Saanen 3rd Public Dialogue 4th August 1972.
K: What shall we talk over together this morning?
Q: I'd like to enquire into every facet of myself to see if 'I', the sense of 'I' could come to an end.
K: You said the other day that observing what is happening in the world around us and also what is happening inwardly, and understanding it, having a deep insight into it, from what you said, should one go out and teach, or just live? You've understood the question? I'm not quite sure if I understand it yet.
Q: She's asking whether one can teach what one has understood through one's own being, or through words and...
K: Yes, sir, the same thing. I wonder if that's a problem. As we said yesterday, surely what we have been talking about from this platform, for the last ten meetings - surely it's much more important, isn't it, that you understand and live and act in a totally different way, to bring about a psychological revolution in yourself, through your own observation, and from that revolution, various kinds of social activity and all the rest of it will take place. It's your life you're concerned with, not with what I'm talking about. I made that quite clear from the beginning that we're concerned, aren't we, with transforming our own life, the life that we lead, the petty, narrow, stupid life of business - you know, the whole thing, moneymaking, only be concerned with that, or be an artist, only be concerned with that, or so-called religious person, only be concerned with that, what he considers is a religious life and so on.
Surely it's much more important to understand what is happening outwardly and inwardly, and from there, act. Because it's yours then, nobody else's. But if you are trying to merely understand what the speaker is saying, then you are trying to understand what he is talking about, not your own life. But if you deeply seriously go into your own life, into your own activities, your own thought-processes, then you and I will meet, it will be the same.
Now what shall we discuss this morning?
Q: How does one to bridge the gap between the individual life which is so superficial and narrow, and the vast complex life.
K: How is one to bridge the gap between the individual life which is so superficial and narrow, to the vast complex life, that's going on around one. Is that the question, sir? The human life. Is that what you want to discuss?
K: I understand. When I observe myself, I see the observer is absent. And to remain in that state you require a lot of energy, a great deal of vitality. But at other times, the image comes into being, and so destroys that which has been perceived. Now, is that what you want to discuss, all of you?
K: Is that the question, sir? I'll put it fairly simply, if I can. When you observe the mountains, the trees, the river, or oneself, when you give sufficient attention, and therefore energy, the observer, with all its conditioning, with its past, is absent. And can one maintain that, can one sustain that sense of total attention continuously? Is that the question? Shall we discuss that?
What do you mean by attention - let's begin with that. And what do you mean by giving total attention. What do you mean, sirs? When you attend, what is involved in that? Help me, please. Sir, let's begin very slowly - the question has been put, which is, when there is total attention there is no division as the observer, there is only observation. When I look at that mountain, with the snowcap, completely, with all my energy, interest, vitality, intensity, then the past as the observer, with all its content as the word, conditioning is not. Now, what is that attention? Is it brought about through practice, the repetition, following a particular system, a method - will that bring about attention. What do you say?
K: Why? Why do you think a practice, a method, a discipline, a continuous, mechanical repetition - will that bring about attention?
Q: It comes sometimes fortunately, and other times it doesn't come.
K: Is it a matter of chance, or is it a matter of insight, perception? Is it a matter of chance, as the gentleman points out, or you give total attention in which there is complete insight into what you are observing. Look, sir, you're listening to what the speaker is saying. How are you listening? Are you giving total attention? Or the part of you listening to the noise of the river, part of you saying I must pay attention to what he's saying, part of you trying to translate what he's saying according to your own understanding, interpreting, explaining, judging - all that indicates lack of attention, surely. Which is it you're doing? When you look at a tree, do you look with total attention or only give a very, very partial, passing interest. When you look at the blue sky, do you see the vast space or only a colour which is a rather beautiful morning, isn't it, and pass on. Which is it you do?
Q: The moment we answer that question we are not attentive.
