the observed, or whatever movement I make, is part of the content. Are you clear on this? Then what is there to be done? We are not discussing the conscious or the unconscious, because it is part of this. We say the conscious mind observes at a certain level but there are deeper motives, deeper intentions, deeper vitalities, and the whole of that is the content of my consciousness, which is the world consciousness.
So what am I to do? My mind realizes that it must be free from conditioning, otherwise I am a slave to that; I see there will be wars, there will be antagonism, there will be division. So the mind, being intelligent, says it must uncondition itself at any price. How is this to be done without the division as the analyser and the analysed? - knowing the content is consciousness, and that any effort I make to get out of it is still part of that content. Do you understand? Then what is one to do, faced with this?
Questioner: Either accept the world as it is, or totally reject it - we can't accept it as it is. Krishnamurti: Who are you to accept it? Why should you accept it or reject it? It is a fact. There is the sun. Do you accept it or reject it? It is there! You are faced with this and if you reject it, who is the person who is rejecting it? The person is part of that consciousness he is rejecting; only it is a part that does not suit him. And if he accepts, he will accept the part that suits him.
Questioner: But it is even more difficult than that; because ifyou are only conditioned to be a Hindu,you might not even know it. To go back to what you said bef ore about a neurotic pattern: one may be fixed in a neurotic pattern and not know it.
Krishnamurti:That's why I am going to show you something, Sir.
Questioner: How can I reject it?
Krishnamurti: You can't reject anything. There it is! Now what is the action that takes place when you observe that you can't do anything?
Questioner: You stop. You feel that all this consciousness is not really it, andyou might be a monster. And getting thefeeling thatyou are this, you stop. But the process goes on, you can't help it.
Krishnamurti: No. The process goes on only when I have not understood the content of my consciousness: whether it is neurotic, or not, whether it is homosexual or not - the content - all that is implied. And if I choose one part and hold on to it, that is the very essence of neurosis. So any action on my part - which is part of the content of my consciousness - cannot be unconditioned; it cannot be done that way.
Then what am I to do? Have you got it? I will not reject or accept it. That is a fact.
Questioner: Everything you do only strengthens the division.
Krishnamurti: Therefore, what do you do?
Questioner: You can't do any thing. Krishnamurti: Wait, you are too quick! You don't know what it means not to do a thing!
Questioner: May Ijust say what Freud said: you must bring what is the unconscious into the conscious.
Krishnamurti: I am not interested in what Freud says.
Questioner: I am.
Questioner: Because it is a fact. You can see it in nature.
Krishnamurti:Are you quoting Freud, or have you observed it yourself? Is it your own experience when you say that the unconscious pops up and acts, or that the unconscious prevents action? You are still thinking in terms of division - the conscious and the unconscious. I am not thinking in those terms at all.
Questioner: There isn't really a division.
Krishnamurti: But you still say: the unconscious pops up.
Questioner: It'sjust a word - like "will".
Krishnamurti: Oh no, when we use the word "unconscious" we are using it with the definite meaning that there is something which is not conscious. To me that is a statement of fragmentation. So if you know that you are fragmented that way, why do you hold on to it?
Questioner: Our unconscious works!
Krishnamurti: Of course it does. Someone says he is heterosexual; deep down he is probably homosexual. We are always contradicting ourselves, always hypocrites. So I say all this is part of consciousness: tradition, Freud, holding on to it, not holding on to it, dislike of the hippies and liking the squares - it is all the same. So I am saying to you, the whole of the content is my consciousness. I will not choose one part, and not the other; not hold on to one part because that pleases me, or because I am conditioned that way. Questioner: But when you say "the religious mind" - you talk about that...
Krishnamurti: I am afraid I do.
Questioner: ...you also make a division.
Krishnamurti:Ah, no, I say when there is no division of any kind, not only superficially, but in the content of consciousness itself, as the observer and the observed, when there is nothing of that, then there is the quality of the religious mind. That has been made very clear.
