Saanen 3rd Question & Answer Meeting 31st July 1981
This is the last question and answer meeting. Probably you should meet again next year.
One always wonders why one asks questions. Is it out of curiosity or to stimulate a challanging question which will stimulate the speaker and so bring out something new? Or we ask questions which are put by serious person with serious problem? If it is a serious problem in one's life then such questions have an importance, have a sense of vitality; and such questions can be answered truthfully, in depth. There are some of these questions which have been put, which I have chosen this morning or rather last night. And there are too many questions all together, probably about hundred or more - over hundred and fifty - and it is impossible to answer all those questions. So we have chosen what is probably applicable to all those questions and not according to what one likes or easy to answer but we have chosen these. And I hope, you will excuse us if we do not answer all the questions.
Q: I hope, you excuse me for disturbing you. I hope, I do not disturb you too much. I feel yet so distance from you in order to say that you don't want to be a guru, I still feel that you are. You sitting there; we are so far away from you and I wonder, it cannot be changed. That's my own question.
K: Sitting on a platform doesn't give one authority. Sitting on a platform, little rised above is only for convenience because you can see the speaker and the speaker can see you. And the whole question of authority, guru - we have dealt with that question so very often. Perhaps we should deal with it again. There is a question with regard to gurus little later on. May we wait till then, sir?
1st QUESTION: If two people have a relationship of conflict and pain, can they resolve it, or must the relationship end? And to have a good relationship isn't it necessary for both to change?
I hope the question is clear. What is the cause in relationship of pain, conflict and all the problems that arise in relationship? What is the root of it? Please in answering these questions we are thinking together, I am not answering it and you just receiving it or accepting it, or reject it, but together we are enquiring into these questions. This is a question that concerns all human beings, whether they are in the East, here, or in America. This is a problem that really concerns most human beings. Apparently two people, man and woman, cannot live together without conflict, without pain, without a sense of inequality, without that feeling that they are not profoundly related to each other. One asks why? There may be multiple causes, sexual, lack of temperament, the opposite feeling that of belief, of ambition, there may be many, many causes for this lack of harmony in relationship. But what is really the source, the depth of that source, which brings conflict in each of us? I think that is the important question to ask, to ask and then not wait for an answer from somebody, like the speaker, but having put the question, have the patience to wait, hesitate, let the question itself take seed, flower, move. I don't know if I am conveying that feeling.
I ask myself why, if I am married to a woman, or live with a woman, why do I have this basic conflict between us. I can give a superficial answer - because she is a Roman Catholic and I am a Protestant, or I am this or that, those are all superficial reasons. But I want to find out what is the deep rooted, or deep source of this conflict between two people. I have put the question and I am waiting for the question itself to flower, to expose all the intricacies that lie behind the question because there are a great many intricacies in the question and what the question brings out. For that I must have a little patience - right? A little sense of waiting, watching, being aware, so that the question begins to unfold. As it unfolds I begin to see the answer. Not that I want an answer but the question itself begins to unroll, show me the extraordinary complexity that lies between two people, between two human beings that perhaps like each other, perhaps are attracted to each other, when they are very young they get sexually - and all the rest of it - and later on as they grow a little older they get bored with each other and gradually escape from that boredom through another person - divorcing or quietly, you know, all the rest of it. But the same problem exists with the other. So I have to have patience. Patience, I mean by that word, not allowing time to operate. I do not know if you have gone into the question of patience and impatience.
Most of us are rather impatient. We want our questions answered immediately, or escape from it immediately, operate upon it immediately. So we are rather impatient to get on with it. This impatience doesn't give one the depth of understanding of the problem. Whereas if one had patience, which is not of time, because I am patient, I am not wanting to end the problem, I am watching, looking at the problem, let it evolve, grow. So out of that patience I begin to find out the depth of the answer. Right? Let us do that together now this morning. We are patient, not wanting an immediate answer and therefore our minds, brains are open to look, are aware of the problem and its complexity - right? We are trying - no, I don't want to use the word 'trying' - we are penetrating into the problem why two people can never seem to live together without conflict. What is the root of this conflict? What is the depth or the superficiality of this conflict? And what is my relationship with her, or with somebody? Is it superficial? That is, sexual, the attraction, the curiosity, the excitement, which are all superficial, sensory responses are superficial - right? So I realize these responses are being superficial and as long as I try to find an answer superficially I will never be able to see the depth of the problem. So am I free from the superficial responses and the problems that superficial responses create and try to solve those problems superficially? I don't know if you are following?