K: He says, the moment we answer that question we are not attentive. I'm not asking you to answer that question. I'm asking whether you are attentive, which you can answer for yourself. How can we go about this - it's really quite interesting if we can go into this. Look sir, let us take something which is much nearer. Most of us have fears. Right? Of various kinds. Now unless you comprehend the whole structure and the nature of fear, it will go on. Now can you investigate into the whole structure of fear attentively, investigate in the sense, observe the nature of fear. Shall we go into that? Would that be of interest? Because I think most people have fears of some kind or another, haven't you? No?
K: I'm so glad. Now what is fear - we are non-analytically observing, non-analytically. Analysis means to break up, the meaning of that word means to break up. We are not trying to break up fear into various causes and how to get rid of them but merely watching the whole nature of fear. Have I explained what I mean? Look, I am frightened, consciously and unconsciously, deeply I'm frightened of superficial things, I know, I'm aware of it - nobody has to tell me that I'm frightened. May we proceed - we are sharing this together, we are investigating this together, we are being aware of the whole nature of fear together, we are sharing it. So don't sit there and let me go on talking - we are moving together. Right?
Now I say to myself, what is the cause of fear? Why am I frightened? Which is an investigation into the cause, therefore an analytical process. Aren't you frightened of something?
Q: Yes, but I don't know what it is.
K: Oh, you don't know what you are frightened of? Losing a job, not having money - investigate it, sir, look at it - don't say, no, right off - fear of death? Not coming up to the ideal which you have set up for yourself? You have measured yourself against another and you feel that you cannot completely fulfil, completely reach that point. Or you are frightened of what others say, you're frightened of your wife or your husband or somebody. Don't you know all these things? This is a common thing, isn't it? We're talking this over together, it's a dialogue, conversation - you don't have to sit quiet and let me go on talking. I did that last week, last two weeks. Now we are trying to meet each other and try to find out the nature of fear and to see if the mind can go beyond it.
Q: Sometimes there is something we want to ask but we're all afraid to talk.
K: Yes, we have some kind of fear.
Q: I think that the reason why we are afraid is we're afraid of the unknown, afraid what the other person's going to think or what's going to happen in the future.
K: We're frightened of the unknown whether it's in the distant future or in the immediate - I don't know what you are going to say, I don't know, you might hurt me, and so on. There is fear.
Q: I'm shaking just from saying that.
K: How is one aware of this fear? Why do you call it fear? You see, you're not following this, you're sitting there like - I've no contact with you.
Q: There is a physical reaction.
K: Now what is your reaction.
Q: I said there is a physical reaction.
K: There's physical reaction, I know all that, sir - you sweat, you get nervous, you kind of tighten up.
Q: That's how you know - you asked how you know.
K: Proceed a bit further, don't stick at the obvious - go on. It has happened before. You recognize it - press it further, go into it, sir, go on, move.
Q: I know that I'm afraid often because I have a compulsion to escape in various ways, in various kinds of pleasures and pursuits. And the compulsion seems to prove that I'm running away.
K: That means you want to conquer it or run away from it, because you don't know what to do with it - is that it? One doesn't know what to do with fear. Therefore one runs away, one explains it away, or one tries to control it, suppress it, develop its opposite, which is courage - we go through all those processes, don't we. But yet fear remains.
Q: It seems to remain because I'm not aware that I am fear myself.
K: I think it's very important to understand this, because fear is a destructive thing, it blinds you, both physically and psychologically. So one has to go into it very, very deeply, understand the conscious as well as the unconsciousness fears. Right, sir.
Q: Is it possible that many times when one tries to face fear, when one actually does, its useless trying to look at it because then thought comes in. So thought is there more than the total awareness.
K: Yes, sir - look.
Q: There are two points, one is aware that fear is passed on to us but I think basically its because of the duality of being and non-being. This is basically at the root of every fear.
K: But you still at the end of it have fear, haven't you? After giving me that explanation there is fear still.
Q: Yes but that's not what was meant. You suggested the possibility...
