2nd Question & Answer Meeting 18
Facing a world in crisis
2nd Public Questions, Brockwood Park
August 29, 1985
There are many questions, and there are several questions here. And they have been selected carefully. I haven't read them. The others have read them and chosen them. I hope you don't mind.
Before we go into these questions may we talk over something together? We are so easily influenced, not only by the box there, in each one's room, by the books, by the newspapers, magazines, by the past traditions. As you heard probably last night, Jerusalem existed five thousand years ago and there were parts of India further still. This long tradition, or short tradition of a single day, or a single afternoon on your drive or your walking in the woods, all these influence us, not only the genetic process in each human being, the heredity, the whole existence seems to be a process of influencing each other - the air, the pollution, the beauty of the earth, everything around us, and even you sitting there and the speaker is here, we are influencing each other. We are telling us, each one of us, what to do, what to think; we put pressure on each other through beauty, through a lovely poem, or a personal relationship. It is a constant process, it appears, of being moulded, shaped, put into a form. And we proceed for the rest of our life in that narrow path, narrow way and that seems to be our way of existence. And one wonders if it is at all possible to be totally free of influence, to find the origin, the beginning of all things which must have no cause or an effect, it must...
So is that possible? You understand? We are talking over together. We are not trying to influence you, or you are influencing the speaker. We are two friends talking over together, in the same boat, in the same way, path, not spiritual and all that kind of stuff but ordinary, a path that goes through the woods, dappled light and the beauty of the earth and the trees. And is it ever possible, we are asking each other, to be free of all influence: the past of which we are, and that past has a tremendous influence on us, the long tradition of the so-called religious books, the old poems, the ancient literature from the Iliad to the ancient Hindu? And one asks oneself, as you are asking, as I am asking, whether it is possible to really be free of all this and something totally original? Not the repetition, repetition, of guru and disciple, the follower and the followed with their peculiar dresses and all that kind business. Is it possible? Please give your attention a little bit to it. What do you think? Is it possible, or not possible? If it is not possible, or if it is incredibly difficult and therefore we choose the easiest way, follow the old pattern only in different colours, different beads, different leaders, teachers, gurus and so-called enlightened birds! (Laughter) I am sorry. And so on. Is that at all possible? Or are we doomed for ever to remain in this state of being impressed, shaped, moulded, conditioned?
And what would you do if it is at all possible? How would you set about it? In what manner would you approach this question? Perhaps that may be the real question, the most important question. Because we are so gullible, we invent so many reasons for doing that, for following, leading, surrendering oneself to something that is so convincing, satisfying, so handing over all the so-called word 'responsibility' to another. This has been our lot. And knowing all this how would one come to, see what actually is and see what one can do? Not just talk about it. You may be influenced by your wife, husband, girl and so on.
Isn't it necessary to have a great deal of doubt? What do you say? Isn't it necessary to have a certain quality of scepticism, not only about others but about oneself: about one's desires, convictions, beliefs, faith and definite, directive purposes? Can we question all that, doubt all that and see how far that doubt, how far the sense of asking, demanding, enquiring, can go. Could we do this together? Not that the speaker is leading you, or you are leading with your convictions the speaker, but together, I mean together, enquire into this.
The computer, as we said the other day, the computer is going to do all our efficient work, probably better than we do. It will invent new gods, a new system of theology, a new way of living, which is the industrial age is over, nearly, and the computer age will come in. These are all facts. We are not saying something abnormal, non-factual, or imaginary. This is what is going to happen to all of us. They are inventing such colossal interference with the brain.
So we are asking: could we go into this question together? Knowing that we need scepticism, doubt, and doubt is very energising and cleansing. Will you do it? Doubt one's own experiences, one's own attitudes, prejudices, agreements and disagreement, all that? And doubt, like a dog on a leash, some times at the right place you must let the dog run, freely, jump, otherwise the dog becomes rather tame and...
