1980

Saanen 1980

Saanen 4th Question & Answer Meeting 26th July 1980

As we said, and I hope you don't mind my reminding you again, that these questions are put so that we share the answer together. It is not a Delphic Oracle that is speaking, but together we are going to explore into these questions. And as we pointed out the answers are in the questions themselves.

1st QUESTION: You seem to object even to our sitting quietly every day to observe the movement of thought. Is this by your definition a practice, a method and therefore without value?

This is a question. We mean by question, the root meaning of that word is to seek, derived from the Latin, Greek and also from Sanskrit - to seek. Now the questioner asks: what is wrong with sitting quietly every morning for twenty minutes, in the afternoon another twenty minutes and perhaps another twenty minutes in the evening or longer, what is wrong with it? I do not know if you have heard of that ridiculous meditation that is practised - T.M. - have you heard of all that, Transcendental Meditation? The word 'transcendental' is a good word but it has been ruined. They have learnt that by sitting quietly you can relax, you can observe your thinking, your reactions, your responses, and your reflexes and so on and so on. Now behind all this so-called meditation, what is the motive? Do you understand my question? What is the motive of all those people who sit quietly - I don't know why they sit quietly - sitting quietly by themselves, or together in a group, what is the motive behind the desire to sit quietly for half an hour every day and so on and so on? What is the motive? Isn't that important to enquire before you sit quietly for twenty minutes a day, or half an hour a day, or whatever you do? Isn't it important to find out why you want to do this? Is it because somebody has told you that if you sit quietly you will have parapsychological experiences, that you will attain some kind of illusory - oh, I mustn't use the word illusory - you will have some kind of peace, some kind of understanding, some kind of enlightenment, some kind of power. And being rather gullible, pay thousands of dollars or francs, or pounds, to receive instructions and a mantra so that we can repeat those. I know some people who have spent thousands and thousands of dollars to pay the man who will give you something in return, specially a Sanskrit word, that is much more romantic than saying Coco Cola! and you repeat it. You have paid something and you have received something in return, and what is the motive behind it? If you go into it, ask yourself why you are doing this. Is it for reward - not a financial reward but a psychological reward? Is it that by sitting quietly you attain some kind of super consciousness? Or is it that you want that which has been promised by your instructor?

So it is important before we plunge into all this kind of business, to find out why, what is your motive, what is it you want. Isn't it important? But you see we don't do that. We are so eager and gullible that somebody promises something and you want it. Now if you examine the motive, it is a desire to achieve something, like a businessman, his desire is to earn a lot of money. That is his urge. Here the psychological urge is to have something that you think the other man, a guru, or an instructor, you know, all the rest of it, promises. You don't question what he promises, you don't doubt what he promises, you don't say, "Do you do it?" "Do you meditate, you know about that, do you?" But they say, "No, I am too old for that kind of stuff, I have done it", you know, pass it off. But if you question the man who is offering you something: is it worthwhile, is it true, who are you to tell me what to do? Then you will find that sitting quietly without understanding your motive leads to all kinds of illusory psychological troubles. And the speaker has met dozens and dozens and dozens of such people and they have mentally become gradually unbalanced, slightly neurotic and something psychologically goes wrong. Don't accept my word for all this. You can see it in your own faces, if you are doing it.

So if that is the intention of sitting quietly, then it isn't worth it. Naturally. But sitting quietly, or standing or walking, without any motive - the word 'motive' means movement, the part moves, and when you are walking quietly by yourself or with somebody you can watch the trees, the birds and the rivers and the mountains, and the sunshine on the leaves and so on and so on, and in the very watching of all that you are also watching yourself, not striving, making tremendous efforts to achieve something. I know, those of you are committed to all this, to the other kind of meditation, find it awfully hard to throw it off because your mind is already conditioned, you have practised this thing for several years and then you are stuck. And somebody comes along and says, "What nonsense all this is" - and perhaps at a rare moment you become rational and say, "Yes, perhaps this is wrong" - then begins the trouble, the conflict between what you have found for yourself to be wrong and what you have been practising for the last five, ten, three years. And the struggle is called progress, spiritual progress. You understand all this?