K: I'm afraid of various things - public opinion, what you might say to me, I'm afraid of death, the unknown, I'm afraid of losing my job, I'm afraid that next year you won't all turn up, I'm afraid that I might get ill - I've got dozens of fears. I'm as good as you at explaining why fears come into being. I want to find out how to be free of it, how to go beyond it. That's all my concern, I have no other concern. I don't want explanations, I don't want a verbal description of my fears, and I see how dreadful, how calamitous, how destructive fear is. Now I'm asking myself, how is it possible to go beyond it - that's my whole concern, you understand - that's all I'm interested in. I'm giving my total attention to it, because it's a crisis in my life, because I see how it perverts every activity, how neurotic I become, how in comparison with somebody I further this fear. So my concern, my interest, is, I'm asking, can I, can the mind, this mind, be totally free of fear and whenever fear arises in the future to meet it totally? That's all I'm concerned about and nothing else. Are you?
Q: But when you give your whole attention to fear you are not afraid.
K: I understand, madam, but I don't know how to give my - that's again, if you give your total attention to fear, then you're not afraid. But I don't give total attention.
Q: Didn't we go into this two days ago instead of fear we used anger.
K: Yes, sir, I'm doing the same thing in different ways.
K: Why? Because the gentleman raised a question, how am I to maintain a continuous, total attention. To him that was a problem.
Q: Was his problem fear or attention?
K: Both are involved in attention.
Q: Fear is involved in attention?
K: Obviously - if I am deeply unconsciously frightened I can't give attention.
Q: If you're angry you can't give attention.
Q: And if you're in love you can't give attention.
K: Wait - if you are in love, what does that phrase mean? I am only taking one thing at a time, which is, we discussed the other day anger, jealousy, and I'm saying today that wherever there is any form of fear, conscious or unconscious, attention is not possible. Don't expand that more by saying, if you're in love, or if you are lame and so on.
Q: Yesterday we went into anger, today we are going into fear, are we performing analysis or by going into one are we in reality going into all of them?
K: Sir, aren't you frightened? Isn't there fear in you? No?
Q: Sir, the other day we paid attention to anger and we came to a point where anger or confusion or whatever it was, was gone. Now the attention has turned upon itself and said, "How can I maintain myself?"
Q: A new condition has come in, attention which was - I don't know how to put it - attention has now split itself and looked at itself.
K: Sir, he is saying - listen to his question, he says, I can give total attention but I can't maintain it. Wait. How am I to do it? I have a feeling that it's a marvellous thing if I could give total attention to everything I'm doing.
Q: And now the attention has turned upon itself - attention is now part of thought, not pure attention.
K: That's so - we are pointing out - quite right. So attention gave him pleasure, or rather, in that state of attention there was nothing, there was attending. Then thought comes in and says, "That was a marvellous state - I'd like to have more of it, a continuous momentum of it." Which is, thought has made that attention into a pleasurable thing which must be continued. That's all.
Q: It doesn't seem quite that way - the other day I had a certain insight into fear, I saw that I was afraid and I saw that I was the fear, and now it's gone. But it was only for a flash. Now I'd like to learn more about my fear - it wasn't enough, the attention wasn't long enough so that I could learn about it.
K: Now, all right, I won't discuss fear. Is it possible to maintain continuously attention? That's the question he asked. Now why do you want to maintain it?
Q: To learn.
K: Wait - in order to learn you want to maintain attention. Is that it?
Q: Because I am aware of a lot of thoughts which destroy the attention and prevent me from looking.
K: Yes. When I am not attentive, the whole momentum of thought comes into being, and there is a division between the thinker and attention. Now - please just listen - we've all understood this question now. How is one to maintain attention? Can you maintain it? What is involved in that statement, which is to maintain, to sustain, continuously, attention? That involves time, doesn't it. Right? I have been attentive now for a few minutes and it's gone, but I would life that attention to last, to go on. Now when you are attentive, is there any question of time? No. Then why are you asking that you must have time to be attentive, or time must be given for its duration? When you are attentive, there is no time. Then who is asking that it must last a long time?