I have seen that so I won't find an answer superficially. Therefore I say, what is the root of it? Is it education? Is it being a man I want to dominate the other? I want to possess the other? I am attached so deeply I don't want to let go? And do I see that being tied, attached, will invariably bring about corruption? You follow? - corruption in the sense I am jealous, I am anxious, I am frightened, I want all the sequences of attachment - one knows very well. Is that the cause of it? Or is the cause much deeper? You follow? First of all we said superficial, then emotional attachments, emotional and sentimental and romantic dependence? If I discard those, then is there still a deeper issue involved in this? You are getting it? We are moving from the superficial lower and deeper and deeper so that we can find out for ourselves what is the root of it. I hope you are doing this. Right?
Now how do I find the root of it? How do you find the root of it? Are you wanting an answer - right? Wanting to find the root of it and therefore making a tremendous effort? Or you want to find it so your mind, your brain is quiet, looking - right? So it is not agitated, it is not the activity of desire, will. It is just watching. Are we doing together this? Just watching to see what is the deep root, or deep cause, the basis of this conflict between human beings. Is it the sense of individual separation? See, go into it very carefully please. Is it individual concept that I am separate from the other basically, though biologically we are different but the sense of deep rooted individual separative action, is that the root of it? Or is there still a deeper root, a deeper layer, you understand? I wonder if you are following all this? We are together in this? First sensory responses, sensual responses, then emotional, romantic, sentimental responses, then attachment, with all its corruption? Or is it something profoundly conditioned brain that says, "I am an individual, and he - or she - is an individual. And we are separate entities, each must fulfil in his own way and therefore the separation is basic." - right? Is that so?
Is it basic? Or I have been educated to that? That I am an individual and she - also an individual - must fulfil herself in her own way and I must equally. So we have already started from the very beginning these two separate directions. They may be running parallel together but never meeting. Like two railway lines that never meet. And all I am doing is to try to meet, try to live harmoniously, struggle, "Oh, darling you are so good" - you follow? - repeat, repeat, but never meet. Right?
So if that is the cause, and apparently it appears to be the cause, the root of it, is that separative existence of an individual a reality? Or it is an illusion which I have been nourishing, cherishing, holding on to, without any validity behind it? If it has no validity I must be quite sure, absolutely, irrevocably sure that it is an illusion and can the brain break away from that illusion and realize we are all similar, psychologically? You follow? My consciousness is the consciousness of the rest of mankind, though biologically we differ, psychologically, our consciousness is similar to all human beings. If I once realize this, not intellectually but in depth, in my heart, in my blood, in my guts, the feeling, then my relationship to another undergoes a radical change - right? Inevitable.
Now the questioner asks: we are in conflict, must it end? If we battle with each other all day long, as most people are, struggle, conflict, you know, the bitterness, the anger, the hatred, the repulsion - we bear it as long as we can and then comes the moment when we have to break. We know the familiar pattern of it, there are more divorces after marriages. And the questioner asks: what is one to do? If I am everlastingly in conflict with my wife and somehow I can't patch it over, must the relationship end? Or I understand basically the cause of this disruption, of this conflict, which is the sense of separate individuality and I have seen the illusory nature of it and therefore I am no longer pursuing the individual line, therefore what takes place between me, who has perceived that and lives it, not verbally maintains it but actually lives it, then what is my relationship with the person, with the woman who still thinks in terms of the individual? You understand my question?
It is very interesting. Go into it. I see, or she sees - better put it onto her - she sees the foolishness, the absurdity, the illusory nature of the individual, she understands it, she feels it, and I don't because I am a male, I am more aggressive, more driving and all the rest of that. So what takes place between us? She has comprehended the nature and I have not. She won't quarrel with me, never - right? She won't enter into that area at all but I am constantly pushing her, driving her and trying to pull her out of that area. I am creating the conflict, not she - you have understood how the whole thing has moved? Are you following all this? The whole thing has moved. There are no two people quarrelling but only one. See what has taken place. And I, if I am at all sensitive, if I have real feeling for her, I begin to also transform because she is irrevocably there - you understand? She will not move out of that area. See what happens. If two immovable objects meet there is conflict. I don't know if you see. But if one is immovable, the lady, and I am movable I naturally yield to that which is immovable - right? I wonder if you understand this. This is very simple.