So if you have observed, the mind is always chattering - right? Always pursuing one thought or another, one set of sensory responses to another set of responses. So the mind, the brain is always chattering, consciously or unconsciously - right? This is so if you observe your own mind, this is what is happening. So you want to stop that chattering, then you try to learn concentration, forcing the mind to stop chattering and so the conflict begins again. Right? This is what we are all doing, chattering, chattering, talking endlessly about nothing. Now if you want to observe something, a tree, a flower, the lines of the mountains, you have to look, you have to be quiet. But you see we are not interested in the mountains, or the beauty of the hills and the valleys and the waters; we want to get somewhere, achieve something, spiritually essentially, when you are young because you are dissatisfied with the society as it is, with all the corruption that goes on, but we don't mind being corrupted spiritually - right?

So is it not possible to be quiet naturally? To look at a person, or to listen to a song, or to listen to what somebody is saying quietly, without resistance, without saying "I must change, I must do this, I must do that", just be quiet. And apparently that is most difficult. So we practise systems to be quiet. Do you see the fallacy of it? To practise a method, a system, a regular everyday routine, then you think the mind will at last be quiet; but it will never be quiet, it will be mechanical, it will be setting a pattern, it will become dull, insensitive but you don't see all that but you want to get something. An Initiation - oh, for god's sake it is all so childish.

So if you listen, now I hope we are listening, if you listen quietly, not saying he is right or wrong, I am committed to this, how am I to give it up, I have promised not to give it up - I am this, that, the other thing, but to listen to what is being said without resistance. Because the speaker is not saying something irrational, something stupid, or exotic, he is just pointing out. And if you can listen to that, to what he is pointing out, which is your own discovery of what you are doing, then your mind in the very process of investigation it becomes quiet. You understand this? I do not know if you have talked to any serious scientist, and if you have, serious, not those who are employed by the government, who are trying to compete with another scientist, but who are really scientists, that is, to discover something totally new, to discover the cause of anything, who go beyond the enquiry of mere matter. Such scientists must have a quiet mind when they are observing, investigating.

So can we, ordinary people, with all our troubles and turmoils, be quiet? And listen to all the promptings of our own movements? But apparently that appears most difficult. It is not. If you are interested in something you are naturally attentive. But if you say, "I am bored with myself"... So it is possible to sit, or stand or walk quietly without any promptings from another, without any reward, or having extraordinary super physical sensory experiences. Begin at the most rational level for god's sake, then you can go very far.

2nd QUESTION: I have a cancer and find myself in the following dilemma: should I try to let medicine save my life, even if it may mutilate me? Or should I live with this illness and pain and meet the consequences, which could be death, candidly without an operation?

Do you want me to decide this? This is a very serious question. We all have illnesses, pain, physical pain, perhaps unbearable pain. And one may have cancer, which is, I believe, very, very painful. Now first let's enquire into how to meet pain - right? Are you interested in this? How to meet pain? How do you meet pain? Look at it. You have had pain, toothache, tummyache, various kinds of headaches - pain. Now how do you meet it? Rush immediately to the pill? Medicine? An Aspirin? So how do we meet it?

All right, let's make it much more simple. How do you meet a noise? A train goes by - four trains during the hour that we sit here - how do you meet that noise? We are talking, thinking over together, and this train rushes by, how do you receive it? Do you resist it? Or let the sound go through you and it is gone? You follow what I am saying? Which is it that you do? I am not instructing you please. I am not your guru, I have no followers, I am not your authority - thank god! How do you meet this tremendous noise that is so disturbing? Do you let it come without any resistance and go on? You understand? Do you do that?

Now if you have pain, and the speaker has had part of it, like every human being, do you allow it to end? Or you want to end it with some medicine? You are following my question? Say you sit in the dentist chair, the speaker has done quite a bit of it, you sit in the dentist chair; he drills. Do you associate the pain and identify yourself with the pain? Of course if the pain is too intense he gives you some kind of novacocaine or whatever he gives you. But if it is not too unbearable, do you observe the pain without identifying yourself and say, 'My god' - you are following what I am saying? Which do you do? Is it immediate identification with the pain? Or disassociation and observe it? When you have pain, you instinctively hold, if you are sitting in the chair. But if you don't identify with the pain, put you hands out quietly and bear it without too much. Which means is it possible to disassociate oneself from the actual movement of pain? Enquire into it. Don't say, "It is", "It is not". Find out for yourself. How much, how far, how deeply one can not identify, "I am in great pain" - you follow?

