2nd Question & Answer Meeting 8
Can we live together without conflict?
2nd Public Questions, Ojai, California
May 19, 1983
May we go on with the questions?
One wonders, if one may, why you all come. I'm not insulting; I'm just asking. What is the motive of your coming? What is the background or what's the intention that we all get together here? Is it out of curiosity or trying to find out for oneself what it's all about - life, I mean; or you want to hear the speaker, or you want to gather what kind of person he is, either he is a hypocrite or sane or rational. I wonder why one comes to all these meetings, or goes to any meeting.
If one is sceptical, which I hope some of us are, and questions, not only what others might say, or what one might oneself do, but question, be doubtful of one's own judgements, evaluations, one's own case. Then that has extraordinary importance. But just to listen or hear a few words, agree or disagree, but if you could be very clear, the intention of our coming here, then that intention, if it is right and honest, has some kind of depth in it. If it's merely to gather a few ideas, few statements, I'm afraid that it'll have not much value.
So may we go on with the questions?
1st QUESTION: Why don't you be more practical and not so abstract in what you are saying?
I wonder what one means - practical. The word practical means 'fit to act'. And also it has another meaning: action repeated, habitual action. And more complex explanations of that word.
Are we practical? When there are wars going on, after many, many thousands of years and the continuation of war, is that practical? Or it is a habitual performance. We have done this for thousands of years, killing each other not only with guns and other means of destroying people but calumny, hate, all the violent things that are going on in the world - is all that practical? Or we are so used to that kind of way of living, and we accept that as the most practical. And the questioner says, why don't you be more practical, and not so beastly abstract? The word 'abstraction' means to divide, to separate, to draw away, to draw away from the fact, to draw away from what one is, actually is; make an abstraction, to separate from that which we feel, which we realise to be so, and make an abstraction of it, separate from what we feel to what we should be. That's an abstraction. So the questioner asks, why don't you be more practical and not so abstract in what you are talking about?
So are we practical at all? Except perhaps earning a livelihood, having a skill, being a good carpenter, good chemist, a good writer or an excellent thinker. But to be practical, that is, to live a life, if one may point out - we are not advising, only fools advise, but just pointing out - because we are both of us thinking together what it means to be practical. We have defined the meaning of the word according to various good English dictionaries, and dictionaries are the common usage of words, and the meaning of those words. Practical means, doing, acting repeatedly: thinking, hating, calumny, all that, being violent: is that all practical? Or we are so used to it, we keep on repeating this action and reaction: you hate me and I hate you; you are violent, I become violent. You hit me, I hit you. This is the pattern that we have repeated through centuries.
You might say, have you not done something not practical? That is, have you done anything - you, the speaker - which is not reaction, which is habitual response, repeated action. We must be clear about what we mean by action. Either one has a moral action, action based on some kind of moral values, moral, aesthetic perception, and if one does something, if another does something which is not correct, which is not moral, then you have a certain relationship, certain responsibility to act. That may not be habitual, a repeated action.
And the questioner also wants to know: why are you talking in abstraction? Are we? Is the speaker talking in abstraction? Or he is pointing out what we are all doing, each one of us, not judging each other, not condemning or slandering, but watching.
In that watching oneself and others, if there is not that quality of silence, then from that watching you can make an abstraction from what actually is, separate it into an idea. The original meaning of the word 'idea' and 'ideals', the Greek meaning and so on, 'to observe.' 'Idea' means to observe. Not make an abstraction of what you observe. I observe the tree, the thing called tree, and I make an abstraction of it, separate it from my perception; from that, make an idea of it, and so the actuality of the tree and the idea of a tree are two different things.
Suppose I am afraid. That is an actuality, fear is an actuality. But the abstraction of that, which is to separate from the fact into, 'I should not be afraid' is an abstraction. Or, I must cultivate courage, that's an abstraction of the fact that I am afraid. So the idea, which we now accept, is something separate from the fact. Right? So when we are talking about abstraction, we mean bringing about a division between the actual, make an idea of it, and pursue the idea, not the fact. That's what we are doing all the time. The Communists have certain ideologies; very strong, brutal, and all the rest of it. So the so-called free countries have also certain concepts, values, judgements. There is poverty in the world. Now the abstraction of that is: what to do. And each one of us, or each group, or each political party, says this should be done, that should be done. So they are involved in ideas, not with the fact. You can't quarrel about a fact. Right? The sun is hot today; that's a fact.
