How does understanding take place?
You are only aware now, or never
2nd Public Discussion, Saanen
July 29, 1976
As we said yesterday, we are having a dialogue, which means a conversation between two people, or with many, who are interested, or concerned with certain problems of human beings and want to go into them deeply, with care and affection, not with any form of assertion or argument. And a dialectical method is investigating through opinions to find out the truth. So we are not dialectically investigating. We are, as two friends, talking over together their human problems and hoping to solve them and to discover truth.
And I am afraid there is a great deal of misapprehension that we are trying to find a technique to truth - a technique, which means learning the method, practising a method, learning a certain form of technique that will help you or another to come upon this truth. We are not advocating, or saying, that there is any technique to truth. Please be very clear on this matter. Technique implies learning a method. I mean, to go to Mars, as they have done, which is a most extraordinary feat, you need a great deal of technological knowledge, a great deal of accumulated knowledge of the 'know-how'. But as truth is a pathless land - please bear this in mind - it is a pathless land, you can't lay down a line, a direction, a path to it and practise it, discipline yourself, learn a technique.
So please bear in mind that we are not giving or offering, or telling a technique, a method, a system. We are already so mechanically minded, our minds are already sufficiently mechanistic, and by practising a technique, a verbal repetition, silence, you know the whole business of all that all techniques will somehow loosen, or free the mind from all mechanistic activity. I am afraid it won't. What we are saying is, that you must have the interest, the drive, the intensity to find out - find out for yourself, not be told how to do it. Then what you discover is something yours, then you will be free from all gurus, from all techniques, from all authority. Please bear that in mind while we are having a dialogue about these matters.
So what shall we talk about, or have a dialogue this morning?
Questioner: Could we talk about the nature of understanding?
Krishnamurti: Understanding. The nature of understanding.
K: I understand. We are afraid, the questioner says, to be vulnerable, to be open, because the more you are vulnerable the more likely that you get hurt. And so we fear to be open. You see the word vulnerable means, doesn't it, like a leaf in the wind it is vulnerable to wind. So could we discuss that.
Krishnamurti: The responsibility of a human being with regard to the images he forms about another. Could we discuss that: responsibility.
K: The relationship of speech, words, thought and the silent mind.
K: How can we live without a motive - is that the question? Yes. How can we live without a motive. Now that is enough for the time being. The gentleman wanted to discuss or have a dialogue about understanding. The relationship between speech, word, thought and silence. The responsibility of not forming an image in relationship. Those were the questions that were put. And to be vulnerable. Can we live without a motive. Now what shall we take out of those questions, one of those questions so that we can think or observe or trace it right to the end, not be diverted in other directions, go to the very end of one question which may include all other questions.
K: Understanding, right. I think that is good, too, I would take that too, myself. Understanding. What do we mean by that word understanding? Please go slowly into it, not quickly. To understand something, what is implied in it? Is it a verbal understanding, a comprehension through verbal description, a comprehension through affection - I like you, I am friends with you, I tell you something, therefore you understand what I am saying. Or is it an insight into something which is rather complex and confused? Or, how does understanding take place? You understand my question? Does understanding take place through verbal communication, which is description? Because you and I if we are speaking English, then it is something, French, Italian, whatever it is, through verbal communication and the description is there an understanding or an insight? Or does understanding take place not merely through words, not merely the description, but going beyond the word, which means both you and the other are free of the verbal structure which is the nature of thought, and penetrating and having an insight? You understand?
When we talk, I understand how the cars run, that is very simple. I have observed it, I have undone it, I have played with it and I know how it works. I understand how to climb a mountain, I know. But we are talking of understanding psychologically, aren't we?, deeply, not the mere worldly understanding but much more the understanding which brings about an insight. An insight means having a sight in something, which then becomes the truth. And I can never go back from it. You understand? When I understand something, which means I have an insight into that and therefore that very insight will wipe away any misunderstanding, any complexity, you have clear sight in that.