So scepticism also has its right place, not a particular place, has its own quality of rightness. 'Oh I won't doubt that because I belong to that, but I will doubt everything else.' We were talking - we used to have a great many friends at one time, Communists. Don't be shocked. And they would go so far and no further, like the Catholics, like the Protestants, like the Hindus, Buddhist monks, so far, beyond that is mystery, or beyond that is impossible. So doubt must be kept on a leash and allowed to run also. Can you do that? Can we do it together? Doubt about your gods, your gurus, your experiences and so on - the whole background of human experience, human endeavour, human conclusions, the whole bundle of it and begin to enquire into that bundle. And see how far actually, not theoretically, actually in one's life, daily life, how far you can go with this doubt, this enquiry, this passion behind it.
Should we answer the questions or would you like to go on with what we were talking about?
How far, how deep, is knowledge essential? Not only knowledge of books and what others have said, but knowledge about ourselves. Knowledge is always limited - right? You can see what the scientific knowledge is doing, is achieving. Little, adding, adding more and more and more. What is added to is always limited, naturally. Bien? Are we understanding? If I am adding something all the time, as knowledge, what I am gathering slowly, that which is gathered slowly is limited always because there is more, more, more. Right? So knowledge is always limited. And those who invent, 'Oh, yes we can go beyond knowledge.' They have gone into this question in ancient India and invented the idea - I won't go into it, not worth it. And knowledge is our background. That background is guiding us, shaping us, telling us what to do. Or you have an intuition - a favourite word that! - but that word too is rather dangerous because it may be your wish sublimated, becomes intuition. But it is still your wish, your desire. So what place has knowledge in daily life? I am sorry the speaker is asking all these questions. Probably you won't answer, you will just listen and carry on. But if one actually listens and goes into it, what place has knowledge in life, in daily life? When you write a letter you have to have knowledge. When you speak English you have to have knowledge, or French, or Italian, or whatever it is, or Russian. And when you do business, when you telephone, when you do everything physically you have to have knowledge. How to drive a car. And also knowledge in relationship. One recognises one's wife, one's husband and girl and all the rest of it. It is the recognition is part of knowledge. And what place has knowledge in relationship? Can I go on? Or you are amused by all this? What place has knowledge between you and another? Or what place has knowledge? I know my wife. Or my father, mother, husband. When we say 'I know', knowing is knowledge - right? What place has that in daily life between my wife and my husband, between the man and the woman? Answer, please, what place your knowing her, what place that knowing has in your relationship? Is knowledge the impediment in relationship?
K: Just a minute, don't say yes. It is so easy to say yes and then what? If I say to myself, 'I know my wife', what do I mean by knowing her? My previous sexual experience, my irritation about her, and her anger with me, her saying 'You have been very good today, nice and kind. Let's go to dinner' - and all the rest of it. All that builds up an image about each other. This is a fact. And when I have built up sufficient image I say, 'I know her'. She says, 'I know my husband, his quirks, his idiocy, his goodness' and all the rest of it. All that is knowledge. And we are asking in relationship what place has that? What place has knowledge? Or, it has no place at all. Is love knowledge? The remembrance of your sex, of your - all the rest of it, the background which you have built up in that particular relationship and that knowledge is divisive. Isn't it? Gosh, you are all asleep. (laughs) It separates. I with my ambition, greed and all the rest of it, and she has hers. She wants to fulfil and I want to fulfil. So we are - we may meet together in bed but like two rails that never meet. Do we face this? If you are married do you face this? Or if you live with a girl do you face this fact? Or one doesn't want to look at facts.
So please find out for oneself, actually in relationship what knowledge is, what your experiences are, and whether it is a hindrance in relationship, or a factor that helps you live together somewhat comfortably, somewhat happily, but keeping a careful distance from each other - right?
May we go on to our other questions? Good Lord, it is nearly twelve.