So to solve a question like poverty, it's no good making an ideology about it, make an abstraction about it. But face the fact whether it's possible to solve poverty in the world. Not through ideas, through concepts. And that's only possible when there is a global relationship, not political relationship. That global relationship can only exist when there are no nationalities. Right? Obviously. And as poverty is increasing in the world, that poverty can only be solved, not by political parties or socialist parties or various type of parties, but the realisation that - which is a fact, not an abstraction - fact that as long as there are these divisions, which are abstractions from the fact, this problem of poverty cannot possibly be solved. Right?
Then one says, what am I to do? As a person living in a country that's full of nationalistic and patriotic spirit, what am I to do? Obvious, very simple: don't be a nationalist. Don't belong to any group, any association, you know, all the rest of it. As long as there is a separative action with regard to a problem, that problem will never be solved. Or rather, that problem in the resolution of that problem there'll be a thousand other problems. I hope this is clear.
So what we are saying seems to be fairly practical, practical in the sense, something that can be done. Not the habitual repeated action, but something that is practical, obvious, sane, rational. Right? Is the question answered? Or shall we go on to the next one.
Americans are supposed to be very practical people, and that's why they pollute all the rivers, pollute the air, destroy the forests, all the marvellous animals of the world - they're all very practical people. Killing baby seals - you know all that, what's happening. And we never question why human beings kill. Not make an abstraction of it but why do we kill, either with words, with a gesture, with some kind of tricks and so on. Or actually kill each other and nature and the animals of this world. Why has killing become a pattern of our life? You might say, we have done this for the last million years - that's the habitual, repeated action. And so that we call very practical. We never question these so-called practical, habitual, repeated actions: going to the church every Sunday - if you do at all - or obeying some clique or leader, a small group, enclosing itself and resisting everything else - why do we do all this?
Is it that we want security? And is there security in separation? In division? There is a marvellous example of what is going on in Beirut, or the Israelis and the Arabs. We're all one, human beings, and we have separated ourselves into races, religions, and keep to that pattern, that programme. We have been programmed, like a computer, and we keep on repeating that. And that we call very practical.
So is it possible to be somewhat different? - I was just going to say, impractical!
2nd QUESTION: Most of my energy and time goes into the struggle to earn a living. Is it possible for me and those like me to be deeply unselfish and intelligent?
Do you want to go into this question? Why are you so eager? Not about the other - the other question was being practical and not abstract, not talk in abstractions. This is our life; this is our everyday life. Those who are lucky, they have their own means and they don't have to work endlessly. There are very few of such type. And there are those who have been fortunate or unfortunate to gather money that doesn't necessarily belong to them and live a secluded, somewhat selfish life. And those people who have to earn daily bread from nine to five, factory, office, labour, carpentry and so on, we spend a great deal of energy in all that. And so we, the questioner says, I have very little time to enquire into this business of selfishness and intelligence. I have not much energy. My energy is dissipated, in work, in doing. Right? Is that so?
One has to work, as society is structured, one has to work to earn a livelihood. Or you can live on dole, or what is called Social Security. If we really enquire how we waste our energy, not, all my energy is taken away through daily work, but we should enquire really how we waste our energy; whether it's possible to conserve energy and use it when necessary, and retain it when it's not. Am I making myself clear?
How do we waste our energy? Please understand my question. Not how to use energy, that energy which demands enquiry into being unselfish and intelligence, but rather let's enquire, approach this question from a different point of view, which is, to find out how we waste energy. Right? Then it'll be very clear. Do we waste energy by chattering? Endless talk? Right? Most of us do - endless talk. And is it a wastage of energy to be constantly in conflict - in the office, at home, and so on? Right? Is not conflict within oneself and outside, a wastage of energy?
Not how to be free of conflict - for the moment - but to observe how we waste our energy: conflict, the concept or an illusion that we are individuals, and so fighting everybody - right? - against everybody; enclosing ourselves in a little, neurotic state, building a wall round ourselves through fear, and so on. That's also a great deal of wastage of energy. Right? And to pursue an ideal is a wastage of energy, not the ending of a fact. I don't know if I am making myself clear.