Now the questioner asks, he has cancer - I am sorry - and should he take medicine or an operation, or bear with it? I know people who have cancer, I have seen them and they don't want to go on the table to be operated on, and they bear with that enormous pain. Whether that pain affects the brain which has its own capacity to protect itself - I don't know if you have gone into this, I am just pointing out. You understand what I am saying? If one has great, unbearable pain, the brain has its own capacity to protect itself against pain. The brain specialists are enquiring into this, or finding out - because I have talked to them - are finding out that the brain has the capacity through some chemical reaction to protect itself against, not too much pain, but some pain. Don't accept my word for this. The speaker has found that out long ago: that the brain has the capacity to protect itself against danger, against pain, against a certain amount of grief. Beyond that the brain becomes unconscious, it is giving up. And the questioner says: what shall I do? Right? How can the speaker decide this? Perhaps I can hold his, or her hand for a while, but that is not going to solve the problem. Either one has great sense of not identifying with the pain, but it is impossible when you have tremendous pain. And if one can bear without operation the extraordinary pain that one has, one must also be aware that it might injure the brain. You understand what I am saying? Haven't you noticed this in yourself? That you can bear pain up to a point, which is, the brain has the capacity to bring about some chemical responses which will safeguard it against pain. But if you have too much pain of course that is impossible. Is that question clear?

Questioner: May I ask about the cancer? Is it possible to heal it?

K: Ah, that is a different question altogether. Sir, is that what you want to ask? Please sir. Is it possible to heal people? Just a minute. Sorry, unless you write out the question I won't answer it.

Questioner: I think because people are suffering from cancer that it is possible to heal it.

K: I am going to go into it. Sit down please sir. If you don't mind, I'll explain it. The question is - just a minute sir, don't agree or disagree, let's examine it. There are people who heal by putting their hands on somebody. Wait, wait sir. It has been proved. Don't agree or disagree. For god's sake look!

There are people in India, and there are people in England who have this capacity, nothing spiritual, divine, etc., that by putting their hands on somebody's head who has a great deal of pain, they seem to cure the pain. And the speaker has done it. Don't turn up to be healed! Quite a lot. And please remember, please don't want to be healed by me, go to somebody else. And it is possible. But to have such healing capacity, really, deeply, there must be no shadow of selfishness. It is not healing and then give me money. There must be no quiver of selfishness, of the centre, the me, healing. That is a perfectly different matter.

3rd QUESTION: What is enlightenment?

Again this is one of those words that have come from India - to be enlightened. To be enlightened about what? Please let's be rational, not irrational. When we say enlightened, I am enlightened about what? Say for instance I am enlightened about my relationship with another. That is, I have understood that my relationship with another is based on my image, about the other, however intimate. That image has been put together through many years by constant reaction, indifference, comfort - you follow? - the nagging, all that between man and woman, all that. So the image is built and she has built an image about you, so the relationship is between the two images, which is obvious. And that is what we call relationship.

Now I perceive the truth of it and I say I am enlightened about it. I am enlightened about violence. I see clearly without any distortion, with clear eyes the whole movement of violence. I see how sorrow arises and the ending of sorrow is that I am enlightened about it. But we don't mean that - right? We mean something else. "I am enlightened, I will tell you about it. Come to me." And you, rather gullible, say, "Yes, tell me all about it." Sir, I don't want to go into all this, I don't know if you are interested.

You see we must understand if we really go into what is enlightenment, illumination, the voice of truth, not my voice, the voice of truth, we must go very carefully into the question of time. The so-called enlightened people have come to it through time, gradually, life after life if you believe in reincarnation, I have come to the point when I am enlightened about everything - right? Which is, it is a gradual process of experience, knowledge, a constant movement from the past to the present and the future, a cycle. Right? So if you are interested in it, is enlightenment, the ultimate thing, a matter of time? Is it - I hope you aren't bored by this, are you? - is it a gradual process, which means the process of time, the process of evolution, the gradual becoming that? You follow? So one must understand the nature of time, not the chronological time, but the psychological structure which has accepted time. You are following this? That is, I have hoped to ultimately get there. The desire which is part of hope, ultimately says, "I will get there". And the so-called enlightened people, and they are not, because the moment they say, "I am enlightened" they are not. That is their vanity. It is like a man saying "I am really humble" - when a man says that you know what it is. Humility is not the opposite of vanity. When the vanity ends the other is. Those people who have said they are enlightened, say you must go through it step by step, practise this, do that, don't do this, become my pupil, I'll tell you what to do, I'll give you an Indian name, or a Christian new name, and so on and so on and so on. And you, a kind of irrational human being, accept this nonsense.

