Saanen 5th Public Dialogue 1st August 1976
This is the last discussion or dialogue, and before we ask questions may I say something?
We have talked about a great many things related to our personal life, a life which is common to all humanity, with all the problems, the confusion, the misery, the conflict, violence; and many other things we have talked about. And I hope it will not be merely a verbal description, but each one of us will face the actuality of our daily life and find our for ourselves if these teachings have any direct relationship in our life. Otherwise it would be such a waste of your energy and time and money to come and sit here on a damp day. And, if I may suggest, one should take these teachings as a whole, not take bits of it, what you like and reject the others, it is a total package, if I may use the modern word. And considering what is happening in the world - politically and all the appalling things that are going on - unless one radically as a human being changes fundamentally we will not be able to help humanity.
And it is very important, it seems to me, that we should not follow anybody, join any group, belong to any sect, but be concerned with the whole of mankind, the global problems of life. And to understand that, this enormous complex problem, one has to be, as we said, a light to oneself. And this light cannot be found through another, whatever they may say, however popular they are, whatever circus, one has to be free from all the authority, fear and so on. And what is important is, the first step is the last step. I hope you understand that. The first step that one takes is really the last step.
Now we can ask questions.
Q: Could we discuss, or talk about together, the question of awareness without following any particular system or practice? Go into the question of awareness.
Q: Can I ask a question? In understanding the problem of greed, it seems greed, or any other particular problem, there is a sense of deep relief. Now how can we sustain the drive without forming it into a practice? How can discovery not prevent other discoveries?
K: Yes. How is one if one discovers something not to make it into a memory, into a knowledge and so make it into a routine, and so lose the energy of that first discovery, and to maintain that all the time? That is the question.,
Q: Sir, can we go into what prevents this first discovery taking place, on the spot observation, now?
K: What prevents us from observing the fact and going beyond it?
Q: Is that also what leads to laziness?
K: Yes, is that part of laziness, indolence, and weight of tradition.
Q: Not part of that, is it the same movement?
K: The incapacity to observe what is actually going on now, is its root laziness?
Q: No, is it lack of energy on our part to observe immediately and act on that observation, is it lack of energy, laziness?
Q: Could we talk about love?
Q: Is it possible to have a technique without being conditioned by that technique?
Q: Do you have to be alone to be free, and in that freedom what is relationship with another human being? Cannot there be freedom in human relationship?
Q: Could we talk about what makes relationship creative?
Q: For many, many years you have talked about awareness. Is there any relationship between the language and awareness?
K: What is the relationship between the word awareness and the actuality of it? That's enough.
Q: (Long question, inaudible)
K: I understand. Sir, in one question you are putting so many things, sir. I think we are misunderstanding each other. I am sorry.
So which question shall we discuss? You have several questions: please talk about love, go into it much more deeply; what is the nature of energy that sustains constant discovery, constant moving; and you asked, what prevents observation and action; and does aloneness imply freedom; and can there be, in relationship, freedom? Now which shall we talk about?
Q: Love and compassion.
Q: The danger of words and being attached to words and not seeing the reality behind the word.
Q: The other way, through words one can come into awareness.
K: Also there was a question: please go into it in much more detail, what it means to be aware without a technique. Now which shall we discuss?
Q: Start with the words.
K: Do we want to go into this question of words, awareness, and include all the other questions which have been put to us?
What is the function of a word? If we use, or know English, or French, or Italian, or whatever it is, we use a word to communicate, to point out. When we say, 'door', we mean a particular door, to point it out. And words have made the mind accept and build a prison around itself. That is, we are prisoners of words - right? You dislike certain words and like certain words, words condemn or help, and so on. So what is the function of a series of words, or a sentence? Obviously to communicate. That is simple enough.
And is there a thought without a word? If there is no word, is there thinking? Or the words help to think? You are following this? Is thinking related to words? If there were no words would there be thinking? Is there a thinking without words - word being symbol, image, picture, all that? So is thinking part of the structure of words? I want to tell you something, can that be communicated without words? And it can be communicated without the word if we are both at the same level, at the same intensity, with the same interest, then there is a communion which is non-verbal. We understand it instantly by a gesture, which is not a word.