Therefore understanding implies, does it not, a mind, or a brain, the whole structure of the mind listens not only to the word but goes beyond the word and sees the deep meaning of that particular statement, and then there is an insight and then you say, 'I understand it', 'I have got it'. So insight implies a mind that is quiet, willing to listen, go beyond the word, and observe the truth of something. Say for instance, the speaker makes a statement like, 'The ending of sorrow is the beginning of wisdom.' He makes a statement of that kind. Now how do you receive it? Please listen to me. The speaker makes that statement: 'The ending of sorrow is the beginning of wisdom'. How do you receive it? What is your reaction to that statement? Do you make of it into an idea, an abstraction, and with that abstraction, which is an idea, try to understand what he said? Or you listen, that is, you listen to the word, the meaning of the word and go beyond the word and see the truth of that statement, or the falseness of that statement. Not how to end sorrow, or how to have wisdom, but whether that statement conveys a truth or a falsehood. To observe the truth or the falsehood your mind must be quiet and then you have an insight into it, then you say, 'By Jove, how true that is!'. So in the same way, understanding implies having an insight into a problem. Right? So that you go beyond all arguments, all dialectical approaches - it is so. It is immovable. Like say, for instance, the speaker says, 'There is no technique to truth, truth is a pathless land'. He makes that statement - he has made it fifty years ago - and how do you receive that statement? Go on sir. How do you receive that statement? This is a dialogue. Do you receive it with opinion, saying no, that can't be true because everybody talks about technique, the method, the system, and this man comes along and says, there is no path, there is no technique to truth. So you say, well, who is right in this, is this man right or is that man right? So are you arguing, comparing, judging, or do you listen to that statement, not knowing what is right and wrong, because you don't know, actually you don't know? Ten people, or a million people have said there is a technique, and some person comes along and says, there is no technique whatsoever. How do you know - you understand? This man may be totally wrong. And he explains: a technique implies practice, time, a mechanistic process. Our minds are already mechanistic enough and you are making it more mechanistic. Right? So he explains all that and you still say, well, a thousand people have techniques. Do you balance these two and then say, well I prefer that rather than that? Or you receive what is said with complete objective silence?, quiet, not knowing what is truth. And when you listen quietly, which means complete attention, then you discover, have an insight into what is being said, then it is yours, not mine. I don't know if you see. That is, to find out what is true and what is false. To find out the truth in the false. Right? So your mind must be extraordinarily open, vulnerable - right? - otherwise you don't know. I wonder if we are understanding each other.
You see, is love an intellectual thing? Technique is an intellectual thing, a method is an intellectual affair, and can you love through a technique? Right? Can you? By practising being very nice, very kind, very gentle, you know, all the rest of it, and at the end of a year after having practised a method, will you love? Right?
K: It is impossible, isn't it? So why do you say, no?
Q: Because it involves a technique.
K: That's right. Why do you say that? Now just a minute, why do you say that? When I said, will there be love if you practise kindness, gentleness, non-violence, etc., etc., etc., will you have at the end of it love? Will you have it?
K: What makes you say, no? What makes you say, no? Do listen to it carefully.
K: No, sir. Listen to me. We said, can love come into being through any form of intellectual effort as technique, and you said, no. What makes you say, no?
K: Listen carefully. What makes you say, no?
K: You have an insight that technique is a method, it is an intellectual affair - understand? - how can that produce love? You follow? There is instinctive response. Now if someone says - listen carefully - the observer is the observed - the observer being the past, and what he observes is through his past background, therefore what he sees is seen from the background. The observer is the observed - he makes that statement. And you say, 'I don't understand that'. Right? 'I can't see it, please tell me in a different way'. So the speaker says, the thinker is the thought. If there is no thought there is no thinker. Right?
K: And why do you say right? Because you see the obvious thing, don't you? And he says further, the experiencer is the experience. And he says the experiencer must recognise the experience otherwise there would be no experience. So recognition implies the past. So the past experiences what it wants, or experiences that which he has projected. And you say, yes, quite right. So you instinctively - or rather, when it is put very clearly you say, perfectly right. So understanding takes place when both of us have a common language, the words have the same meaning for you as well as for me, and we are talking about the same thing, with the same interest, with the same intensity, then there is a direct communication. Right?
Q: Only with words.
K: Only with words. We have been through that. Words are only means for communicating, but we must go beyond the word. We have said that ten times.