Suppose one is violent; you pursue non-violence, which is non-fact. The pursuit of non-violence is a wastage of energy. Whereas to understand the nature of violence, go into it deeply, the complexity of violence, and see if it is possible to end it - that's not a wastage of energy. But to pursue a non-fact, which is the ideal, whether it's a political ideal, or Marxist ideal, Communist ideals, is a wastage of energy. Isn't it a wastage of tremendous energy, building armaments against each other? No? I don't know if you have been listening to some of the television explanations of how Russia is building up its armament, and America - as you listen to it very carefully, it all seems so insane. So extraordinarily irrational. So one wonders if one is going mad. Probably most of the people who are involved in all this are rather neurotic in different ways. Probably most of us are.
So to find out for oneself how we waste our energy. And the greatest waste of energy is to be concerned with oneself. No? Because to be concerned with oneself, with one's neurotic state, and to be unaware of it, to be concerned with one's own issues and one's own problems, one's own achievements, is a very, very limited energy; it's very limited. And therefore your energy is limited. But when there is freedom from that there is immense energy. But to be free from that concern with oneself and with one's hurts and in return wanting to hurt others; that concern with oneself is bringing about great chaos in the world. To seek one's own enlightenment, following your own particular little guru, is such a wastage of energy. We'll talk about it more when we talk about meditation. So is it possible not to waste energy along all these lines?
And if you have that energy, what will you do with it? Will one become more mischievous? More violent? More beastly? So in the conservation of energy - you follow? - which comes about by understanding the wastage of energy, conserving that energy, not that you conserve energy; when there is energy not wasted, there is energy. In the discovery how you waste your energy, there is the beginning of intelligence. Right? That intelligence is not wastage of energy. That intelligence is extraordinarily alive.
One cannot possibly be intelligent if one is selfish. Right? Selfishness is part of division; separation: I am selfish and you are selfish; in our relationship we are selfish. So to understand the nature of the wastage of energy, not only superficially, but very, very deeply. Out of that investigation, probing, questioning, one comes to a certain quality of energy which is the outcome of intelligence, not merely setting aside wastage of energy. I wonder if you understand this. Can I go on with it or do you want to go to the next question?
So we really should ask also here: what is intelligence? Are those people who are very, very learned, are they intelligent? I'm not saying they are not, I'm questioning. Are those people who are politicians and building armaments and so on, are they intelligent? Is intelligence merely the activity of thought? However that thought be attenuated, more subtle, more complex. Is the very activity of thought intelligence? I hope you are questioning. One hopes that both of us are thinking together in this matter, in all these matters; not that the speaker is saying and you are listening, but together we are investigating this question of intelligence, as we did the wastage of energy and what is practical, what is abstract. So we are questioning together what is intelligence. We are asking: is thinking, however subtle, however complex, all the activities of thought, including invention, putting very, very complex machinery together, like the computer, like a robot, like a missile, or the extraordinary machine of a submarine, or these beautiful aeroplanes; they're all the result of tremendous activity of thought. And also the activity of thought is how we use them. Right? Basing on our ideologies, use, profit, various forms of motives.
So we are asking a very fundamental question: whether thought in all its extraordinarily complex activities and very superficial activities, is intelligence the root of thought? Thought is limited because thought is based on experience, knowledge derived from experience as memory stored in the brain, and the reaction to that brain is thought. If there is no memory, if there is no knowledge, if there is no experience, there is no thinking. Right? Every little thing on this earth, the smallest little thing, must have the quality of thought - instinct. But human beings like us, we have evolved - supposed to be. And our greatest instrument is thought. And that thought is actually very limited because knowledge is always - past, present and future - will be limited. Obviously. As in the scientific world, in the biological world, in the world of machinery and so on, so on, so on, anything born, brought about, put together by thought is limited. That limited thought can invent a limitless, but it's still the result of thought. Thought has divided the world into various religions and all the things that are in the churches, temples, mosques, are the inventions of thought. You can't get beyond that, that's a fact. And what thought has created, then we worship it. Marvellous self-deception!
So we are asking: is intelligence the activity of thought? Or it is totally outside the realm of thought, which then can use thought. You follow, not the other way around. I wonder if I'm making myself clear. So one has to enquire into the nature of intelligence. One must very carefully examine the only instrument apparently we have, which is thought. Thought includes emotion, sensory responses and so on, so on, so on. All that is centred in the brain, which is the whole structure of human beings.