So part of thought is the verbalization to communicate what one thinks. I think about something and I want to communicate it to you. Either we are both telepathically in communication, which is dangerous, misleading unless we are both at the same level, with the same interests, with the same energy - so there is a non-verbal communication, a gesture, a look; and a verbal communication. But both are involved in thinking. Right? I think something. I may not put it into words but I make a gesture, and that gesture conveys a great deal, or a look. So words become important only for communication. And if we both understand the meaning of the word then communication is fairly simple. But if I spoke in Russian and you didn't understand Russian, then we can't communicate.
Now move from there. So thought is part of verbalization. That is, in thinking, the whole process of thinking, are words necessary - to make it very simple - are words necessary to think? You understand my question? Or is there a thinking without words? Is this all becoming too intellectual?
So we must go further into it. That is, is there a thinking without image, symbol, word? And if there is no symbol, word, image, what is then thinking? There may be no thinking, or a different form of thinking. We won't go into that because that leads somewhere else.
And what relationship has the word to actuality? The actuality of a word like the 'tent', is not the tent. The word is not the thing. That's simple. But for us the word is the thing. We identify the word with the thing, we don't separate the word from the thing. That's part of awareness. You get it? To separate the word from the thing. The tent is not the actual tent, the word. The word 'tent' is not the actuality. But for most of us when we use the word 'tent', the imagination is there already, you see the tent, so there is no separation. So part of awareness is to separate the word from the thing. Is this clear? So that makes a tremendous difference because I am going to show you something in a minute. Just hold on.
The word 'fear' is different from the actuality - right? The feeling of it. So we have to find out if the word creates the fear, or the feeling of fear is independent of the word. That's part of awareness. You understand? To separate the word from the actual. Then if the word is different from fear - the word fear is different from the actual, then what is the actual without the word? That's part of awareness. Are you following all this? Is this too complex?
So - please I'll repeat it again - is the word 'fear' the actual, and does the actual exist without the word? If it exists without the word, is it fear? That's part of awareness. You understand? So if it is independent of the word, then what is it that we call fear, if that feeling is independent of that word, what is it? It is just sensation - right? There is nothing wrong with sensation. So all that is part of awareness - to separate the word from the actual. You understand? To do this all the time. The word 'wife' is not the actual, but the word 'wife' instantly is identified with the actual. To separate the word from the actual, then there is quite a different process of observation, awareness. You understand? Are we getting somewhere?
So the word 'awareness' is not the fact. And to be aware, does it need a technique? That was one of the questions. Obviously not. Because if you practise awareness, it is just a mechanical process of verbalization, and not separate the word from the actual. You can do that now as we are sitting. Right.
So the whole significance of awareness, part of it, is to separate the word from the thing. Because the word 'Mr Smith' is not Mr Smith. But if I look at him without the name he is quite a different entity. So this is a tremendous process of awareness, which needs no practice, no technique, I can instantly see the truth of it.
Then in awareness is there choice? You understand my question? I am aware - the speaker is aware of all of you sitting there, with different coloured shirts and blouses or whatever it is. To observe, or to be aware without choice, observe the colours without saying, "I like", or "Don't like", "This is good,", just to observe. Right?
So to be aware implies the separation of the word from the fact, and in which there is no choice whatsoever. And this awareness is not concentration. Is it? Concentration implies exclusion, focussing one's desire on a particular thing - to concentrate, to focus one's observation on a particular thing, excluding other things. So concentration implies building a wall round yourself in order to exclude and concentrate - right? Now what is the relationship of awareness to concentration and attention? You follow? We are moving further into attention.
So when there is an awareness is there a concentration? Am I putting the question? Concentration, we said, is focussing one's desire, one's wish - I won't use the word attention - on a particular thing, and so exclude anything that interferes with that concentration - right? Awareness is not concentration. And is attention concentration? It is not. Where there is attention there is no centre from which to attend. Whereas in concentration there is a centre and therefore exclusion. I wonder if you get it? So we have talked about it enough.
So to be aware implies the separation of the word from the fact; and in that awareness there is no choice but only observation. You can see this happening in daily life, if you observe it, when you are interested in something very much you observe without any word. And attention is that. Attention implies no centre, therefore no border, therefore attention is tremendous, vast.