So the problem then is resolved if one has real comprehension of relationship, without the image - which we went into previously. Then by her very presence, by her very vitality of actuality she is going to transform me, help me. That is the answer. Got it?
2nd QUESTION: Would you please go into what you mean by reading the book of one's life at a glance? Or with a single look.
I think it is fairly obvious that we human beings are the history of mankind. Right? In us is the totality of all human psychological knowledge - right? That is fairly obvious. I hope. Must I go into that? That is, the story of mankind, which is wars, tears, bloodshed, pain, grief, laughter, agony, anxiety, loneliness, sorrow, all that is part of me, I am that. I am the story of all that - right? The book of history is me, not the kings - part of the kings too, I am all that. Now can I read that book, which is me, do I have to read it page by page, chapter by chapter, not missing a single line until I come to the end of the book? You understand my question? I am the story of all mankind, that is fairly simple, to see that even intellectually - right? Do I see that intellectually that I am the story of all mankind; all mankind suffers, has shed tears, laughter, irritation, conformity, every sense of indignity, vulgarity, superficiality, I am all that - otherwise I wouldn't elect the politicians as they are - right? So I am all that, including the priest, and the gods that thought has invented. I am all that. Now that book is me. Have I to read page by page? Or can I understand that whole book with one glance, with one single look? You understand the two questions?
We are saying it is impossible to read that book page by page, chapter by chapter. That would take you all your life because all your life is a period of time. During that time you are adding more and more, or taking away little by little. But you are gathering more and more. So the book can never be read page by page. It can never be read - you understand? If you understand that, which is logical, objective, if you realize that it cannot be read page by page then you have only one issue: which is to look at it with eyes that comprehend from the beginning to the end at a glance. You understand? What does that imply? What does it imply to look at yourself, which is the story of mankind, historia, mankind, to look at it? You understand? Again this requires patience. To look at it with a patient, silent brain so that the book itself unfolds rapidly.
Now, just a minute: when you have a map of Switzerland - is it Switzerland, yes - when you have a map of Switzerland with all the lakes and the mountains and all that, the beauty of the land, if you have a particular direction from Gstaad to Bern you are only concerned with that route. You don't look at the rest of the map. That is, you have a particular direction and if you have a particular direction you neglect to look at the rest of the map. Please understand this. But if you have no direction then you look all round. You have understood? The moment you have a motive which gives you a direction, then you are only looking in a particular direction. But if you have no motive and also no direction then you look at the whole map at a glance. You have understood? Now can you do this, the same with oneself - anger, jealousy, brutality, aggression, attachment - all that. That is the whole map of yourself, which requires quietness of the brain and no direction. Then you see clearly the whole of it. You hear the whole tone of that history and you have captured immediately, the wholeness of it - right? Have you got it?
Shall we go on to the next question?
3rd QUESTION: Some of us including myself have had experiences of seeing lights, a feeling of oneness with the universe, energy, the awakening of kundalini, inward clarity. These last sometimes for moments, for hours. Are these not steps towards illumination?
K: Can we be little bit funny? I wonder if one's liver is alright when you see lights, flashes and all that. (laughter) Just a minute, just a minute. You know, some people do have, seriously, certain experiences, certain perceptions. I wouldn't call experiences. Now let's examine what experiences are. What is an experience? Either it is sensory experience, sensual experiences or psychological experiences, actual physical experiences like pain, toothache and so on. We are talking here about psychological experiences.
Now what do you mean by experience? An incident, a happening which you must recognise, name it, and therefore the experience is different from you who are experiencing? I don't know if you follow all this. Therefore it means, if the experiencer is experiencing something, he must know what it is. He must be able to recognize it, otherwise it is not an experience, right? I don't know if you follow all this. If I can't recognize the experience, it doesn't exist. I recognize it because I have already had the symptoms, the knowledge of it. Therefore I say that is an experience. I have seen by experience as a Hindu - if I am a Hindu - some deity because my brain is conditioned to that. If you are a Christain, you have an experience of Jesus or whatever it is. So as long as there is an experiencer separate from the experience, experience - what you call the new experience, is really the old experience manifesting itself in a different form and you recognize it. And you call that experience. Now a mind that is clear, absolutely without that shadow of self, has no experience. Right? Because there is nothing to experience.