The speaker is not an expert with regard to the brain, but one watches: one's own reactions, one's own responses, hurts, illusions, you know - watches. And when one watches silently, without any motive, then that watching reveals a tremendous lot. One learns a great deal more in silence than in noise. Right? That's a different matter. So are we intelligent? Therefore practical? Therefore never bring about a division.
We'll talk more about it when we talk about the whole world, what is the significance of death, suffering, and the great question of compassion.
3rd QUESTION: You travel about a great deal in the world but I must stay with my family in one place and live in a limited horizon. You speak of a global vision. How am I to have this?
I'm sorry, I've never talked about global vision. The speaker doesn't indulge in visions. Or in imagination. Or in fanciful romantic nonsense. He was saying, you cannot have peace in the world, physical world, if you have no global relationship. Not vision, something fanciful, Utopia, some ideal which is non-fact. The fact is that we are divided, as nationalities, religions, sectarian, little groups, smaller groups - divided. And there is this question of war, which is being heightened, threatened. And whether man wants to understand the nature of peace, which is very complex. Outwardly there must be a global relationship which means no nationalities, no religious divisions - Catholics, Protestants, Hindu, Buddhists and all that business. He is not talking about business at all. This is practical; the other is impractical. To kill each other by the million through atom bombs and so on is most impractical. But apparently our minds are so conditioned that we stick to the impractical.
The questioner says or asks: you travel about a great deal but I must stay with my family in one place and so my horizon is limited. Do you mean to say your house, your family, prevents you from having a global outlook on the world? Right? I'm asking this question, if I may. One may live in a small village, work endlessly or live some place where your neurotic attitudes and all that can have full play - but while you are living in a small village, you mean to say one can't have a global attitude, a holistic approach to life? I am asking this question most respectfully: does one have to travel all over the world to have global attitude? Most of you have travelled probably all over the world; tourists do, and wherever the tourists go, they destroy that place. I know there used to be lovely villages and towns, not these enormous hotels and so on, before the tourists came. (laughs) And when the tourists come, you know what happens. Food becomes more expensive, tourists are cheated - you know all that business. So: what is it to have an outlook, a feeling rather, of humanity? What does it mean to have a feeling that the whole world, human world, is you?
The human world has great troubles, great anxieties and miseries and confusions and beastly, neurotic activities. And one realises that what you are is the rest of humanity. That's a fact, if you go into it, simply, not theoretically, not in abstraction, intellectually, but even if you do go into it intellectually, it's a fact that our brains are not individual brains. They have been evolving through thousands of years. And when you observe from one's little village and work, one can observe what is happening in the world: wars, wars, wars, hatreds, man against man, the eternal quarrel between people, one blaming the other and taking them to court or divorce or this or that. All this can be settled if you are somewhat yielding, intelligent. But we are not. And what we are is very, very, very limited.
And you cannot ask: how am I to break through this limitation? To have a feeling that you are the entire humanity - there is no 'how', that's one of our most impractical questions. There is a 'how' when you want to learn to drive a car. There is a 'how' when you want to learn mathematics, or a new language and so on. But psychologically, there is no 'how'. If you have a 'how', it means a system, a method, and when you practise a system, a method, you're back again in the same old limited, narrow, dull mind. So it's not a question of how to get out of this limited way of life to understand the global, holistic way of perception, but to observe the limitation, one's own limitation, one's own narrow, ugly prejudices, conclusions about another or one's own conclusions and sticking to them. The very word 'conclusion' means the ending. We have concluded a peace, we have concluded a war. So there is no conclusion, but enquiry, probing, questioning, doubting. And the walls which we build round ourselves - that is the real problem: the religious walls, the personal walls, the neurotic walls; that is the problem - to be aware of all this. To observe without motive; and that's very difficult for a neurotic person, for a person who has concluded that he is this, he is that, or the other person is that or that. Global relationship alone can solve our human problems, as war, poverty. And to be aware of one's own limitation.
4th QUESTION: You have stated that if one stays with fear and not try to escape and realise one is fear, then the fear goes away. How does this come about, and what will keep it from returning on other occasions in a different form?