Now the other question is: does freedom imply aloneness? Right, that was the question that was asked. The meaning of the word alone means, all one. The dictionary meaning of that word means, all made into one, all one. Now how can there be freedom if there is self-centred activity, which prevents aloneness? Right? If I am concerned everlastingly about myself - my problems, my worries, my wife, my cooking, you know, worried, worried, concerned all about that, occupied, if my mind is occupied with many things, which is self-centred, there cannot be aloneness, can there? So freedom is a non-occupied mind. A mind which is occupied, it doesn't matter with what - god, with worries, with money, with sex, with pleasure - occupied, which most of us are, with something or other we are occupied - as long as there is this occupation with something there cannot be freedom, obviously.
And when there is that freedom, the questioner asks, what is relationship then? What is then relationship in that freedom - if you have such freedom? First have that freedom and find out. But without having that freedom we are asking, what is relationship. I am not trying to belittle it. But the fact is, our minds are occupied with chattering, with vanity, arrogance, all kinds of things, self pity and so on. Can that mind be free of all that? And when it is free isn't it alone? Because it is something totally different from the other whose mind is occupied. I wonder if you see that. Right?
So if a man, a human being, is free from this tremendous occupation that is going on, then what is his relationship? Can a human being find that out? To find that out he must unburden himself of all the content of occupation, the content of one's consciousness, which then is freedom. Then what takes place? You are free and another is not. You, as a human being, may be free from all worries and all occupation, and the other is not, then what is your relationship between the two? What is the responsibility of the man who is free and the other who is not?
Now you wanted to talk about love. What place has freedom, which is a man who is not occupied, burdened with tremendous occupation, problems and all the rest of it, what is his relationship with another who is not free, is there in that relationship love? Or it is only then there is love? Now look, what do we mean by the word love? Be careful! To separate the word from the thing. What is that thing when you separate the word, the feeling? You love another - what is it that you love? Please, you love another, don't you - your wife, your husband, your girl, your boy, or whatever you call it - you love. What does that word mean to you when you use that word? Has love a motive? Please, don't shake your head, for us it has. Because you give another sex, or give him comfort, or cook his meal, or depend on him, possess him, dominate him, push him around, or her around - possess, attachment, all that is implied in that word. Jealousy, anger, hatred, a sense of anxiety, fear, because you may lose that person, all that arises, and that we call love. Right? We are not being cynical, we are just looking at facts.
Q: Is there one moment when there is something else?
K: We will come to that, sir, an instant. We will come back to that.
To discover what it means to love, mustn't one be free of all that? Free of attachment - let's take that for the moment. When one is attached, what are you attached to? Suppose one is attached to a table, what does that attachment imply? Pleasure, sense of possession, and the utility of it, the feeling that it is a marvellous table I must hold it, and so on and so on. So when a human being is attached to another, what is going on? One is attached to you. What is this feeling of the other who is attached to you? In that attachment there is pride of possession, a sense of domination, fear of losing it, losing that person, therefore jealousy, and therefore greater attachment, greater possessiveness - right? And jealousy, anxiety, all that comes up. Now if there is no attachment does it mean no love, no responsibility? You understand my question? So for most of us love means this terrible conflict between human beings, and so relationship becomes a perpetual anxiety. You know all this, I don't have to tell you. And that we call love. And to escape from this terrible strain of what we call love, we have all kinds of entertainments - the television entertainment, the - forgive me if I use the word - religious entertainment. Marvellous we quarrel and go off to church, or the temple, and come back and begin again. So all this is going on all the time.
So can man, or woman, be free of all this? Or is that impossible? If it is not possible then our life perpetually is a state of anxiety, and from that all kinds of neurotic attitudes, beliefs, actions take place. Now is it possible to be free of attachment, which implies a great deal? Is it possible for a human being to be free of attachment, and yet feel responsible?
Now to be free of attachment doesn't mean its opposite - detachment. You follow. This is very important to understand this. When we are attached we know the pain of attachment, the anxiety of it, and we say, "For god's sake I must detach myself from all this horror." So the battle of detachment begins, the conflict. Whereas if you observe, are aware of the fact and the word, the word attachment and freedom from that word, which is the feeling, then to observe that feeling without any judgement - to observe it. Then you will see out of that total observation there is quite a different movement taking place, which is neither attachment or detachment. You understand this? Are you doing it as we are talking, or are you just listening to a lot of words? You know you are attached, don't you - to a house, it doesn't matter to what, to something or other, to a belief, to a prejudice, to a conclusion, to a person, to some ideal, tremendously attached. Attachment gives great security, which is an illusion - right? It is an illusion to be attached to something because that something may go away. So what you are attached to is the image which you have built about that. I wonder if you get it.