Illumination is a state of experience which is so absurd. Because, sir, truth or that ultimate energy, you can't experience. You can't say well, I have reached that. That statement: I have read, that is full of vanity and arrogance. A mind, a brain or a mind that is free from arrogance, which is utterly in its simplicity humble, in which there is no self whatsoever then that eternity might be there. But if you say I am experiencing that then you are - it is like experiencing anger. It is as good as anger. But don't let's call it illumination.
And there is this new brought again from India - I wish they would keep it to themselves - brought from India, about the Kundalini. Probably many of you have heard this. If you haven't, forget it. But if you have, those people who write about it, forgive me please, I am saying this most respectfully, those who talk about do not know anything about it. You might say what right have you to say that. Why do you say that they do not know? Which means you know, right? Naturally that is an obvious question. I don't want - personally, I don't want to enter into this question because anybody who says, I know what it means, they do not know. It's much too complex. The whole idea is this: Energy, when it is misused, destroys the energy that can comprehend the total source of energy. Do you understand? If I misuse my energy in various forms - arrogance, selfish action, competition, agression, soaked in sorrow and talking endlessly about it, or constantly being occupied with something or other, I am wasting energy. Obviously, like a motor running all the time in the garage; it will soon wear itself out. But the idea of all this is that, this energy when it is not wasted in any direction, that very human energy which is not the energy created by conflict or the energy created by thought, that energy is or apprehends the total energy of universe. That is the idea about Kundalini and all that kind of stuff.
So the questioner says, asks, is this a process of illumination? You can't, if one may point out again most respectfully, you cannot prepare for illumination. It is like cooking a nice dish. You take time till the potatoes collect... (laughter). And illumination is not something that you come gradually, process. It is there if you are utterly, totally unselfish and have a brain that is utterly without a shadow of conflict.
4th QUESTION: You have invited your audience, listeners, to doubt, to question. It becomes necessary to question rightly, so would it be worthwhile to go into the issue of a wrong question and the whole art of questioning? (Which we have done, but I'll read it again.)
Please the speaker has not invited you to question, to doubt, to have scepticism. It is part of one's own natural intelligence. It is not the speaker says, "Let's doubt". That is meaningless. But if we are not gullible, if we want to question, if we want to find out, if we want to enquire, penetrate, you have to have scepticism, you have to doubt your own experiences, your own standards, your own conclusions, your own prejudices. But we don't. We question, doubt what others are saying - right? Now when one is questioning out of one's own innate enquiry, penetration, doubt, then it has importance, then it has vitality, it clears the brain of its prejudices. If I am prejudiced and I hold on to that never questioning it, my brain becomes gradually dull. But if I question my prejudices, my beliefs, my conclusions, my whole concept of religious behaviour, religious all the rest of it, my brain becomes lighter, clearer, active. Right? Naturally. So the speaker is not inviting you to doubt. You have to doubt, that is part of life. It is only the gullible, the people who want to hold on to some fanciful, romantic, sentimental image that daren't doubt.
And the art of questioning: you know there are three arts: the art of listening, the art of seeing, and the art of learning - right? The art of listening is to listen without interpretation - right? To listen without translating what is being said to suit your own comfort and desires. To listen not only with the hearing of the ear but to listen to the word and what lies behind the word and listen so attentively that you capture the depth of the meaning. The art of seeing is to observe without the word, without the name, without the form; which means to observe without any direction, without any motive, to observe so that you capture the whole movement of yourself - you follow? The movement of the trees, of the rivers, of the hills, to see. And the art of learning is, as we have learnt the art now, to accumulate knowledge. That is the art of learning. I don't know mathematics but I study, I have a professor who will teach me and gradually I learn mathematics so that I can apply it as an engineer, or a technician, to the whole technological world - right? (loud noise of engine) Can I wait for that?
The art of learning is to accumulate knowledge about any subject and specialize in that subject, and act skilfully. That is what we call learning. That is, gather knowledge, information and then act. The other is act and from that action learn - which is the same as the other. I don't know if you are following all this? Right? I gather information in order that I can live, have a livelihood, act skilfully or unskillfully. Or the other is: is to act and from that action learn. Which is, from that action I have accumulated knowledge. They are both similar. They are not separate, they are both similar but some are emphasizing the other, which is, act first and learn from action. This is being trotted out by some - I won't go into it. So both are the same: which is, accumulate knowledge and act.