FIRST QUESTION: K says there is no path to truth. Is the faculty to see this outside myself? My consciousness and means of perception are entirely within me. How can I go without any means or tools towards the unknown goal? What will give me the need, the energy to move in this direction?
K says there is no path to truth. Do you accept that? There is no path to truth. Is the faculty to see this outside of myself? My consciousness and means of perception are entirely within me. How can I go without any means or tools towards the unknown goal? What will give me the need, the energy to move in this direction? Good Lord! (Laughter) There are so many things in this question.
First of all, as we said the other day, the answer is not outside the question. The answer is not outside the problem. The answer is in the problem, in the question. Please let's talk that briefly over. We are always trying to find an answer, satisfactory, outside the problem, that is convenient, that is happy, that is pleasurable and so on. If we could put aside all this rather escaping from the problem, if you could look at the problem, look at this question together. K says there is no path to truth. Why do you believe him? Why do you accept it? Why do you repeat it? K says. Who is K to say it? What right? Or is it a reaction? You understand? Because he sees so many paths to truth - I won't go into that. As long as there are human beings they have different opinions. So it may not be true. Let's first find that out.
There are the various Christian paths - right? The Catholic, the Protestant and the various divisions of Protestantism, innumerable, many of them. And there is the Buddhist, several paths according to the Buddha, one never really knows what the Buddha actually said, or what the Bible says, one never knows. So. Then there are the Tibetan paths - right? There are the Buddhist paths, the Muslim, with their divisions. So all these paths are spread out before you to truth, whatever that may mean, to God, to illumination, to enlightenment and so on, there are dozens of paths - right? How will you choose? How will you choose which is the right path? Please tell me.
Audience: You have to know yourself.
K: Somebody says you have to know yourself. So why bother about paths? Why bother about truth? Why bother about what K says? Why don't you know about yourself? And how will you know about yourself? What manner? How will you look at yourself as you will look at yourself in a mirror, how would you look at yourself? It is easy to say look at yourself. Socrates and ancient Greeks and still further ancient Israelites, and still further ancient Egyptians and so on and so on, the Hindus, they have all said in a different way, 'Know Yourself'. And there are these paths in front of us. And we all want to achieve truth, whatever that thing is. And all these paths lead to that. That means truth is fixed - right? Must be, otherwise there would be no path to it. It must be stationary, it must have no movement, it must be dead, then there can be paths to it. (Laughter) No, no don't laugh, this is what we do. So somebody like K comes along and says, look, don't bother about the paths, it may be like you are on a ship with a rudder and you move, you find out, learn, move, move, keep on going, find out. Not become stationary and make truth something permanent - right? And we want something permanent. Permanent relationship, I am attached to my husband, wife, I want it permanent. We don't admit any change. Right? And we are changing all the time, both biologically as well as psychologically, but we want to remain with something that is completely satisfactory, permanent, enduring, giving me security. And as I find there is really no security, then I have truth as the permanent entity towards which I am going. And there are all the disciples, gurus and the priests, all help you to go. I don't know where, but they help you.
So using one's own capacity to reason, capacity to have logic, see things step by step, and not escape any step. Or - that is much more complicated - see that which is true, accurate. Well, that is a different matter.
So the questioner says what are the tools necessary to reach truth, which is pathless? The moment you have tools you have already created the path - right? Do you see this? No? The moment I have a means to do that, to achieve that, the means then becomes the tool and I have already got the truth towards which I am working - right? So the moment you have a tool, a means, a system, then you know what truth is, therefore there is no point in having a tool. (laughs) I don't know if Do we see this? Or is this too illogical? Or too dastardly reasonable? (laughter) The means is the end. The means is not different from the end. Right?
So. Another question in this is: my consciousness and means to perception are entirely within me. What do you mean by the word consciousness? You don't mind going into all this? It is fun if you go into all this. Not only the understanding of one's own brain's capacity but also to delve. You dig very deeply to find oil, go through all that trouble, and we won't even spend a second doing this in ourselves, for ourselves. So what do we mean by that word consciousness? Is that consciousness different from you, from the me?