Have you understood the question? You want me to repeat it once more? May I repeat it again? You have stated that if one stays with fear, not try to escape from it, but actually realise that one is fear, that is, one is not separate from fear, then apparently, according to you, fear goes away. How does this happen, how does this come about, and what will keep it from returning on another occasion in different form? Clear, this question is clear now.
Please don't accept what the speaker has stated. That's the first thing. Doubt him, question him. Don't make him into some kind of stupid authority - if I may remind you of that.
Someone, or you heard that if one actually stays with fear, then that fear goes away. To stay with fear implies - we are discussing it together, the speaker is not stating anything - if we stay with fear, which means not to escape from it, not to say, search out the cause of it - for the moment - we'll go into it, I'm going to go into it very carefully. To stay with it means not to escape, not to seek the cause of it, not to rationalise it or to transcend it; to stay with something means that. To stay when you look at the moon - to look at it. Right? Not say, how beautiful, how this, how that; but just to look at it; be with it. Then, it is stated that fear goes away. And the questioner says, is that so? He wants further enquiry into it.
You and the speaker are doing the enquiry. The speaker may put it into words, but we are both taking the journey together, not only verbally, but actually.
As it is said, what is fear? Fear can only take place when there is time and thought. Time as something that happened yesterday or a year before or forty years ago, and that something you should or should not have done, or somebody is blackmailing you about it - look at it. Right? Time is that which has happened, which you are threatened with, and afraid of that threat, because you are protecting yourself; and the future is, not to be afraid. Right? So the whole movement of fear is time, the past - right? - meeting the present creates the feeling, the reaction of fear - right? - and that continues in the future. So that's a problem of time - right? Is this clear? Are we together in this? Time is a factor bringing about fear. Right? I have a job now, but I might lose the job. Right? The factory might close. It is not closed, but it might close, which is future. It may be tomorrow or twenty years hence; but the fear it might close. That is, thought, thinking about the future which is time, creates the fear. Right? So thought and time create fear. That's simple enough. Right? One has done something wrong or right or some incident which is there and you come along and threaten me with it. Right? And I get frightened. Or not frightened. I say, go ahead. You follow? So time and thought are the factors of fear. Clear?
Time is thought. They are not two separate movements. Right? Time is movement, isn't it? From here to there. I need time to go from here to that place. I need time to learn a language and so on, so on. Thought is also time, because thought is based on experience; acquiring knowledge is time. Right? And memory is time, which is the past. So thought, time are together; they are not two separate movements. Right? Are we together in this? So that is the cause of fear. I might die; I am living, but the idea of ending, which is in the future, causes fear, distance from the living, and the ending. Which we'll talk about another time. You understand? So, thought-time is the factor of fear.
One has faced this quite recently. Right? We all do. We are threatened by some persons. This is happening the world over. Threatened by one nation against another - you know all that. Or one individual against another; threat is a form of blackmail; you have done... and so on, so on, so on. And to be aware when you are threatened, whether fear arises or you just observe. You understand what I'm saying? You can observe without any reaction when there is an understanding of the nature of time and thought.
The questioner says, how does this happen? Right? How does fear end when you watch - right? - when you understand the nature and watch. To escape, to rationalise, to sublimate it and so on, to go off to an analyst and so on, is a wastage of energy. Right? Isn't it? Be clear on this; let's be clear on this matter. It's a complete waste of energy, to escape. Because if you do, it's always there when you come back - from your football, from the church, it's always at home. Or after you have taken a lot of drink, it is there. And you can keep on drinking, perhaps that may be one way out. Then become more and more sick or mentally ill. So escape is a wastage of energy.
To analyse and gradually discover the cause of fear, either through your own analysis of yourself or the analysis of another, is a wastage of energy. (laughs) Because if you watch, you can find out what's the cause, instantly, which is time and thought. Right? You see unfortunately, we are trained to be dull. I won't go into this question. Knowledge may be making us dull. I won't go into it now, that's too complex a question. We are saying, where there is a cause, there is an end. Obviously. If I have some kind of disease, and the doctor discovers the cause of it, it can end it. Or it cannot be ended. Where there is a cause, there can be an end to the cause. That's a fact.