So can you be free of this attachment so that there is a responsibility which is not a duty? Then what is love when there is no attachment? You understand my question? Look: if you are attached to a nationality, you worship isolation of nationality, which is a form of glorified tribalism, you are attached to it. What does that do? It breaks it up, doesn't it? I am attached to my nationality as a Hindu, tremendously, and you are attached to Germany, France, Italy, nationality, England. We are separate. And the wars, and all the complexity of all that goes on. Now if there is no attachment, and you have no attachment, what takes place? Is that love? I wonder if you are getting it? Are we understanding each other a little bit?
So attachment separates - right? I am attached to my belief, and you are attached to your belief, therefore there is separation. Just see the consequences of it, the implications of it - which we can't go into now, it is too much. So where there is attachment there is separation, and therefore there is conflict. Where there is conflict there cannot possibly be love. And what is the relationship of a man and a woman, or a man and whatever it is, what is his relationship to another when there is freedom? You understand? Freedom from attachment, all the implications of it. Is that the beginning - I am just using the word beginning, don't jump on it - is that the beginning of compassion? You understand? When there is no nationality, and there is no attachment to any belief whatsoever, to any conclusion, to any ideal, then that human being is a free human being. And his relationship with another is out of freedom, isn't it, out of love, out of compassion. I wonder if you are getting all this?
So what next? You see all this is, isn't it, a part of awareness. Now must you analyse, as we have done, analyse what attachment means, the implications of attachment and so on; or can you observe the totality of it instantly, and then analyse? Not the other way round. I wonder if you see. We are used to analysis. Part of our education is to analyse, and so we spend a lot of time on that. So we are proposing something quite different: to observe, then see the totality, and then analyse. Then it becomes very simple. But whereas if we analyse and try to reach the totality you may go wrong - which you generally do. But to observe the totality of something, which means no direction, as we went into yesterday, then analysis either becomes important or unimportant, you can analyse or not analyse.
Now I would like to go into something else from this. Which is, is there something sacred in life, which is part of all this? Is there something sacred in your life, holy? Remove the word, separate the word, the image, the symbol, which is very dangerous, and when you do that, ask yourself, "Is there anything really sacred in my life?" Or is everything so superficial, everything so put together by thought? And thought is not sacred, is it? Do you think thought is sacred, and the things that thought has put together are sacred? And yet we have been conditioned to that - as a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Christian, we are conditioned to worship, adore, or whatever one does, pray, to things that thought has put together. And that we call sacred. I wonder if we are meeting each other.
So one has to find out, because if you do not find out if there is something really sacred, which is not put together by thought, life becomes more and more superficial, more and more mechanical, and utterly meaningless at the end of one's life. I wonder if one realizes this. You know we are so attached to thinking, and the whole process of thinking, and worship the things that thought has put together. Thought whether through the mind as an image, as a symbol, or through the hand, a sculpture, a symbol; the image made by the hand or by the mind is the process of thought. And thought, we said, is memory, experience, knowledge, which is past. And the past becomes the tradition, and the tradition becomes the most sacred thing. So are we worshipping the tradition, or is there something which has nothing to do with thought and tradition, with rituals, you know, all the circus that goes on? So one has to find out. How do you find out? Not the method - sorry, when I use the word 'how', I am not using it as a method. Then let me use a different word. Is there something sacred in life? There is the whole block of humanity which says, "There is absolutely nothing. You are the result of environment, and change the environment then you will never talk about anything sacred. Then you will be a mechanical, happy individual." You know the whole block - the communist world, the tyrannical world and all the rest of it. So if one is very, very serious about this matter, and one has to be really profoundly serious, whether you belong to one that says, "Please, nothing but matter" - matter being thought process; that is materialism in the deep sense of that word. And the other calls itself religious, which is actually material. I wonder if you see that. Because that is also based on thought. So if you belong to neither then you have to find out. You don't assert anything. Then you begin to enquire.
Now what does it mean to enquire into oneself so as to find out if there is anything deeply sacred, holy, in one's life - in life, not in one's life, in living? Is there something marvellously, supremely, sacred - or there is nothing at all?