Now please just listen. When we say the content makes up consciousness - whether Freudian philosophy, or your particular experience - everything is included in that. The poor man in India has never heard of Freud, or Christ, but the man who has been brought up with the mythology of Christ, says: that is a fact. And the poor villager with his God, says: that is a fact. Both are the content of one's consciousness. Surely Sir?
Questioner: It is not clear.
Krishnamurti:You see, you refuse to let go of the particular fragment to which you are holding on. This is what I have to fight when I go to India, because for centuries they have been brought up with the idea that there is an Atman and Brahman, God. And they believe most fundamentally that enlightenment is only possible when these two come together. And I say it is nonsense, both are invented by thought.
Now I have come to this point: I see for myself that any movement within that content is still part of the content. I know it completely, it is as clear as that sunshine, it is an absolute fact. Then I say to myself: now, how is the mind to free itself from its conditioning?
Questioner: You will have to go beyond the conditioning.
Krishnamurti: No, to "go beyond" means still being part of it.
Questioner: But you can go beyondyourself when you are listening.
Krishnamurti: Yes, quite right. Questioner: Because Ifeel that you have lost your conditioning, I am going to listen to you, actually listen.
Krishnamurti: I understand, Sir. You don't know me, please don't say, "you are unconditioned; you don't know what it means, so please don't judge.
Questioner: We don't want to get rid of our conditioning.
Krishnamurti: Keep it and live with it, be in turmoil, be in misery, have wars! If you like it, hold on to it. And that is what is happening! The Arab holds on to his conditioning and that is why he is fighting the Israelis. And the Israelis hold on to theirs. That is the world. I have my particular anchor and won't let go. So knowing all this, what is the mind to do?
Questioner: I become very quiet. I don't do anything.
Krishnamurti:Do you follow the statement? He says: when I am faced with this fact that I am wholly conditioned, I become silent. I can play tricks upon myself and say I am unconditioning myself - which is part of my training, which is part of the content. He says, "I become silent". Is that so?
Questioner: I can't help bringing in the "I".
Krishnamurti: That's just it. He means really that it is a means of saying "I". Now what happens when you are faced with something about which you can't do anything? Until now you have thought, because of your conditioning, that you could do something, that you could change, that you could manipulate, that you could alter things; but it is still part of the same field, moving from one corner of the field to another. When you realize that any movement within that field is a conditioned movement, what takes place? When the Arab and the Israeli say: look, I am conditioned and you are conditioned, what takes place? Go on, Sir, what takes place?
Questioner: Then it is possible to live.
Krishnamurti:I realize I am totally conditioned and that any tricks I can play upon myself are part of my conditioning. Changing from being a Catholic to becoming a Hindu, from being a Hindu to Communism, then back to Zen, and from Zen to Krishnamurti and so on (Laughter) - it is part of my conditioning, it is part of this whole content. What happens when I realize this?
Questioner: The process stops itself.
Krishnamurti: Has it stopped with you? Don't theorize!
Questioner: It is a fact. It stops by itself.
Krishnamurti: It is much more complex than that. You are too quick, you are not going with it. You want a result.
Questioner: The mind that sees this, is not the same mind that started the enquiry.
Krishnamurti: That's it. Go slowly, Sir. What has taken place to a mind that started enquiring into its content and has discovered the extraordinary divisions, the contradictions, the fragmentation, the assertions, the aggression, all that; what happens to such a mind?
Questioner: It becomes very clear. It wins space, it is in another state.
Krishnamurti: Then Sir, I will put you a different question. What is your action in daily life - notjust in a crisis - when you realize this fact?
Questioner: Maybe we don't realize this.