K: He says either there is attention or there is no attention. But he is asking, when there is attention there is no time. He says that. But at the same time he says, I wish I could continue in that state of attention.' That's his problem.
Q: There is another problem.
K: That's what I'm pointing out.
Q: There are two problems.
K: When you are attentive there is no time, there is no wanting for it to continue, thought doesn't come into being. When you are not attentive, the whole process begins - thought, time, wish, will, all the rest of it begins. Now, why aren't you merely attentive at that one moment - that's enough, why do you want to have more of it?
Q: Because most people have moments of attention, flashes of attention, and then the rest of the time they are inattentive and in conflict. And those flashes for just a moment, for a second once a week, is not enough to transform your life. You go on in the same old way. So therefore one asks, how can one be attentive more and more.
K: I see the questioner says, at the moment of attention there is a sense of vast change, but that doesn't last, and one falls back into the old rut, into the old routine, the old habits, and therefore there is no change in life, in one's ways of living. Now what are you concerned with, attention or with bringing about a revolution in your life, psychologically - which are you concerned with?
Q: Obviously psychological revolution.
K: Are you?
Q: I would like to have it.
K: You would like to have - that's a lovely thing. Which is important, sir - attention or psychological revolution?
Q: Are not the two not connected?
K: I don't know.
Q: I think they are.
K: Sir, are you really concerned with psychological revolution, deeply, will you give your life to it? Or is it just a theory? So you want to give your life, your energy, your whole being into bringing about a psychological change. Do you, sir?
Q: Yes, sir.
K: Do you know what it means to give your life, your attention, your love, your energy, your whole life to find out if you can change yourself radically? Do you want to do that? Or do you say, "If I have attention then this will happen"? You understand? "I have attention at rare moments, and it's marvellous. If I had that attention, then it will bring about a deep psychological change." So your concern is to have this attention. Not - please listen - not the bringing about psychological revolution in yourself.
Q: That would be an ideal.
K: Yes, that would be an ideal.
K: They are all very clever, these birds. What he's saying is, if I have that attention, then I will change psychologically.
K: If I have attention, if there is that state of attention, then I can cancel with that attention, fear. You see, what is important, attention or fear?
Q: Attention to wipe out fear.
K: That's lovely - look, I'm going to show you something. You say, attention is important and not fear, not the psychological revolution, because you think, through attention you will bring about this revolution inside. You don't know anything about attention, it happens very rarely, occasionally it bursts, but it soon goes away. But the constant thing is your daily, miserable, suffering, petty life. That is important, not attention. If you want attention, then as it has been pointed out, it becomes an ideal, and then you have to fight for it, seek a method to achieve it and all the rest of it.
So I am not concerned with attention. To me, that's nothing. Sorry. That has no value because my life is ugly, petty, narrow, stupid, jealous, fearful, frightened, competitive and all the rest of it - pretension. Now in understanding that, the very nature of understanding it is attention. I don't have to seek attention.
Q: Sir, with this degree of fear and the possibility of reversing the trend, can I suggest it is the attention which prevents the psychological revolution, I don't know.
K: I don't understand your question, sir.
Q: Is it the attention that prevents the psychological revolution?
K: Is it attention that prevents psychological revolution? If you are seeking and making attention into an ideal, then it is preventing psychological revolution. You won't let go attention, will you? You are so attached to that word because perhaps I've talked a great deal about it. But that's not important - please, sir, just listen. I am concerned with the world, what's happening in the world, the wars, the brutality, the appalling things that are going on, the ugly things of the politicians. And from there I see what I am. I am the world, you understand, sir? You don't feel that, do you? I am the world, because I have created this monster. No? It's so obvious. Right. And without a radical revolution in myself, I can't do a thing outside. So my concern is: is it possible to bring about this deep revolution in myself? That's all my concern, not how to be aware.
Q: I say, in order to change...
K: Wait. No. Find out if you can change, and then see what is implied in this revolution.