So you are saying, asking, is that supreme enlightenment - you understand the meaning of that word? A mind that has no conflict, no sense of striving, going, moving, achieving. So one must understand this question of time, which is the constant becoming, or not becoming, which is the same - right? The becoming and the not becoming. And when that becoming is rooted in the mind, that becoming conditions all your thinking, all your activity, then it is a matter of using time as a means of becoming, achieving. But is there such a thing as becoming? You understand? "I am violent, I will be non-violent". That is, becoming an idea - right? I am violent and the non-violence I project the idea of not being violent, so I create duality. Violent and non-violent and so there is conflict. Then I say, "I must control myself, I must suppress, I must analyse, I must go to a psychologist, I must have a psychotherapist" and so on and so on.

Without creating the opposite, the non-violence, the fact is violence, not non-violence. Right? The fact. The non-violence is non-fact. If you get that once, the truth of that. That is, I am violent, the concept of non-violence brings about this conflict between the opposites. The non-fact has no value, only the fact, which is I am violent. Now to observe the whole movement of violence, anger, jealousy, hatred, competition, imitation, conformity and so on and so on, to observe it without any direction, without any motive - right? Then if you do that then there is the end of violence, which is an immediate perception and action. I wonder if you understand this?

So one can see that illumination, this sense of ultimate reality and so on, is not of time. This goes against the whole psychological religious world, the Christians with their souls, with their saviours, with their ultimate etc. etc.

We say perception is action; not perception, great interval and then action. In that interval you create the idea. Right? Are you following all this? Sirs, we are pointing out something which is: can the mind, the brain, you know the whole human nervous structure as well as the psychological structure be free of this burden of a million years of time so that you see something clearly and action is invariably immediate. That action will be rational, not irrational. That action can be explained logically, sanely.

So we are saying that ultimate thing, which is truth, is not to be achieved through time. It can never be achieved. It is there, or it is not there.

4th QUESTION: People talk of experiences beyond the senses. There seems to be a fascination in such experiences but the lives of those who claim to have had them seem to be as mediocre as before. What are these experiences? Are these experiences part of enlightenment, or a step towards it? And so what is enlightenment?

Do you like these kind of questions? It is strange isn't it? You are always talking about enlightenment, what you have said, what the speaker has said, what somebody has said. You never say, "Look, it is my life. I am in great pain, sorrow, this, how am I to resolve all that?" - not what some idiot says. Everywhere the speaker has been there has always been these kind of questions. Not how shall I live in this world which is so corrupt, where there is no justice, and I am part of all that, what shall I do? You never ask those questions. Why don't you? Why don't we ask really a deep fundamental question about ourselves? Why is it we never asked: I don't seem to have loved. I know all the descriptions of love, I know when I say to my friend, or my girl, or my wife, "I love you" - I know it is not quite, quite, quite. I know it is sex, sensory, pleasure, desire, companionship, I know all that isn't that bloom that flowers, that has beauty, that has greatness. But we ask about enlightenment - why, if I may ask? Is it we are frightened to be, to uncover ourselves? - not to me. I am not your father confessor, or group therapist - I have a horror of all those things. If you ask yourself that question: why is it that I don't ask the most deep fundamental question about myself? Is it we are frightened? Is it that we cannot bear to see what we are? The shoddiness, the ugliness, the pettiness, the vulgarity, the commonness, the mediocrity of it all - is that what we are frightened about? And if we discover what actually we are, we say, please help me, tell me what to do. The father figure comes into being then.

So apparently we never face ourselves. We avoid it at any cost. And that is why we become so irrational. And that is why we are exploited by all these people. It is really a tragedy: grown up people, at least we think we are grown up, playing with all this, and not coming to the root of things, which is ourselves. We have to be forced, urged, compelled, to face ourselves by somebody. And so we never, never under any circumstances face this thing. That is why there is no change in us.

Since this question has been put I must answer it: People talk of experiences beyond the senses. There seems to be a fascination in such experiences but the lives of those who claim to have had them seem as mediocre as before. What are these experiences? Are these experiences part of enlightenment, a step towards it? Can you bear me going on?