Are you interested in all this? Because we are becoming more and more materialistic. You may go to churches, temples, mosques, but it is all the structure of thought, put together by very clever cunning thought. Because thought wants security, and therefore it finds security in those things which it has created. And what it has created it says, is sacred - the gods, you know, the whole business of it. Can one be free of the movement of thought and what it has created as sacred, put that aside, and also not say everything is completely materialistic - you follow? So when you are in that position, neither this nor that, then what is the mind to do to find out? You understand my question? If you are very serious - and this demands that one must be profoundly serious otherwise you will play, it becomes a game and leads to illusion - so what will happen? May I go into it? Please share it, for god's sake share it, otherwise it becomes another messy word, sentimental nonsense.
It becomes necessary to have a very quiet mind, doesn't it. Because it is only in freedom you can find out - right? There must be freedom to look. But if you say, "Well, I like my belief, I'll stick to that", you are not free. Or if you say, "Everything is materialistic", which is a movement of thought, then also you are not free. So there must be freedom from the imposition of civilizations, personal desires, personal hopes, and then observe. And you can only observe when the mind is completely still. If there is no stillness in the mind movement takes place - right? Movement being time, thought. So it is absolutely necessary to be free to observe, free from one's prejudices, from one's longing, from one's fears - all that which we have talked about endlessly during these seven talks and four or five discussions. Can the mind be completely without movement? Do you understand my question? Because if there is movement there is distortion. So can the mind be completely still? And one finds it terribly difficult because thought comes in immediately, so one says, "I must control thought." The controller is the controlled - we have been through all that, I won't go into it. When you see that, that the thinker is the thought, the controller is the controlled, the observer is the observed, then there is no movement. You understand? When one realizes anger is part of the observer who says, "I am angry", so anger and the observer are the same. That is clear, that is simple. In the same way, the thinker who wants to control thought is still thought. When one realizes that the movement of thought stops. I wonder if you see that.
So when there is no movement of any kind in the mind then naturally the mind is still, without effort, without compulsion, without will, without all that, it is naturally still, not cultivated stillness because then it is mechanical, which is not stillness, which is just an illusion of stillness. So there is freedom - freedom implies all that we have talked about - and in that freedom there is silence, which means no movement. Then you can observe - then there is observation, then there is only observation, not the observer observing. Get it? So there is only observation out of total silence, complete stillness of mind. Then what takes place? You understand? I can go further into it, but you won't. Then it becomes a theory. You follow. Then it becomes something and you say, "I will argue about that". We can argue and show that I am wrong or right, or this or that, But if you have gone that far, which is, freedom from one's conditioning, and therefore no movement, and complete silence, quietness, which is what? Then there is the operation of intelligence, isn't there? I wonder if you get it?
Look, I'll show you. We said attachment implies great pain, anxiety, fear and therefore deepening of possession. To see that is part of intelligence, isn't it? Is this clear? To see the nature of attachment and all its implications, to have an insight into it, is intelligence - not the cunning intelligence of thought, I am not talking of that intelligence. The intelligence which says, "How true that is". It is this intelligence that is now in operation. You understand what I am talking about? I wonder if you follow what I am saying?
Q: Sir, I am afraid it is only theoretical.
K: Theoretical, I know. No, no. If you see it - listen sir - if you see attachment, all the implications of attachment, and see the danger of attachment, the perception is intelligence. That's all. That's all.
Q: That intelligence is going on.
K: No, I am relating it, I am going to relate it. You will see it in a minute.
Q: Why doesn't one realize that the observer is the observed?
K: Why doesn't one realize it? Part of our tradition is that the observer is different from the observed - right? That is part of tradition, part of education, part of our whole social, religious structure, that the observer is totally different from the observed. But can you see the observer is the observed? Do you realize it? Not only now for the moment because I am pushing you into a corner, but actually do you realize it? That there is no thinker without thought? So the thinker is the thought. Is that terribly difficult to see?
Q: It is very difficult to see that for us.
Q: Are you speaking of self observation?