K: Look, I am saying, sir - I have no attention, I don't know what it means, but I do know and I can go into my sorrow, my competitiveness, my violence - not into something I don't know.
Q: Can we say that every person in this room is really responsible for the whole world situation.
K: The questioner asks, do you mean really, all the people who are in this tent are responsible for what is happening in the world? Aren't you?
Q: We are sharing the responsibility.
K: Yes, but first of all aren't you responsible?
Q: If I say that it is wrong...
K: I don't say it is wrong - responsible. I am the world.
Q: But if I am the world...
K: I don't condemn the world.
Q: Then how do I act?
Q: Who is this 'I' who is the world?
K: Now we're off!
Q: The word 'I'...
K: The 'I' is only a means of communication. When I say I am the world, the 'I' is the world, the world and the 'I' are not different, they are one.
K: Yes, sir. You see, we are going off always from the central issue. If I had that energy, if I had that attention, if I could see clearly, tell me, you follow? - out there. You don't face the fact, of what you are.
Q: May we come back to the point where we were talking about attention and of being aware of inattention.
K: Sir, look, please, let us once and for all drop attention, shall we? If I had that energy, that interest, that vitality, I would do this. That's sheer speculation.
Q: I can't see that.
Q: Could we go back to the only thing we're sure of, which is fear.
Q: If I understand you aright, if I look at inattention, then attention comes. My only problem now is to look at inattention...
K: I have said on previous occasions, don't bother about attention, be aware of inattention. If you are aware of your inattention, there is attention, that's all. But sir, that is not the problem - how you refuse to face this thing.
K: Right, sir. Look, sir - let's forget the ifs, the attention, the ideals. Now take one thing, which is common to all of us, and go through right to the end of it, and see if the mind can be free of it. You follow? Nothing else. Now I'm going to take one thing, which is, we all live in comparison, don't we? We're always comparing, aren't we? No? Both outwardly and inwardly. And this comparison breeds in me, not only fear, the sense of inferiority, the sense of wanting to be like him, imitation, conformity, acceptance, depending on what I think is much better than 'what is'. Right? Shall we take that one thing and go to the very end of it, and see if your mind is completely free from all comparison. You understand my question? Shall we go into it?
Q: It's no question, we just have to be free. This is not a question, it is a fact that you have to be free.
K: Right. Why does my mind, your mind, compare? Look at it, sir. Why? Is it from childhood we have been taught to compare? That's one factor. All our social structure is based on that too. Our religious environment is based on that - you are nothing, you must be like a saint, this whole business is based on comparison.
K: No, madam - take one thing. You do compare, don't you, yourself with another. Now look at it and find out why this momentum exists in you - this constant measurement, not only with somebody else outside of you, but also the measurement that you have established according to your memory, the past. So you are always measuring, comparing, conforming. Are you aware of it? Wait, just hold on a minute. If you're aware of it, what do you mean by that word 'aware'? Just the word, don't say "It should be, it must be". What do you mean by being aware, I am aware that I am comparing.
Q: I see that I compare for a second.
Q: It may be that I don't get pleasure enough, so I think I will look at it and get more pleasure.
K: Is it that you don't look at this measurement of yourself, because if it gave you a lot of pleasure you would look at it longer? That's what the questioner says. Can you look at it, sir, do you know you are measuring yourself all the time? - 'I must be, I will become, I should not, I have been happy,' measure, measure, measure. Now can you look at it - which is a fact. I am looking at that microphone and I look at it. Now, when you look at it, what takes place? Go on, sir.
Q: I think I find excuses.
K: You find excuses for being, for comparing.
Q: We don't want to look at it.
K: We don't want to look at it. What are you going to do with such a - what shall I do? I know I'm comparing - my life, my education, the culture in which I have been born, all bring about, or shape the mind, the brain, everything, to compare myself with others, or compare myself with what I have been. Compare in the present, in the future, and in the past. And when I am aware of it, I find excuses for it - why should I compare, what's wrong with comparison, all the world compares.