So watching fear as it arises and living with it, not escaping from it, you begin to see the fact: time, thought are the root of it. That's the cause. And, as we said, it's a wastage of energy escaping, analysing, searching the causes and spending days and months and years to find out. That's a wastage of energy. When you conserve energy and that is not to escape, etc., you have energy. Right? Then that very focusing of that energy on the fact of time, which is something that happened yesterday, that might cause, etc., etc., so the very conserving the energy dissipates fear completely. Right? Yes. Wait!
That is, fear is you. Fear is not separate from you. Right? Is that a fact? We have separated fear from 'me'. Right? Which is an abstraction, a division. Right? There is anger, and I say, I have been angry. Which is, I am separate from anger. But I am anger, there is no separate person from anger. This one must really go into very carefully; or you can understand this instantly. You are greed, aren't you? Greed is not separate from you. We have separated it. You say, greed is separate from me and I then can act upon greed. I, the thinker, is separate from thought then I control thought. Right? I try to control, I try to, you know, concentrate and all the rest of it. But the thinker is the thought. Thought has created the thinker, right? No? Otherwise there would be no thinker. Right?
So when one realises the actual fact that fear is you then the division ends. Right? And as long as there is a division, there is conflict between you and fear. But if you are fear, therefore there is no division, the conflict ends. I wonder if you realise this. All right? Is this clear? As long as there is a division between the Arabs and the Jews, the Muslims and the Hindu, Christians and - you know all that division - that creates conflict. This is logical, sane; right? So as long as there is a division in me, as the me and fear, and me and the greed, me and violence, there must be conflict. But the actual fact is, violence is me. Greed is me. Envy is me. So this division which thought has created between me and fear ends; and therefore you have no conflict and therefore there is great energy; right? That's a fact, naturally when there is no conflict, there is energy. Can we go on from there? This is clear?
I am not teaching you; you are learning from your own observation. So you are your own guru and your own disciple. You are your own teacher and your own etc. So. And the questioner says, and what will keep fear from returning on other occasions in a different form? Right?
Fear has many branches; right? Many ways, many expressions, many forms: fear of the dark, fear of public opinion, fear of what you might do, fear of what I have done, fear of so many things. Fear of one's wife, fear of one's losing something, gaining - you know - fear has a thousand branches. And it's no good trimming the branches - right? - because they'll come back. So one must go to the root of it and not cut the superficial expression of fear; one must go to the root of the cause of fear; which is thought and time.
If one really sees the fact of this, the truth of it, and remains with it, not run away from it, then fear - don't accept, please, most respectfully we are saying, don't accept what the speaker is saying. To the speaker, this is a fact. You might say, what nonsense, you live in illusion. You've a perfect right to say it, but it's not so for oneself.
5th QUESTION: Is it some lack of energy that keeps us from going to the very end of a problem? Does this require special energy? Or is there only one basic energy at the root of all life?
First of all, what is a problem? That's what the questioner says, when we go to the very root of the problem, and that requires, the questioner says, energy to go to the very end of it. So we are asking, what is a problem? The word 'problem' means, the Latin, Greek and so on, something thrown at you. Something that you have to face, something different from you. Now, from childhood we are trained to solve problems: mathematical problems, geography, how to write, that's a problem to a child. How to go to the toilet - it's a problem to the child. So from childhood, our brain is trained to solve problems: how to go to the Moon, how to ride a bicycle, how to drive a car, how to live with another person without problems arising. So our brain is actually trained to solve problems. Right? That's a fact. So our whole life becomes a problem to be solved. Right? See it in yourself, sir, how this operates. Right? Are we clear on this matter? We can proceed from there.
Our whole instruction, information is to resolve problems, conditioned from childhood - the brain is. And problem means something thrown at you. You can look it up in a good dictionary; it will tell you, the Latin and so on. So we are always resolving problems. We look at the whole of life as a problem to be resolved.
And the questioner says, does some kind of energy keeps us from going to the very end of a problem. Right? I am asking, not how to end a problem - why do we have problems? Not that there are not problems. You attack me, that becomes a problem, legally or this way, or that way. That becomes a problem, there are problems. But why do we have problems, the mind that says, I have problems. You understand? I wonder if we can go into this a little bit. Are you interested in this?