Krishnamurti: That's my point. Either you realize this as a fact, and that fact fundamentally changes the whole structure of your consciousness, or you don't realize it. If you don't realize it - as apparently you don't - and merely say, "I understand", it means nothing. When you are confronted with this fact, what is your action in daily life? Relate the two, then you will get the answer. That is: I realize that I am conditioned as a Hindu. I realize that I have been brought up in peculiar circumstances - the world teacher - the devotion, candles, worship, all that; facing the world, property, money, position, prestige - and I see all that is part of the content, part of "me', What is the relationship of that perception to my daily life? Unless I relate it, it remains verbal, theoretical, nonsensical. So I must relate it. If you can't answer it, then you have not realized it, then you are playing with words.
Questioner: It appears to me that every timeyou ask a question, there is a problem of everyone trying to find the answer. In the question should be the realization thatyou can't answer.
Krishnamurti: Of Course not, Sir. I am asking it because you have to ask that question.
Questioner: That's right. It's the person who asks the question who always looks for the answer.
Krishnamurti: That is what I am saying. Whether you are attached to one neurosis or another, when you realize all this, conditioning, what does that realization do to your daily activities?
Questioner: Does all effort on the part of the self cease?
Krishnamurti: You are going to find out. When you say, "I have understood it", if there is a division between that realization and your daily action, then there is conflict. That conflict is disorder, in which we live, both the world and you and another. So what takes place when there is a real perception of the truth, like "fire burns", "poison kills"? When you realize this fact as vitally as that, then what is your action in that realization in your daily life?
Questioner: This realization keeps me aware in daily life - that is all that is needed.
Krishnamurti: Oh no, Madam. It is nothing of the kind.
Questioner: It must totally change my way of living.
Krishnamurti: Find out, Sir. Of course it does. I am not being patronizing, I am just asking you: do you realize it, in the sense that when you have toothache there is an absolute realization of pain - you do something about it? You don't theorize about it, you go to the nearest drugstore, or to the dentist, there is action. In the same way, when the mind realizes totally that you are conditioned, that your consciousness is its content - and that any movement you make is still part of that consciousness - trying to get out of it, accepting it, or rejecting it, is still part of it - then how does the realization of that truth affect your life?
The realization of the truth of that fact is going to act. You understand? And that truth, being highly intelligent, will act according to the moment.
Questioner: But can you realize that, when you are still caught in your fears and your desires?
Krishnamurti: You can't. You are trying to overcome one fragment which is fear, by another fragment. That way you cannot get rid of it, so there must be a different approach to that fragment which you call fear. And the approach is this: to do absolutely nothing about fear. Can you?
I can't do anything about the noise of that train going by, therefore I listen to it. I cannot do a thing about the roar of that train. Therefore I don't put up a resistance to it, I listen. There is noise but it does not affect me. In the same way when I realize that I am neurotic, that I am holding on to a particular way of belief, a particular way of action, that I am homosexual, or whatever it is, that I have tremendous prejudices, I just listen to it totally. I do not resist it, I listen to it totally, completely, with my heart.
We started out by asking if I can look at the whole movement of life as a unitary process. The killing, the refugees, the war in the Middle East, the Catholics, the Protestants, the scientists, the artists, the businessmen, private life, public life, my family, your family - there is endless division. This division has brought about such disorder in the world and in myself. Can I look at all this as a marvellous single movement? I can't, that is a fact. I can't, because I am fragmented in myself. I am conditioned in myself. So my concern then is, not to find out how to live a unitary life, but to see if the fragmentation can come to an end. And that fragmentation only comes to an end when I realize that all my consciousness is made up of these fragments. My consciousness is the fragmentation. And when I say, "There must be integration, it must be brought together", it is still part of that trick I am playing upon myself. So I realize that. I realize it as a truth, like fire burns, you can't deceive me, it is a fact, and I am left with it. And I have to find out how it operates in my daily life - not guess, play, theorize. Because I have seen the truth of it, that truth is going to act. If I don't see it and pretend I have seen it, then I am going to make a hideous mess of my life.
-- Page 401 --
Awakening of Intelligence
Part 8, Public Dialogues Saanen 1971
The Awakening of Intelligence Part VIII Chapter 1 1st Public Dialogue Saanen 4th August 1971 'The Fragmentation of Consciousness'
Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.