And then I condemn it - how terrible to compare myself, why can't I be myself, I won't compare any more. You say you won't compare yourself any more because you say, "I'll be myself." Right? Then you say, "What is yourself?" You are following all this? I won't compare, I will not compare, I'll be myself, then you say, "Who is myself, what is myself?" Go on, sir. Myself is this comparison. No? If you don't compare, what takes place - you're not yourself, there's something else. Is that clear? Now are you like that? - that you say, "I have lived a life of comparison, becoming a scholar, professor," all the rest, comparing, comparing, comparing. And you justify it, because everybody else is doing the idiotic thing. And you also, being an idiot - not you - me - I'm also an idiot, so I follow. Now I realize that.
Then I say to myself, but I'm comparing myself with what I was yesterday. I was so happy yesterday, I'd no problems yesterday, it was such a lovely time yesterday. So you look at that, and again go through the process - I must keep some of that and relinquish the other. So you are constantly in battle, between the past, the future, and what you have, what you think is right in comparing yourself. All that is based on comparison. And then you say, "I'll be myself, I don't give a pin for others, what others - I'll be myself, identify myself." What is yourself? Yourself is part of this momentum of comparison. Now when you don't compare, what takes place?
Q: I am not myself.
K: You're not yourself? That's right, that's what we are saying. Please, just listen - when you don't compare, when you don't say, 'I'll be myself,' what takes place in the mind?
Q: There's a sense of detachment.
K: The gentleman says there's a sense of detachment - detachment from what?
Q: From previous comparisons.
K: Is detachment freedom? Sir, first we're talking about comparison. Then we say, "I'll be myself." When it is pointed out that yourself is the momentum of this comparison, comparative values and so on, then there is no detachment. I say, what takes place when you are not comparing? When you are not being, when you say, "I will be myself," - when all that's pushed aside, what takes place in your mind?
Q: There's attention to 'what is'.
K: Attention to what is - I don't know what that attention is. I'm going to cry presently.
Q: You're experiencing directly 'what is'.
K: What are you experiencing?
Q: There's no centre. No 'I'.
K: Is it so easy to say there's no 'I', because I've just learnt from another...
Q: But there is no...
K: Wait a minute, madam - I've just learnt from another, this whole momentum of comparison, and therefore I say I'm no longer, there is no 'me'. Who is saying there is no 'me'? I want to find out what happens to my mind when there is no comparison at all - and I don't say, "I will be myself" - all that's part of comparison. What takes place there?
Q: That's the psychological revolution we're talking about.
K: Psychological revolution of which you're talking about. I want to find out for myself what happens when there is no comparison. Listen quietly for two minutes, please. Just take two minutes to look at it. The mind is free of one burden, isn't it? It says, "The thing which I have carried about all my life, I've put it aside." So the mind, by examining, observing, being aware what the content of comparison implies, suddenly realizes the futility of it, the stupidity of it, the utter unintelligence of it. Therefore the mind has become intelligent.
Q: Before you spoke about comparison, I saw this in myself and I realized the comparison by sort of - not pushing it away but embracing it. Going with it - I am it. And then it disappeared.
K: Sir, by looking at comparison I have an insight into comparison, haven't I. I have an insight, I see it has no value, it has no meaning. The seeing is the intelligence. That's all. Now I want to have an insight into fear, into attachment, so I don't condemn it, I don't say I must be free of it, I just look at it, I want to learn about it. Therefore when I want to learn, I'm curious, I don't say, "I must have no fear, I must go beyond it, fear is this and fear is that," I want to look at it. Therefore when I look at it with that curiosity, with that affection, I begin to see things very clearly. Therefore the mind, unburdening itself of something it's carried for years and years, is free of it.
Now are you free of this comparison?
K: No. Why not?
Q: We always want to do something about it.