You know life, the daily living of everyday, is a vast experience - right? A tremendous experience, the joys, the pleasures, the anxieties, the burden of sorrow, the injustice around you, poverty, over population, pollution, lack of energy - energy as petrol and in ourselves. This life is such a tremendously complex problem of experiences - not problem, experience. And we are bored with it. We cannot face it. We don't feel responsible for this. We separate ourselves from all this. And the separation is fallacious, unreal, irrational because we are that, we have created that, each one of us. We are part of all that. And we don't want to face it. So being bored, being exhausted by trivialities of life, then we go and ask somebody, pay him, initiate, beads, new name, and hope to have new experiences. And you will because when you want something you are going to get it, whether it is rational, irrational, sane or insane, it doesn't matter.

So first - I will go into that presently - first we must understand the nature of our living, the daily living, the daily irritation, the daily angers, the daily boredom, the loneliness, the despair. Instead of facing it, understanding it, cleaning all that, we want super extrasensory experience beyond the senses, when we haven't understood the activity of the senses, the daily response of the senses. And there are those people who will give you experiences; it is all trickery, gadgetry.

When one has really understood, lived, so that life, the everyday boredom, the loneliness, the ache of something better, when that is all understood, not intellectually, not verbally but cleansed, free of all that. That is to understand very clearly the sensory responses, how the sensory responses dominate, how they condition the mind - right? And unaware of all that, unaware that one's mind is conditioned, and from that conditioned state you are asking something more. And the man who promises you something more gives you according to his conditioning. He may say, "No, no. I am not conditioned. I am much too advanced". So what happens? If the depths are cleared, that is, when the foundation is laid - no conflict, you have understood desire, pleasure, fear, sorrow - you are shrugging it off, that is your daily burden, then when you go beyond it you will find a mind that is asking for experiences is still in the state of being conditioned by the senses. And there is a mind that has no experience whatsoever.

5th QUESTION: Insight is a word now used to describe anything newly seen, or any change of perspective. This insight we all know. But the insight you speak of seems a very different one. What is the nature of the insight you speak about.

Please this is an important question. It will affect your daily life if you have understood the insight.

You understand the first part of the question, which is: they have experimented with monkeys, they hang up a bunch of bananas and a monkey takes the stick and beats it and the bananas drop, and you say he has insight. And there is the other monkey who brings the furniture together, on top of one another and gets on top and reaches up. That is also called insight. And also they have experimented with rats, put a bait at the end of it and he has to do all kinds of tricks, press this button, that button, and the other to get at that. And that is also called insight. You understand? That is, through experiment, through trial, through constantly trying this button the other button, it doesn't work, does it work, that does, then pressing that button is recorded, which becomes knowledge - you understand? And pressing that button opens the door, the trap and you get the cheese or whatever it is.

So this process of so-called insight is essentially based on knowledge - right? I wonder if you understand this? This is what we are doing. You may not call it insight, but this is the actual process of our activity. Try this, if it doesn't suit, you try that. Medically, physically, sexually and so-called spiritually you are doing this all the time. That is, in trying, in experimenting and achieving, which becomes knowledge, and from that knowledge you act - right? This is called scientifically insight. Right? Is that clear? Can I go on from there, if I may?

We are saying insight is something entirely different. Which is, I will explain a little bit: when I try this and push that button and achieve a result the brain has recorded that button and the result. Then it becomes automatic and the experimenter changes the button. The monkey or me presses that, but it doesn't work so he gets disturbed. This is what happens to you, please watch it. Disturbed and you press that by accident and the trap is open and you get your cheese. Right? So through experiment, through trial, you find a way of living, which suits you, which is the cheese. And that is called insight. Now if you watch it that insight is the repetition of knowledge: acquiring knowledge, discarding knowledge, acquiring more knowledge, discarding - you follow? It is always based on knowledge, and knowledge is the past. I don't know if you see that. There is no knowledge of the now or of the future, except under certain circumstances, you foresee the future, that is a different thing - we won't go into that because that leads to somewhere else.

So this insight of which people are talking about is the outcome of knowledge, modifying itself all the time. Which is recorded in the brain and therefore in the cells of the brain, which is, the rat, or the mouse, or whatever they are experimenting with, or the monkey, remembers that button is going to give me the cheese. If you change that button I get disturbed. The monkey gets disturbed - we are monkeys anyhow. The monkey gets disturbed and that disturbance is the disturbance of the pattern of memory. And you change the button and I accidentally press that one and I remember this, that button. So if you constantly change the button the monkey goes mad. And that is why we are going mad too. I don't know if you realize all this. That is what we call uncertainty. This constant danger. As we said the other day, the scientists are saying that by two thousand the earth will be almost uninhabitable because of pollution, of what we are doing with the earth, the rivers polluted, the air polluted, over population - you follow? So the brain - please listen to this - the brain is accustomed to one button. You understand what I mean by button? One pattern. But that pattern changes, it accepts it, it will not accept basic change. That means he doesn't know where it is. Like the monkey if you keep on changing the buttons it gives up. Because it won't move. It is paralysed because it doesn't know what to do. I don't know if you are watching all this in your own self. Not knowing what to do you rush off asking somebody what to do and you press the buttons.