K: No, no, we have gone beyond that. He raised a question madam, which is, do we actually realize that the observer is the observed, or are you accepting it as an idea? Then the idea becomes important, then you will ask how is that idea to be carried out. Then we are lost. So, now please, just try this: listen to what is being said, listen, don't translate it, or refute it, or argue with it, just listen. It may be wrong, but listen. The speaker says, the observer is the past, the observed is the present. The observer meets the present with the eyes and understanding of the past, therefore there is no meeting of the present. That is simple enough, right. I am trying to explain something, please listen. We said the observer is the past, and our life is based on the past, because we remember, all our knowledge, all our experience is stored as the past. That background, that conditioning, meets the present, and translates what is meets in terms of the past. So the observer maintains separation - right? But if there is no observer there is only the present. Right? Obviously. So the thinker thinks he is separate from thought - right? But is there a thinker without thinking? So the thinker is the thought. That's simple. Now do you realize that?
Q: If I am not the one looking who am I?
K: You are the thought. You are thought. You are thought because you are the form, the name, and all the psychological build up of thought - my belief, my anxiety, my pain, the whole movement of thought. This is simple, sir. We have been through this a hundred times.
So do you actually realize that the observer is the observed? When you see a tree, or a car, the observer is not the car - I hope not - or the tree. We are not talking of that, we are talking psychologically, inwardly. The observer separates himself, so he says, "I am different from the observed", but they are essentially one. Anger is not separate from the person who says, "I am angry". Anger is the person, is the psyche, and so on. We have gone into this. So do you see this fact that the observer is the observed? If you don't see it conflict then will continue between the observer and the observed, anger and the entity who says, "I am different from anger". Then he controls it, suppresses it, tries to change it, you know the whole business you go through. That's a wastage of energy. There is no wastage of energy, and therefore no conflict when the observer is the observed. That's simple. What is the difficulty, I don't quite see.
Q: Why don't you see for us it is so difficult?
K: Because it is fairly simple, isn't it, for most people because they are so traditionally bound. It is a simple fact, you are bound to that separation. You won't let go and say, "Let us find out".
K: I don't know about individuals, sir. The word individual means an entity who is not divided. The meaning is, indivisible, then he is only an individual. But we are so fragmented, so broken up, so distorted, we may call ourselves individuals, but we are not. But that is irrelevant.
The first thing then is to eliminate conflict which is a wastage of energy. And to eliminate that wastage is to realize the observer is the observed, the Arab is the Jew, the Hindu is the Muslim - only in name, you follow, it is so silly.
Q: But it is much more difficult to realize the conditioning is the conditioner.
K: That's right, sir. So much more difficult to realize our conditioning. Our conditioning is to live in the past - right? Our life is based on past memories, past hurts, past anxieties, everything is somewhere behind us. That is our life. And we don't see when we live in the past we can never understand what is going on inwardly. So unless one realizes the observer is the observed, the thinker is the thought, or the experiencer is the experience, there is no freedom from conflict. The god that one worships is surely put together by thought, isn't it? But the man who say, "No, it is God", you can't argue with him, you can't even open the door, he is firmly part of the tradition, and bound by his conditioning. But those who say, "All right, I am enquiring, going into it," then one has a communication with them, which is to observe, to see that the observer is the observed and so end conflict. The ending of conflict means freedom. In that freedom is intelligence. You understand? Because I have seen the observer is the observed, which is intelligence to see that. And that intelligence is part of this freedom, isn't it?
So to have this silent mind, which is necessary, if one is serious, to find out if there anything totally uncontaminated by thought and humanity. All the religions have said there is, and the priests all over the world have said, "We are the interpreters of that", and that is their market value and so on. So if you discard all that, really discard because your intelligence says, that is all too absurd, then your mind is completely still. Is it still now? Or are you still chattering? Go on sirs, it is for you to answer. If it is not still, then find out why it is not quiet, spend some time, energy, not 'how to make it still', that becomes too absurdly childish, find out why it isn't still, enquire. You understand? Because you are attached to a shoe, and what you are going to do tomorrow, or have for dinner, I have this, I have that, I must do that, I must read, I must do my exercises - you follow - chattering, chattering, chattering. Now the chattering is part of the thought, part of the chatter, isn't it? The one who chatters is the entity that says, "Yes, I am chattering", they are not separate. The chattering and the entity who says, "I am different", the entity who says, "I am different" is actually the chatterer. Now if you see that, actually see it, then it is finished. Then there is no conflict not to chatter. Unless you come to that point, which is, to be free and therefore the operation of intelligence going with it, then only you have a quiet, healthy, sane mind. And in that quietness you will find out if there is something really sacred, or nothing at all.
Saanen 5th Public Dialogue 1st August 1976
Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.