Now is there another form of learning? It is very interesting if you go into it, question it. We are familiar with the old system: accumulate knowledge, and act. Is there another learning - we will use the word learning for the moment, in quotes - is there another learning which is not accumulating? You understand? Because see what happens: when you accumulate knowledge and act skilfully, your skill is always limited - right? Limited according to your knowledge and knowledge can never be complete and therefore your action will inevitably be incomplete and therefore cause conflict - right? That is clear. Now we are asking: is there an action which is not based on knowledge? This is a difficult question, please have patience and find out. Is there another form of action which is not based on learning, accumulating knowledge? See what action born of knowledge implies. One must be very clear on that. Are you getting tired?
Let's start again. One must be very clear: the implications of learning, being informed, and from that knowledge act. That knowledge can never be complete therefore action can never be complete. And therefore such action must bring about regrets, guilt, the feeling of guilt and conflict. That is clear. Is there another quality of action which is not based on knowledge, which is based on thought - you understand? An action which is not based on thought. Thought being the response of knowledge, experience, memory, stored in the brain. Action of thought is limited therefore there are regrets, pain, sorrow and all the rest of it. Is there an action which is not born of thought? You get the question? Are we meeting the question?
Let's find out. If you see what knowledge and action imply and the truth of it, not the intellectual concept and acceptance of it, but the truth of it - right? - that action based on thought must inevitably create conflict, guilt, regret and all that. Because thought itself is deeply, irrevocably, limited, because knowledge is limited about anything. Now is there an action not born of thought? Probably this is the first time you hear it, therefore your whole attitude to it would be to resist it. Or you might say, "Prove it. We know the other very well but as we don't know this, prove it to us" - right? I am not proving it to you. I am not a conjurer. All that the speaker is saying is: watch the two - you understand? Watch very clearly the limitations of actions borne of thought. And question, enquire, penetrate into an action which is not borne of thought. "For us," you say, "I don't know what that means because I have never even looked at it, considered it." So somebody comes along and says let's look at it together - right? I am that person, the speaker is that person who says, let's look at it together.
Is love thought? You understand my question? Have you understood my question? Is love born of thought, born of desire, born of pleasure? I am asking, the speaker is asking a simple question. If you say love is part of thought, then love is part of hate. Naturally. Can hate and love together exist? And so logically, objectively, perhaps very, very sanely, love has no relationship whatsoever with thought. And thought, as it is not related to love, what is the action of love which has no relationship with thought? You understand the question? Are we meeting each other? Are we a little bit paralysed by this question? I am afraid we are. If we associate love with thought, as we do, then love must inevitably bring conflict, obviously, because we have associated love with desire - sexual and other forms of desire. And also if we associate pleasure with love again it is the operation of thought, as we have been into that, then love is totally involved with thought. And if it is involved with thought it must bring about great travail to human beings. That is simple. Right?
So is there an action which is not born of thought? Perhaps I won't even use the word love because that might complicate it. We say, the speaker says very clearly, definitely, irrevocably, that there is an action not born of thought. And he will explain this to you very clearly. When you perceive something clearly and that perception of clarity can only come when the brain is free from all anchorage, from all sense of attachment to belief, persons, ideas and so on - right? That frees the brain from its conditioning so that it can look afresh. Right? The looking afresh is to have no division between the observer and the observed. We explained that again carefully. So there is an action of perception in which there is no observer and the observed and therefore no activity of thought, and action is free from thought. I have explained it very carefully - right? That is, if I can observe without any prejudice a person, specially in relationship, to observe very clearly, without all the memories one has gathered about her or him for the last twenty, forty, ten days. To be free of that, utterly, a brain that is not collecting hurts, insults and all that: such a brain is free to observe. That observation is the operation of the total brain because there is no hinderance - right? It operates as a whole. Then an action born out of that wholeness is without conflict. It is not the action of thought. Right? I have explained it, it is up to you.
5th QUESTION: Who are you?
Is that an important question? Or would you say, "Who am I" - not who you are, who am I? And if I tell you who I am, what does it matter. It is only out of curiosity, isn't it? It is like reading a menu at the window, you have to go into the restaurant and eat food. But when you are standing outside and reading the menu, it won't satisfy your hunger. So to tell you who I am is really quite meaningless. First of all, I am nobody - right? That's all. It is as simple as that. I am nobody. But what is important is: who you are, what are you? When they ask who you are, in that question is implied that you are somebody very great therefore I am going to imitate you, the way you walk, the way you talk, the way you brush your teeth, or whatever it is. I am going to imitate you, which is part of our pattern, you understand? There is the hero, or the man who is enlightened, or the guru, and you say, "I am going to copy everything you do" - it becomes so absurdly silly - you understand? Childish to imitate somebody. And are we not the result of a lot of imitations? The religions have said - they don't use the word imitate - give yourself over, surrender yourself, follow me, I am this, I am that, worship - right? All this is what you are. In school you imitate. Acquiring knowledge is a form of imitation and of course there is the fashion - short dress, long dress, long hair, short hair, beard, no beard - imitate, imitate. And also we imitate inwardly, so we all know that.