Do you get bored by all this on a lovely morning, instead of being on a golf course, or on a walk or something? Since you are here and we are here, let's go on! What do you mean by consciousness? Books have been written about it by experts. And we are not experts - right? Let's understand this. You and the speaker are not experts. God forbid! Not professionals. Professional gurus, professional followers with their peculiar dresses and all the rest of it. We are just enquiring together, like two friends. What do you mean by consciousness? All that you are, isn't it? Your consciousness is made up of all its content - right? Anger, jealousy, faith, belief, anxiety, aspiration, all the innumerable experiences that one has had, all the accumulation of all the little things of life, and also suffering, pain, insecurity, confusion, and the desire to escape from all this, and find something enduring. And in it also there is the fear of death, and enquiring what is there beyond. Right? All that, this vast bundle, is our consciousness - no? No? Yes? Go on sirs, there is no disagreement about this. Don't be nervous. We are our consciousness. And the content of consciousness makes up the whole entirety of consciousness, whether it is higher consciousness, lower consciousness, the desire to expand consciousness, (laughs) and all the rest of it, it is still within the field of consciousness - right? And that consciousness is me. There is no me without that. So when you say 'me' is different, my consciousness is different, then you have a battle with it, struggle, conflict, all that ensues.
So our question then is: is it possible, first to discover for ourselves the content, to see the content? That is fairly easy. The habits, the way you comb your hair, the habits of speech, of thought. It is fairly simple to observe those. And also to become aware of one's own conditioning as a British, as a Frenchman, as a Russian and etc., etc. It is also fairly easy to see our various religious inclinations - Catholic, Protestant, Hindu, Buddhist, following something or other - you follow? - that is fairly easy. But to go beyond that. We don't need an aqualung, you have to go very deeply, but to go very deeply one must understand the superficial thing first, whether it is possible to be free from influence which conditions us - right? Is it possible? Find out. Work sir, don't listen. Work at it. Put your tremendous energy into it, you have got tremendous energy, you don't want more. It took you a lot of energy to come here. Use some of that energy, if one may respectfully point out, use some of that energy to go into this. When you want something you go after it. That means one has to be not quite indolent, one has to be a little active. And there is nobody to help you, no tool, no instrument, no leader, nothing to help you. You must really become helpless to find the real thing. I don't know if you understand what I am talking about. If you are helpless, actually helpless, that means there is no help whatsoever from anybody, from any book, from any person, from any environment, then you are in that state of real helplessness, then something else takes place. Then you begin to see things.
The questioner says, asks: what will give me the need, the energy, to move in the direction of truth. Direction of truth. That means it is already over there (Laughter) I am not laughing; I am not disrespectful or cynical, but it is like that, when we use words like direction it is already there. It is already preconceived, already existing there because of your conviction or somebody told you and so on. Truth is really a pathless land. And that can only exist when fear and all the rest of it is not.
SECOND QUESTION: I am afraid to change. If I change what will happen afterwards? I am paralysed by this. Can you talk about this problem?
Delighted! I am afraid to change. If I change what will happen afterwards? I am paralysed by this. Can you talk about this problem? Why is one afraid of change? What do you mean by that word change? One has lived in this house across the lawn for about nearly twenty years. One becomes attached to that particular room, to the nice furniture up there - right? One becomes attached. That means what you are attached to is what you are. If one is attached to that good old furniture, you are that furniture. So we are afraid to change. I am attached to that room. But fortunately the speaker travels a great deal - that is only an excuse.