K: A monkey. Oh, yes. There is a very famous story, I don't know if you want to be told. A very famous story of a monkey going to the Buddha, and the monkey says to the Buddha, 'I have practised meditation for the last twenty years', or fifty years, 'and I can do most extraordinary things. I can go right round the world in a few seconds.' And the Buddha, stretching out his hand, the monkey is sitting there, and he says, 'Do it'. The monkey says, 'I am going to make a tremendous effort to go right round the world.' And he opens the eyes and he says, 'You are still there!'. (Laughter) You get it?
K: Right. One has built a wall around oneself, the questioner says, and one desires to jump over that wall, because that wall becomes a prison, that wall becomes a wall of resistance, which implies isolation, bitterness, lack of love and all the rest of it. And so the verbal description makes you want to jump over. Just a minute. Right? The verbal description that you are a prisoner enclosed by your own desire not to be hurt, you have built brick by brick this wall and the speaker describes the wall, the effects of the wall - the bitterness, the sorrow, the isolation, the loneliness - and from that, violence and all that, he describes it, and you say, 'I want to get over that wall'. Which means you have no insight into what has made you build that wall. All that you are concerned with is to get over it. And you will never get over it. Whereas if you had an insight into the whole movement of hurt, resistance, isolation, see the whole picture, observe the whole picture then the wall doesn't exist.
K: That is why I want - please let's be clear what we are saying. Having an insight means complete observation of the whole movement of hurt. We are taking that as an example. The understanding of the complete movement of hurt. Q: Why?
K: Wait. I'll tell you. Let me finish. I'll tell you later why. Do we understand, or observe the whole movement of hurt, the whole movement, not just building a wall? Why we are hurt, the image that we have about ourselves, and that image is me, and then I am hurt, and then I build a wall round myself not to be hurt more because I see if I am vulnerable I will get hurt more likely, so I build a wall round myself. And by building a wall round myself I resist and in resistance I have become more and more enclosed, more and more isolated, and from that isolation I feel desperate and I see you who are not desperate, I am angry with you, I become bitter. All the rest of it follows. Do I see, is there an observation or an awareness of this whole movement of hurt?
K: One moment. I understand. I understand your question. First let me finish with this. Do you observe, are you aware of this whole movement? Or you are only partially aware of it, and therefore you say, 'How am I to get over it?' When there is a partial awareness of this movement then the reaction is, 'Tell me how to get over it'. Then the 'how' becomes the method. But when there is a total observation of this whole movement of hurt there is no 'how', you see it. There is an insight into it. You have got it?
Now the question is, the lady asks: why do I bother with it? Why should I go through all this business of insight, and awareness? Because human beings are violent, human beings are bitter, human beings are enclosed, tight, everything is self-centred, the more activity the more self-centred it becomes - in the name of god, in the name of social work, in the name of etc., but the thing becomes tighter and tighter and tighter and therefore more and more anxiety, greed. And a man observing this says, 'Why should I live that way?'
K: Ah, no, no, no, no, there is no You have not - forgive me for repeating - I am afraid you haven't understood. I said insight is not a movement. It is direct perception in which there is no movement.
K: Have you listened to what I said?
K: Ah, no, no, no, please let her go, please.
I said no movement, not somebody moves. No, you haven't Please madame, we are old friends, we have known each other many years. We are saying, insight means non-movement. Right?
Q: Where is it going?
K: Nowhere! (Laughter) No, you are missing my whole point! Please.
K: No madame, you haven't understood. Please you are not listening, forgive me for saying so, but you are not listening to what is being said.
K: Look I say something which is very applicable to you and to me, and words, description, have no meaning, and you say then, 'I understand it'. That understanding is non-movement, isn't it? You have understood it.
Q: There we part company.
K: I am sorry. Don't let's part company, which is what everybody does when they don't agree or understand. Just a minute please. Don't use 'we part company', that is the worst...
K: Madame, just listen to what I have got to say. I know what you are saying, I have understood what you are saying. You haven't understood what I am saying. I have understood what you are saying. I have understood it, please believe me. Don't ever say, 'We part company'. That's the first thing to learn. That means you and I are opposed to each other. You and I, or two human beings when they say, 'We part company' it is the worst thing to say. Please listen to me, you are not listening to me, you are listening to yourself. Don't let us ever come to that point when we say, 'You go north, I go south', because what we are trying to do here is to understand our human problems, to find out what is true and what is false. Not my truth or your truth, or your falseness or my falseness, what is truth, which is non-personal, it is not yours or mine, it is truth. And that is what we are trying to understand. So if you and I are concerned with the enquiry into what is truth, there is no parting. We may go slower, somebody may go faster, but we are on the same path, we are in the same direction - no path.