So another question arises from that, which is to live without a single problem. Not that there are not problems, but to have no problems. We will come to that presently. Why do we have problems? You attack me. Or I attack you, for various reasons; moral, immoral, various issues, because you hold to certain conclusions, neurotically or some idealistic reasons, you hold to them. And you insist that way, never yielding, never apologising, never concerned except for yourself and your neurotic way of life. And the questioner says, to go to the very end of a problem, does it require energy? Obviously. Not any special energy, but just ordinary energy of investigation.
Now to investigate very closely, very delicately, deeply all the intricacies of a problem, you cannot have a motive. Right? If you have a motive in the resolution of a problem, that motive will dictate the answer, not the problem. Right? Are we getting together, are we meeting? Suppose I have a problem - personally I haven't, whatever happens happens, I'll deal with it. But I am not going to have any problems. It is stupid to have problems, for myself I am saying. And I need energy to investigate a problem - problem of war, why human beings kill each other. To go into it, look at it, closely, step by step, that requires energy. And to resolve a problem of relationship, and relationship is extraordinarily important, I need energy to go into it very, very carefully. Right? And other problems. So energy is necessary to investigate closely, delicately, never coming to any conclusion, moving, moving - you follow? But if you are attached to a tether you cannot investigate. Right? A tether, a post, tied to it - you know, an animal tied to a post you can only go that far, whatever the length of that rope is. So there must be freedom from any conclusion, any motive, to investigate. That's clear. Obvious. Like a scientist, he may have a great many hypotheses, theories, but he puts them aside to investigate. And then he says that theory is true, but he doesn't insist that theory is true before investigation. Right? But we do!
So you need energy to go to the very end of a problem. Take any problem that one has - what? Fear we went into.
K: Good. Is that a problem? All right, loneliness. Why have we made that into a problem? It is there. Right? It is there. You are lonely. Why are you lonely? That is, separated - right? - divided. You may be married, have a great many friends but there is this sense of deep loneliness of human beings. How does that loneliness come about, what is its quality? Isn't it brought about by our daily action? Our action is based on our own selfish motives, self-centred activity: I must be a great man, I must be a successful man, I must reach, meditate, I must do this, I must do that. Everything is me, I am the most important person. You hear that on television everyday. Right? So when you emphasize all day long this limited quality, limited state of mind, it must inevitably lead to a form of a word called loneliness, which is to have no relationship with anybody. Right? Which is brought about by our daily activity of thought and action. And then you say, I am lonely, I must take a drink - right? - to escape from it. I am lonely, therefore I am going to the club, or go to a night club, or whatever you do. Or hold on to your wife, hold on, cling, because you are afraid of being lonely.
Now, you see the cause of it, which is very simple, very quick; and to hold the whole thing together and not use the word 'lonely'. Because the word 'lonely' is an abstraction of the fact. You understand? The fact is not the word. But the word has become important rather than the fact. And the cause of the fact is this constant struggle, neurotic or otherwise, constant thought of oneself: I am hurt, I want to be great, I want to be this, I want to be that. You know, sir, all that goes on within the human brain. So there is the fact, and the word is not the fact. When you use the word 'lonely', it is already used and has its associations with the past. So you never look at that feeling afresh when you use the word 'lonely'. I wonder if you see.
So to live with that feeling afresh, because you can do that only when you see the cause of it - daily concern with oneself. Then you might ask: mustn't one be concerned with oneself? You know, the good old question! And if you want that, to be concerned with yourself, and at the end of it feel lonely, unhappy, miserable and all that, that's your affair. If you want that, pursue it. But if you want to understand a way of living which is totally different, then you have to look at all this very closely, ask fundamental questions. You can only ask fundamental questions by doubting, questioning, asking.
6th QUESTION: Could you go into the nature of intelligence which manifests itself when perception takes place and is this the only true source of action?
This is the last question. What's the time, sir? Five minutes? Can we go on with the last question? Sorry, if one is kept with all these questions.
Could you go into the nature of the intelligence which manifests itself when perception takes place? And is this the only true source of action which is intelligence?