So what does that word imply? Change from 'what is' to 'what should be' - right? That is one change. Or change according to my old pattern but remain within the pattern; going across one corner of the field, I say I have moved, I've changed, but it is still within the same field, barricaded, barbwired - right? Going north, east, west, south is change. Why do we use that word? Biologically one is told there is constant change in the blood, constant movement, change, one cell dies another cell takes its place, or a series of molecules and so on. There is this constant change going on physically. And we are afraid to change. Could we drop that word change? Change implies time - doesn't it? I am this, I will change to that. Or I have been that and some event will come along, take place, and that event will change me and so on. Change implies a movement in time - right? We went into the question of time the other day. Should I repeat? Should the speaker go into it again? Time. It is a very complex thing time, very. I won't go into it, this is not the occasion.
So if you could drop that word change, or revolution, or mutation, which the speaker has used all these words, if you could drop all those words then we are only faced with 'what is' - right? Not 'what it should be'. But only face 'what is'. I am angry. That is 'what is'. I am violent. That is 'what is'. But to become politically or religiously non-violent is a change. To become non-violent when I am violent takes time. In that interval I am sowing the seeds of violence. That is all so simple - right? So I remain with violence, not try to change it. I am angry. That is a fact. There are no excuses for anger. I can find a dozen excuses for hate and anger but those enquiries in why I get angry is another escape from anger - right? Because I have moved away. So the brain remains with 'what is', then see what happens. That is, I am jealous of you - not me -I am jealous of you because you look so much nicer, cleaner, good taste, you have got good brains and I am envious of you. Out of that envy comes hate. Envy is part of hate. Envy is part of comparison. I would like to be like you but I can't. So I become rather antagonised, I feel violent about you. So I remain with 'what is'. That is, I see I am envious. There it is, I am envious. That envy is not different from me. Right? Envy is me. Right? So I can't do anything about it. I hold it. I stay with it. Right? Will you stay with it? Not escape, not to find out the cause, or the reason, or go beyond it. I am envy. And see what takes place. First there is no conflict, obviously, if I am envious I am envious. It is only conflict exists when I don't want to be envious. I wonder if you follow all this? Tant pis, no matter.
So if I stay with it I have got tremendous energy - right? Energy is like light throwing on something - focused light on something. Which then becomes very clear. And that which is very clear you are not afraid of, paralysed. It is so. You understand? I hope.
So what is important in this question is not to escape, not to make an effort, just to remain with 'what is'. If I am British I remain with that. See what happens. How narrow it becomes. Sorry if you are British, sorry, forgive me - or French or Russian, or whatever it is. The thing itself begins to show its whole content.
THIRD QUESTION: How does one meet aggression and psychological attack from a close relative from whom one cannot escape? (Laughter)
How does one meet aggression and psychological attack from a close relative from whom one cannot escape? Are we all like that? I can't escape from my guru because, you know, I have committed myself to him or her and I have given up all my money to him. Sir, don't laugh, this is taking place now.
Somebody sent an article in French, highly amusing, so laughable, really funny, which says, How To Become a Good Guru! (Laughter) It is very cleverly written (laughs) and I hope it will be printed in English.
Psychological attack, what does that mean to be attacked psychologically, inwardly? When you are with a close friend or relative, psychologically, inwardly, there is all this pressure going on between the two. You know all this, I don't have to tell you. Always trying to do something about the other, attacking subtly, physically or through innuendo, or through subtle word, gesture, you are always trying to push the other into a certain pattern - right? This is common to you, isn't it? Now the questioner says, what is one to do? I am living with you in the same house and you are bombarding me, I am bombarding you, not only with words and gesture but even a look, a feeling of irritation and so on. How will you, what will you do not to be wounded, not to be pushed around psychologically? You may depend on that person financially. You may depend on that person for various psychological reasons. And the moment you depend you become a slave - right? The moment you are attached then you are a goner! Don't look, if I may suggest, at somebody else, but let's look at ourselves. If I am attached to you as the audience then I'm lost. Then I depend on you for my satisfaction, comfort, reputation, for my physical well being too. But if I don't depend on you, I have to find out why I don't depend on you. That means not only on you, I don't depend on anything. I want to find out if it's true. I may not show it to my close relative. I want to find out for myself whether it is possible living in the same room, same house, husband, wife, relative and so on, to be totally impregnable - not build a wall around oneself, that is fairly simple. You understand? I can build a wall round myself and say sorry and be polite about it, soft about it, and very affectionate but it is still a wall. That means limitation. So is it possible for me to live vulnerably? Go on, think it out sirs. And yet not be wounded. Highly sensitive, not be in any way responding according to my attachment. You understand? Go on sirs, think it out. And if one is dependent on another financially, that becomes rather dangerous. Most of us are in this position. Do you want me to go on with this?