So please that's the most ugly thing to say to somebody else, 'We part', it is like a divorce.
K: Leave it alone, leave it alone, leave it alone.
Q: Insight and knowledge, or insight and understanding, can we discuss that please?
K: Yes. Insight and knowledge - can we discuss that. And also there is lots more to discuss. As that lady pointed out, the responsibility of image-making, and living without an image. And also about vulnerability and to live without a motive. All those questions are involved.
We began by asking, because that was the first question we all agreed to, which was: what is understanding. If I am fixed with a certain point and you are moving away from that point, there is no understanding between you and me, because I am fixed in my opinion, in my belief, in my experience, in what I think. And therefore communication between you and me comes to an end. Because the speaker has no belief, literally has no belief, no opinion, he is only investigating, penetrating, tracing out. But if you take a stand then it is finished, you do not investigate it. We said investigating into what is truth, and to enquire into that we must not only understand the verbal meaning - English or French or whatever it is, German - then go beyond the word and you can only go beyond the word when you understand thought which lives on words. You understand this? Which lives, breeds on words, and to go beyond that is to have real communion, which then perhaps can bring about an insight. That is what we said. An insight into what is false and what is truth. And that requires very alert, capable observation, not based on prejudice.
So we will go into another question, which is: human beings get hurt because they think they are vulnerable, because they are sensitive, and the question is: does not vulnerability bring more hurt, and therefore - don't be vulnerable, don't be open, because then you get more and more and more hurt. Right? That was one of the questions.
Now, what brings about hurt? We said hurt comes into being when there is an image of myself and that image gets hurt. That's fairly simple, right? I have an image about myself, that I am a great man, or a silly man, and whatever image I have about myself that image gets wounded, that image is me. The 'me' and the image are not different. Now as long as I have an image about myself, and myself is that image, getting wounded is inevitable. Right? Obviously.
Q: Because there is resistance.
K: That's right. Because there is resistance, because I have assumed a position, I have assumed an image which is very pleasant to me and when you come and disturb it I get hurt. So if there is no image there is no possibility of getting hurt. Right? We went into the question of how to go beyond the image. We went into it the other day very carefully. Now to have no image is to be completely vulnerable. Please listen carefully. It is only when there is resistance then there is hurt.
K: You can't. If you have an image it must resist. That's natural. It is like having a wall.
Q: But you have a body.
K: Wait. You go back to the body. That is the organism can tolerate so much and no more. All right. A body, the organism, the biological thing, can tolerate fear up to a certain point, beyond that it can't tolerate, it can't hold, it goes to pieces. So then you have to make the body healthy - right food, and right exercise and all the rest of it. What is the question, sir?
Q: When the image is not I have nothing.
K: That's right.
Q: And when I have nothing, nothing can hurt me.
K: Not, 'nothing can hurt me'.
Q: That is a problem of mine.
K: I understand.
Q: Only vegetables can live in that state.
K: Only vegetables can live in that state. I am not a vegetable. Please, I have lived for, this entity has lived for over eighty years. There have been all kinds of insults, every kind of devotion, every kind of flattery, every kind of usage of words, calling the person all kinds of names - ugly names - terrible. And no image, and therefore never being hurt. I am not a vegetable. You may say, 'Oh, that is an illusion you are living in'. I say, no, I have investigated how illusions come, which means sensation, plus desire, plus thought, image. When you have that process there is bound to be illusion. I have not that. I have gone into this thoroughly. So I am not vegetable and other human beings can do this.
So let's proceed. Where there is image there is hurt. When there is no image at all, and that is essential, that is possible, and it is possible only when you understand the whole movement of building images, having an insight into the building of the image, then there is no building image and then only there is complete vulnerability. It is only when there is partial vulnerability then there is hurt.
Then to go to the next question, which is: what is our responsibility to another in this image-making? Right? After finishing this we will go to the next question: can one live without a motive in life?