K: You always want to do something about it - we've been through all that. The gentleman says, "I really don't understand what you're talking about", let's go into it again. There is comparison between two things, when I choose between this cloth and that cloth, between this car and that car, between, I don't know - physical things - between material things there must be comparison. We're talking about psychological comparisons, psychological measurements. Psychological measurement comes into being when thought says, "You are much better than I am, you look so much more beautiful than I am, you are clever, I am dull," so I compare myself with you and I have made myself dull. Am I dull if I don't compare? I don't know. So I won't call myself dull any more. So is your mind, after listening to this for half an hour, free of comparison? Find out, not yes, no, it should be, it should not be - find out. And if it isn't, why isn't it? Is it because through comparison ambition takes root. And ambition is part of the social structure, religious, all the rest of it.
So I compare myself with somebody who is great or successful, has a bigger car and all the rest of it, because it gives me energy in my drive to be like, go beyond, which is ambition. Is that why you cling to comparison, because in that there is great pleasure?
So when you don't compare there is no ambition. Which doesn't mean you become a vegetable, or you accept things as they are - on the contrary. Now, are you like that, that when you see something through you've dropped it.
Q: Right now, as I hear you say this and I think to myself, immediately I look around me and I see another person, and I'm comparing already. Again. The very instant that I'm understanding. I'm looking at you on the stage and I can understand as clearly as possible what you are saying, and I say to myself, "That man's wiser," It doesn't simply stop for me.
Q: Isn't it that we all experience it but we don't know we are because we do not experience and know it, so we talk about it, we identify ourselves with the conditioning. But we are free.
K: We are free?
Q: Yes, when we are...
K: Oh, Lord, don't let's go back to that.
Q: Listen, I want to ask you something, because I've heard thousands and thousands of people for years talking, and this is a very vital question.
K: It is.
Q: When I talk to you, I'm asking, I identify myself with the conditioning, don't I? Because I have to work by intellect, I am forced to do that.
K: So you're saying, madam, that I am basically free, we are basically free, we are basically god...
K: Wait - it comes to the same thing. We are basically beautiful - when you say free, all these things are implied - not just free and then it has no meaning.
Q: God, freedom...
K: No, these things are implied when you say, "I am free." You say you're free, basically. In Asia they say, basically they have the elements of God, Atman and all the rest of it. I don't accept anything I don't know.
Q: You're not understanding me - what I mean is, in the instant when I look into myself and I don't identify myself with my intellect, in that second I am free, that's what I meant.
K: If you don't identify yourself with your intellect you are free.
Q: With the mind.
K: With the mind.
Q: No, listen - I'm trying to ask you something which is very important.
K: I understand, madam.
Q: And I'm very unhappy when I listen to you, and I feel it in myself and I'm trying to explain that I cannot...
K: What is that? What are you trying to explain?
Q: I'm trying to explain this, if we go on saying, we go on and on getting more and more concepts. But if I look really at myself, it's not...
K: Madam, that's what we are trying to do.
Q: Well look, you explained this - but when you look into yourself when you are not identifying, comparing, you are free.
K: When you're not identifying yourself you're free. Then the question arises, why does the mind identify, why do you identify yourself with your furniture, with your house, with your belief - why do you identify?
Q: Another habit.
K: Is it a habit? If it is a habit, seeing it is a habit - drop it. Why don't you?
Q: What I mean is, if I say I am identifying, I am identifying. If I'm not I'm free, that is completely free. Look at the picture - I come here and see Krishnaji for ten years and look...
K: I'm so sorry.
Q: And I'm very unhappy because Krishnaji is not there and I feel deep sorrow because he's not there. Well, what can I do about it, I can't bring you there. So I'm there and I see the same scenery and you're not there.
K: Look, madam, you've stated two things, or rather one basic thing, which is, don't identify, then there is freedom. That's the basic thing. Don't identify, but all the time I am identifying myself with something.
Q: All the time I am not identifying.
K: All the time I'm not identifying - so some of the time I'm identifying, at other times I'm not identifying. The times I identify when it becomes very important, I identify. Other things I don't identify with because they have no importance, so I'm playing this game all my life. Now, I say to myself, "Why does the mind identify itself with something, with my country, with my god, all the rest of it." Why? It's not only an intellectual question, but if I put that question to myself it brings about an awareness why I identify myself. Why do you identify yourself?