If I am dependent financially on you - God forbid, I am not - but if I am dependent on you, what happens between us? You then have the whip in your hand. Not only financially, but go further into it. Is it possible to live with another on whom I am financially dependent and know I am dependent because I can't do anything else - right? I can't start a new career. If I am quite young I could probably do it but if I am sixty, fifty, or even seventy or ninety, then you can't do it, start a new career. So then what shall I do? Go on sirs, I am not... What will you do?
So where do I draw the line of dependency? You understand my question? Psychologically I won't depend. For myself I won't depend on anybody, or on anything, or on any past experience and all the rest of that rubbish. There is no dependence. But if one is dependent financially where do I draw the line so that being rather oldish, you say, 'Sorry I have to put up with it.' - right? I have to put up with it, I can't start a new game. So how far, how deep is that line? You understand my question? Is it just superficial? You understand? Or the line has great depth? Obviously very superficial. Oh, I don't mind. Right? So what is important in this question is if one understands it rightly: freedom. Freedom is absolutely necessary. But I depend on the milkman, on the supermarket, postman and so on: otherwise psychologically I don't depend. I must be very clear on this. So I draw the line very, very superficially without any depth.
FOURTH QUESTION: Some people seem to pick parts of what you say that fits their problems or interest and then discard the rest. What do you say to this?
Some people seem to pick parts of what you say that fit their problems or interest and then discard the rest. What do you say to this? I don't have to say anything about it. What do you say? We are dealing, aren't we, together with the whole of life, not just part of life, whole of it, both psychological world, which is immense, not just physical reactions and nervous responses, and memories and all that, that is part of the psychological structure but it is much deeper than all that. If you can go that deeply. So we are dealing not only with the psychological world but the violence that exists in the world. The tremendous violence that is going on, killing for the sake of killing, for the fun of killing, not only with the gun but also destroying people when they obey somebody. Careful please. That means obedience - right? It is a dangerous subject, please listen carefully, not take part of it and say, yes he is against the army. We are dealing with the whole phenomena of life, not parts of it. Which the scientists are doing, which the doctors are doing, which the priests are doing, and the educators are doing. We are concerned with the entirety of human life. And if you like to pick parts of it, it is up to you. And that part will be satisfactory, or say 'It suits me, that is enough for me'. That is also perfectly right. But if we are concerned with the whole of life, not only one's own particular life but also the life of human beings throughout the world, the immense poverty, incalculable poverty of which you don't know - the indignity of it, the corruption of it. And all the religious circus - sorry to use that word - all the religious nonsense that is going on in the world, tremendous big business, enormous wealth, Rolls Royce's, Rolls. You should read this article or memorandum on How To Become a Good Guru. The tremendous wealth of these people! And if you are concerned with the whole humanity, which is you are also humanity - right? You are humanity, not humanity is there, you are different. You are humanity. Not British, French, Russian. We are human beings first, professionals after, first you are human beings. And we human beings have separated ourselves and that is why there is chaos in the world. It is only war in Lebanon, who cares! It is a war in the Far East, Afghanistan, awful Russians, and so on. But if you feel deeply that you are the entire humanity because you suffer as they suffer; you shed tears, they do too. You are anxious, you laugh, you have pain, and they too have all this, whether they are rich or poor. They are corrupt and so are we in a different way. They are corrupt because they want money, food, and they will do anything to have food and money, anything. So we are the entire humanity. If one realises that marvellous thing, which is the truth, then you will not kill another, then there is no division between this country and that country, then your whole life is different. If that is what you want. If you want to pick parts of it, go to it. Nobody is putting pressure on you not to pick a part of it to satisfy your little demands, or big demands. But if one actually, deeply, honestly, without all the ideological nonsense, the real fact that we are entire humanity: prayers, non-believers, the Muslims, the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Christians, we are one. We all go through tremendous travail. Therefore this search for individual freedom, individual becoming and so on becomes rather childish - for me, anyhow.