...part of my family, it's a part. The earth is for the whole of man, for the mankind but we say, it's my earth, my country, part. Why have we done this all along? Dividing the whole world into nationalities, into - you know all that's going on - why? Isn't it - I am suggesting this, don't accept it, question it, doubt it, all that. Isn't it that thought which has divided, thinks it will be secure in the part, secure in being nationalistic, secure in being tribal, in the tribe, belonging to a tribe, belonging to a particular form of thought which is religion - right? So we are always seeking security in the part. That's a fact, not a theory, it's a fact. My property - I am not against property, I am just saying - my property, my country, my wife, my god, what I think. So we have always cultivated the part and the part is the intellect. And in that intellectual comprehension, we think there is security. Of course, the more clever you are, more cleverly you discern, you know. You know, don't you know all the world with professors, scientists, all the writers, when they are intellectual everybody adores them. They become great people. That is, part means the superficial - right? Is perception only a part, perceive by a part - do you understand? - by the intellect or only emotions or only a sensory response? Or perception implies a seeing totally, not partially. Do you understand?
One perceives the cause of fear not verbally, intellectually, emotionally. Perception is an action of seeing the whole of nature of fear - right? - not the various branches of fear but the whole movement of fear. The movement of fear is time, thought. We went into it. To perceive it not verbally or idealistically but to see instantly the whole nature of fear - right?
Now, when you see something wholly, completely, what takes place is something quite different. I am going to go into it if you will have the patience, if you are not tired by hearing only the speaker. For the moment - when you go home, you can all speak but now, unfortunately there is only this person speaking.
Look, let's make it very, very simple. Suppose I am being nationalistic all my life or clinging to my particular 'religion' - religion in quotes. That is, my brain has been conditioned to be a nationalist, to be a particular - belonging to a particular sect, whether that sect has hundred, thousand, million, it is still a sect. My brain has been conditioned that way. You come along and tell me, nationalism is the root of war, one of the causes of war. I listen to you. You explain to me logically, if I am willing to listen. If I am not, then of course you can't do anything with it. But if I am willing to listen - which I am - you then explain to me one of the factors or the causes of war, nationalism, racialism. You point it out, various implications of war. I listen to you and I say, look, I tried. Either I accept it intellectually and it does not have great value or I see how true that is. The moment I perceive how true it is, I have moved away; the brain has been unconditioned from the old pattern. Do you get this? The moment I perceive the truth of what you have said, the brain cells which have been conditioned to nationalism, to sectarianism disappears. So perception or insight into what you have said brings about a radical change in the very cells themselves. The speaker has discussed this matter with scientists. Not that you must accept what the scientists say or what the speaker says but he has discussed it. We have argued about it. They agree to this - some of them but the others say, it's not so, it's pure romanticism, etc. But the fact is, the fact: I have been going north. You come along and say, that way leads to danger, and I listen to you. I argue with you, discuss with you, I may have quick insight into what you are saying and I see the truth of what you are saying. So I move away from going north. I go south or east or west. That very movement contrary to the old habit has brought about a radical change in the brain itself, because you understand the pattern will be broken. When the pattern is broken, there is something different.
So where there is a perception in which there is not merely intellectual comprehension but a total insight into the problem - insight to say, for example, all organised religions have no value. They are mere entertainments, excitements, sensations, it doesn't bring about human change. In all that you have quick insight. So it's finished. You don't belong to any group.
K: I explained, sir, fear. If you have an insight into organised or institutions which etc., etc. - if you have an insight, that is a quick, instant perception of what is true, but most of us aren't capable of that because we are not quickly sensitive. We are rather dull people. I am not saying, please, I am not saying you are. We are all rather conditioned people. And this condition cannot be changed, bring about a total mutation if there is not insight into conditioning. And insight is not remembrances, conclusions. It's not a process of time and remembrance. It's seeing things as they are quickly, instantly.
Now the questioner says or asks: when perception takes place, there is intelligence and this, the questioner says, is this intelligence the source of life - the source of action, sorry? Do you understand? When there is perception that tribalism which has become glorified nationalism, is the most destructive element in life, bringing wars and so on, if you have instant insight into it, that insight has its own action. It's not insight and then action but insight itself is action. Do you understand? That is the moment when there is a perception that tribalism is one of the factors of war, that insight is action. You are no longer - there is an action that wipes away your particular tribalism in you - wanting to, belonging to a group. Right?
That's the end of the questions. At the end of all this one asks, what have we, what has one seen, learnt, observed? Do you go on with the same old pattern of hate and reaction, action, blackmailing each other? Or all that ends - that is, quarrels, a sense of communion, affection, all that.
I have stopped. May I get up?
K: What, sir?
Q: It’s a goodbye to you.
K: What for? (laughter).