Q: Because without identify there is no one.
Q: I want a continuity of me.
K: No - what would happen if you didn't identify yourself?
Q: How can I answer that question?
K: Wait, I'll show it to you, sir, don't be so quick. I have identified myself with my books, with whatever it is, family and all the rest of it, country, belief and so on. Now first of all, in asking myself why I identify, I am not looking for the cause of my identification, but by putting that question there is not only the intellect operating, but also my emotional nature comes, and says, 'Why am I doing this?' which is an awareness, which is a total awareness, both intellectual understanding and all my emotional feelings enter into it. Why do I do this?
Q: Sir, is it because we are seeking a relative reality? A reality that is relative.
K: I don't know anything about reality or relevant - why do I identify myself with something?
K: You say it is security.
Q: I get pleasure.
K: Pleasure - look at it, please go into it, see the answers - security, pleasure.
Q: If I got pain I wouldn't do it.
K: If you had pain you wouldn't identify yourself with it. If somebody kicked me I wouldn't identify myself with it, but I would identify myself with somebody who gives me great pleasure. So watch it, sir, go into it. I identify myself because it gives me pleasure, gives me security, makes me feel certain, gives me comfort, satisfaction and so on, and I don't identify with anything that is uncomfortable, not pleasurable. That's a simple fact, isn't it?
Q: Sir, we identify and compare with ideals. Then if you see that ideals aren't very important, what's the conflict between the others, the conflict between ideas?
K: Just a minute, sir - how can I answer that question when we are discussing this. So I see this, that identification takes place when there is pleasure, pleasure is involved in security and all the rest of it, and there is no identification when there is pain. The one I want, the other I don't want.
Q: Isn't it the same thing?
K: Wait - it may be the same thing. Now what am I to do? What is my mind to do when it has been trained, when it has been educated, when it has been brought up in a culture which says, "Identify with everything that is pleasurable, that which is rewarding, and don't discard everything that gives you pain." Now what am I to do? Go on, sir, this is your problem. The more you identify with the things that give you pleasure, the more you are attached to it - your beliefs, you follow? Because it gives you pleasure, it gives you a sense of stability, security, gives you a sense that you are living. The other does not. Now, do you see this, do you see it intellectually, therefore verbally, or as a fact? Then if it is a fact, what takes place? Are you getting tired? We'll stop in five minutes.
What takes place if I see the meaning of identification, and therefore attachment? Then are you attached, identified with something, attached to something? I am attached to my wife, or I am attached to my house, or I am attached to a belief, because the belief gives me pleasure, the house gives me pleasure, though there is a lot of pain involved in it, insurance and all the rest of it. And also I am attached to a person, because that person gives me pleasure, comfort, flatters me, occasionally nags me, all that. But I put up with it because the pleasure is greater. So I'm attached to things, people and ideas. That's clear. And I see where there is attachment, identification, there must be also pain. I might lose my property, I might lose the person I'm attached to, or I must protect the belief to which I am attached, with which I have identified myself, therefore I'll fight you.
So I see where there is identification, however pleasurable it is, there is also in it pain. No? So I can't keep one and discard the other - they both go together. Do you see this? When you see this, are you attached, have you identified yourself with a person, with a property? When there is no identification, no attachment, what takes place in the mind? You've got rid of another burden, haven't you? The mind says, "All right, I've lived in a kind of fantasy, in a myth, which has given me tremendous pleasure, also it has given me a great deal of pain, so..."
Q: It is a shock when you stop.
K: Then it has no identification. Then what takes place? You don't know it, so you don't invent it, don't speculate about it. So your only concern is with identification, with attachment, not what happens afterwards. Then you're dealing with facts, and that will give you tremendous vitality.
Saanen 3rd Public Dialogue 4th August 1972.
Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.