But to find out who you are, who you are, not who the speaker is, that is far more important, and to find out who you are you have to enquire. You are the story of mankind. If you really see that it gives you tremendous vitality, energy, beauty, love because it is no longer a small entity struggling in the corner of the earth. You are part of this whole humanity. It has a tremendous responsibility, vitality, beauty, love. But most of us won't see this, as most of us are concerned with ourselves, with our particular little problem, particular little sorrow and so on. And to step out of that narrow circle seems almost impossible because we are so conditioned, so programmed, like the computers, that we cannot learn something new. The computer can but we can't. See the tragedy of it. The machine that we have created, the computer, can learn much faster, infinitely more than I can, than the brain can, and the brain which has invented that, that has become ultra intelligent machine - right? Whereas our brain is sluggish, slow, dull because we have conformed, we have obeyed, we have followed, there is the guru, there is the priest, there is the rich - you follow? And when you do revolt, as the revolutionaries and the terrorists do, it is still very superficial - changing the pattern of politics, of so-called society, society being merely the relationship between people, and we are talking of a revolution not physical but the psychological revolution in which there is no, at the depth, conformity. You may put on trousers because you are in this country and in India it is different clothes, that is not conformity, that is nothing, childish. But inwardly, not a feeling of conformity. Conformity exists when there is comparison. For a mind to be totally free from comparison, that is to observe the whole history which is embedded in you.
I am afraid this has to be the last question. There are too many of them.
6th QUESTION: Would you please speak further on time, measure and space.
I hope you aren't tired, are you?
K: Please don't be polite. If you are tired just quietly listen. As most of us are tired, our brains have become exhausted by the usual repetition, going to the office, seeking pleasure, resisting conflict. Our brains, please realize they are tired brains. If they weren't tired you wouldn't be here. I wouldn't be here either. But we are tired human beings because we are frightened, there is terror, there is danger in the streets, financial uncertainty, war, atom bombs, we are really extraordinarily exhausted human beings - through drink, drugs, over indulgence in every form. And we are going to talk about something that requires a great deal of penetration, a great deal of attention. And to go into it very deeply you have also to relax, to be free to look, to penetrate, however much one may be tired.
(Repeats the question: Would you please speak further on time, measure, space and thought.
This is important to understand because man has always asked, the serious ones, whether time has a stop, whether man can ever be free from the limited space he lives in, not only physically. The physical space is becoming narrower and narrower, because of over population, cities, we seem to live in flats, drawers that you pull out and put back. You understand? Push back. Space, physically, is becoming very small, and perhaps that is one of the reasons why there is violence in the world because we have no space. That is why big cities like New York, London, Paris, they breed violence, we are all much too close together. This is one of the facts which have been investigated. They have put many rats in a small space and these rats become totally disorientated, they eat their own children, they kill each other, exactly as we are doing, because they have no space, physical. This is a question that one must go into very, very seriously if you are interested.
Measure - there are three things - time, measure, space. What is time, what is space, what is measure? We are going to enquire into them. Time, measure, space.
And as we said, some of the writers have asked this question, whether time has a stop - psychological time we are talking about, not the chronological time by the watch, you can't stop the sun from setting or rising. But we are talking about time as a movement of becoming or being, or climbing, or expanding - right? Time, which is part of evolution, the psychological evolution. The biological evolution has almost come to an end for man, obviously. He is not going to develop a third arm or fourth arm or something or other. So we are talking about psychological time. Time as hope, as something that has happened yesterday or last year, and that memory of it is time, the repetition of it is time, the endeavour to escape from it is time - you are following all this? To suppress it, to do something about it, all that involves time. And the people ask, not only the writers, the scholars who have written volumes about time and all the rest of it, and also the ancient Hindus have asked this question: whether time has a stop so that a new movement can take place; not imaginary, not fanciful, not romantic and all that kind of stuff but actually psychological time coming to an end. Right? That is one question.