FIFTH QUESTION: There are many accounts of people following a particular discipline who come upon the immeasurable. Are they self-deluded? Or have they come to this somehow despite their efforts? Or is there another explanation?
There are many accounts of people following a particular discipline who come upon the immeasurable. Are they self-deluded? Or have they come to this somehow despite their efforts? Or is there another explanation?
It is nothing to do with disciplines, with effort. You may disagree, you are perfectly right to disagree, or agree but let us both understand what we are talking about, each of us. You may belong to a particular discipline, Buddhist, Hindu, Tibetan, Christian, certain abbot, certain guru, all the rest of it, follow certain discipline, order, do everything everyday at 2.0 o'clock in the morning, or early morning, pray, do this - discipline. And through that discipline some people say they have understood or realised the immeasurable - right? The questioner says, those who come upon the immeasurable, are they self-deluded? What do you say? The word 'discipline', according to the dictionary, means to learn - to learn. The disciple learns, not from a master, learns. That is, he is learning, not conforming, not imitating, not obeying. He is learning. Learning itself has its own discipline - right? I don't know if you understand.
There is this quality of learning, not memorising and repeating. Right? That is, most of us accumulate knowledge and memory to do certain functions, certain skills and so on. So learning there, is implied accumulation and according to that accumulation of knowledge acting. And that knowledge can be increased more and more, or becomes duller and duller, more and more accustomed - right? So most of us are memorising in order to have a skill. To live in this modern society you must have some kind of skill: in the factory, in the mines, in the business, or at the altar, some kind of effort, some kind of discipline there. And they keep on repeating day after day, day after day, day after day. You see them in the churches and temples and mosques, repeating the same old stuff. And it is not learning. They may say, 'Yes, we are learning', but that is rather meaningless if you repeat, repeat, repeat.
So can discipline, which is conforming, imitating, obeying, towing the line, can that lead to the immeasurable? Immeasurable means that which is not being measured, which cannot be measured - right? It is beyond all measurement, all delineation, the line. It seems, for the speaker, that is not possible, because the brain then is conditioned to a routine, to a certain particular form, and the very essence of that limitless, to comprehend - not comprehend it - to see what it is, requires immense, incalculable freedom.
Therefore, what is freedom? Not all this. Freedom. There are two kinds of freedom. Freedom from. Freedom per se, for itself. I can be free from fear. There can be freedom from fear - right? That freedom is conditioned because it is free from something. And is there a freedom which is by itself, the thing itself? And it is only that freedom which requires compassion, love, and that freedom is that supreme intelligence which has nothing to do with the intelligence of thought. And to come to that, one has to be free from all fears and all the rest of it. If that interests you, you've to put your energy into it. You have to put your life, your house in order, complete order, not neatness, not polishing the furniture - that is part of it. But the house, the inner house, the deep house that has no foundation, no roof, no shelter. You can't invite the immeasurable - it then becomes a plaything. You can't lay down the path for another to follow. It is not to be put into words. We measure everything with words. We call it the immeasurable. It certainly is not. It is something entirely different.
Sorry. I had better stop. May we get up?