Sirs, this is very serious, what we are talking about. It isn't just casual, this is your life. And so this constant change, which is happening in the world, brings about this sense of paralytic inaction. I can't do anything. I can go off into monasteries and all that, but that is too immature, childish when you are facing something tremendous. So we are saying: unless there is change - please listen to this - in the brain cells themselves, the mere pressing buttons is the same pattern repeated. You get the point? Unless the brain, which is composed of a million, a trillion, or whatever cells - unless there is a radical change there it will be repeating the old pattern, modifying itself, uncertain, insecure, paralysing state of inaction, and being paralysed go off to ask somebody else. You follow the whole movement. This is what we are doing.

So the question is: can that brain which is common to all of us, can those brain cells change? - not operated, not heat on the head, not given new drugs, not enter into new states of scientific investigation, astrophysics instead of something else and so on. You have understood this? Really in depth, not just up here?

Then the question arises: is it possible for the brain cells themselves to undergo a change? Otherwise we will keep on repeating this, this pattern. Certainty, uncertainty, certainty, uncertainty and keep on repeating, it goes on. Right?

Now is it possible for the brain cells to change? The speaker has discussed this point with several scientists - probably they will come out a little later. Which is: it can be changed. Don't accept my word for it. I say it can be changed. This movement from certainty to uncertainty, certainty to uncertainty, is a pattern of time - you are following all this? Exercise, keep moving sirs, with me, the speaker. This is a movement of time. And the brain is used to that. That is why there are all these questions about enlightenment, discipleship and you know, all the rest of it - systems and all that. It is accustomed to that. And they are saying can that brain itself undergo radical change? And the speaker says yes it can. Which is - I'll explain it to you. Rational, not some illusory, fanciful, romantic, blah. Which is: can the brain, the mind and so the nerves the whole of that, observe? Observe itself. Which means no direction, no motive - you follow? When there is no motive, no direction, the movement has already changed. I don't know if you follow all this? Have you followed this? My brain, your brain is accustomed to function with motives, certainty, my golly I am uncertain, motive. So when there is no motive in observation you have changed the whole momentum of the past. Right? Is this clear? Don't go to sleep please. Exercise your minds. This is rational what we are talking about. Therefore when there is no motive, no direction, the mind becomes absolutely quiet. Inward observation. And that observation is insight. And therefore the brain cells which have been accustomed to a certain pattern have broken the pattern. I wonder if you understand this? Are you doing it with me?

Look sirs: we are brought up on ideals, the greater the ideal the better, the nobler and all the rest of it. And the ideal is more important than 'what is'. Right? So there is 'what is' and what the ideal is must breed conflict. I hope you are exercising your minds. Please follow this. And that is the pattern in which you have lived. This pattern which creates conflict - the 'what is' and 'what should be'. Now somebody like this person comes along and says, look what you are doing. The ideal is the creation of thought in order to overcome 'what is', or use the future as a lever to change 'what is'. So this is fact and that is not fact. So you are using a non-fact to deal with fact. Therefore it has no result. You understand? Oh, for god's sake please, it is your life. You are trying to change 'what is', which is a fact, with non-fact, the ideal, therefore it can never change - you understand? It is so simple once you see it. So the discarding the ideal, because it is valueless, and only the fact. That discarding the ideal has changed the pattern of the cells because it has lived in that pattern and it has now broken. And one has lived in the hope that I will gradually change. And then you see the gradualness means the same thing repeated, modified, repeated, modified, repeated - right? And therefore never a basic change. So when you see that the whole structure of the brain has changed: that is insight. Not the repetition or the action of knowledge. Sirs, this requires putting your blood into this.

1980

Saanen 1980

Saanen 4th Question & Answer Meeting 26th July 1980

Texts and talks of Jiddu Krishnamurti. Krishnamurti quotes. Books about
J Krishnamurti. Philosophy.