The other is measure. The whole technological world is based on measurement. If you had no measurement there would be no technology - right? Measurement according to a ruler, or measurement by thought and so on, measurement. This measurement has become necessary, to build an aeroplane, even to have this tent. And this measurement has been handed down to the Western world through the Greeks. I am not a Greek scholar but you can observe this. The Greeks were concerned, the ancient Greeks, were concerned with measurement. They were the originators of mathematics and so on, part of mathematics and so on. So we, the Western world, have inherited measurement. Measurement not only technologically, measurement comparing one painter against another painter, one poet against another poet, one sculptor, Mr Moore, against others - right? Measurement. And also in ourselves there is measurement: I am not as good as I should be, the better, the more, psychologically as well as physically, more money, more power, more fun, all that. If I have more money, more power, I have more fun. That is part of measurement. And we are always comparing, psychologically. There is the great teacher and I am not. I compare myself and eventually I am going to get where he is.
And also space. Psychologically as well as physically, we have very, very little space. Specially you observe this when you go into crowded towns, cities and in over populated countries like India, enormous crowds. You have no concept of it. And naturally they live in narrow streets, live in small houses, physically, naturally there is always a battle going on for space, physical space. "For God's sake move over into that corner. Don't crowd me." And also psychologically, that is in consciousness we have very little space. It is crowded - right? It is crowded with our knowledge, crowded with our fears, anxieties, despairs, depressions, seeking happiness, seeking illumination, seeking the powers of Kundalini - you follow, occupied, wanting more, better understanding, greater power. I'll fast, I'll have more energy fasting - you follow? Always occupied and therefore there is very little space. If you observe your consciousness is filled and therefore there is no space. And then realizing there is no space you begin to enquire into the space of the universe. Astrophysicists are doing this, that extraordinary world of cosmos, which is essentially order. Cosmos in Greek means order. The scientist whose brain is limited because of his knowledge, because of his conditioning, his relationship with another, his greed, his desire for more power, more money, more status, more publicity - you follow? And that little brain is enquiring into something immeasurable and translating what they see through telescopes into mathematical problems.
So if you observe there is no sense of stopping time, psychologically. There is no ending of measurement - right? We are always measuring, always looking to the future, better government, better economic position, United Nations will eventually - you follow? - the very idea, United Nations - think of it - tribalism united, how can they? So knowing all this we are asking whether time, measurement can have a stop? That is essentially: is there a stop to thinking? You understand? Because time is thought, time is movement - today, tomorrow, yesterday, time is movement. And time is also chronological, it is movement. Thought is a movement - right? So thought is the movement of time. Thought is time. And we are asking: is there a stop to time and to thought? Or is man everlastingly condemned to this movement, which is hell? You understand? Hell - forget that word. It is a Christian word. They have also their own particular word in Asia. And we are saying also measurement. The word meditation also means to measure. In Sanskrit also 'ma' is to measure. Meditation is measurement, the word. And the Sanskrit word also means measurement and we are conditioned to measurement. Measurement is - 'I am, I shall be' - the ideal and the pursuit of the ideal, how near, how closely I am approaching the ideal. I am violent and I must not be violent, which is a measurement. So measurement, psychologically as well as physically, is a movement of time, thought - right? And space. As our brains, our consciousness is crowded, there is not a spot which is not covered. I don't know if you have noticed it. You may think that there is a space that is not covered but when you think that is not covered that very thought is covering it - you understand? Are you following this? When I think there is in me a field, or a state which is immeasurable, which has immense space, which has no time, when I think about it, it is the product or the invention of thought - right? Therefore it is part of thinking, part of measurement, therefore the concept of super, super, super egos is still part of that thought.
So this is our problem: whether time, thought can come to an end, which is measurement, and can they have space, infinite space, not the space invented by thought? Is this possible? It is possible only when you see the truth or the falseness of measurement, psychologically, imitating, conforming, and all that, when you see the absurdity, the unintelligent way we live, and see where thought, which is time, is necessary to learn a language and psychologically it has no place. When you see the truth of it then consciousness, though it is crowded and beginning to dissipate, when you see that, the truth of that, then there is space. It is not what you do to end time, what you do to measurement, say "I must stop measuring", but seeing the truth of it will set the brain free, will bring freedom to the brain. Then you have space that is literally immeasurable. And it is only then that the apprehension or the perception, which is not personal, of that which is everlasting from everlasting.
Saanen 3rd Question & Answer Meeting 31st July 1981
Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.