What is responsibility? What is one's human responsibility with regard to another, when both of them are building images about themselves. You understand? You are building an image, and I am building an image, and our relationship is based on those images. Right? If you have observed yourself for two seconds this is an obvious fact. I live with a human being and with that human being, out of our living, I begin to build up an image - hurt, irritation, pleasant companionship, words - you follow? - I gradually through years I have established a strong image; as the other person has established a strong image about me. So the relationship is between these two images. Whether you like it or not it is a fact. Then if one of them is free of all image-making, literally all image-making, what is his responsibility towards the other? That is the question as far as I understood it. That's right? Is that right?
Q: One is not free actually, totally, of images.
K: Yes, one is not actually completely free of image-making. So we have to be concerned with that, not the responsibility. We have to be concerned why we build images. It is fairly simple.
Q: Through fear.
K: No, no don't introduce Why do you have an image about yourself? You have images about yourself, haven't you? Don't be shy, it is simple. (Laughter) You have an image about yourself, how does it come into being? You have an image about yourself - not you, sir, I am not personally asking you - you have an image about yourself, why do you have it, and how does it come into being?
Q: Through thought.
K: No, look at it simply.
Q: From childhood.
K: From childhood you are told you are not as good as your brother, that you are not as clever as your elder brother, so you begin slowly to build the image. Your friends help you, and you help your friends to build this image. Society helps you, your parents help you. So gradually school, university, college, you build this tremendous image of yourself, that you are clever or not clever, that you are this or that, so you have an image. And one very rarely is aware of this. Right? One is not aware of this image. That image is me, and one is not aware of it. Now to become aware of it is the first thing. Can you become aware of it? Not say, 'I don't like it', or like it, be aware of the image that you have about yourself - can you?
Q: When I am hurt, yes.
K: Now, now. Not when you are hurt. Now I am asking. You have an image, sir, don't let's beat round the bush. It is so simple.
K: Madame, we are not talking of love. Look, be simple.
So to become aware of that image: then are you aware of it as though it were different from the observer? Please answer this question simply. Are you aware of that image as something different from you who are looking at it? Is the observer different from the image? Naturally not. So the observer is the image. Right?
Q: You can see this if...
K: Not 'if'. Do you see or have an insight that the you who think are not different from the image? When you have an insight you then say, 'I am the image'. Obviously. Now, careful, just go slowly from here. You are the observer and you discover for yourself that the image, the observer is the observed, the observer is the image. Then what takes place? Don't guess. Don't say, 'Yes, if that happens this will happen'. That has no meaning. What takes place when the observer realises what he is observing is himself? So the observer is the observed. That is, having an insight into that, then what happens? Go slowly, sir, don't... no, there is something go slowly. What takes place?
K: You are not watching it. You are too complicated, keep it simple, sir. When it is very simple you make it very complicated.
Q: I am lost.
K: You are lost. You've lost the you've lost the something or the other. Now, wait a minute. Look at it, sir. Please, look at it. This is really most important. Once you have this key, the real thing that you have, then you will find out so much. When the observer is the observed, the experiencer is the experience, the thinker is the thought, what has taken place? What has actually taken place? The division between the two has come to an end. Right? Before, we had this division, the observer said, 'I am different from the observed'. Right? So in that division there was conflict. Right? The observer then says, 'I must do something about the observed. I must control it, I must suppress it, I must run away from it'. So when the observer sees he is the observed, conflict comes to an end. Right? When the Arab realises he is the Israeli, the war is over. You understand?
So when the observer realises he is the observed then the conflict, the division, the struggle, all that has come to an end because he can't do anything else, he is that. Right? You have understood? He is that, therefore conflict has completely come to an end. When a Hindu realises he is the Muslim - you understand? - the Muslim may have different customs, but essentially he is himself, then he says, 'For god's sake, don't let's fight, don't let's be silly'. So conflict comes to an end. Is that a fact with you? Or you are accepting my fact?
So if it is a fact to you then you have come to a way of living in which there is no conflict whatsoever, which means no opposite. You understand? You understand this? No opposite. That is, opposing desire, wanting to do this and not wanting to do that, which is in opposition to each other. When you realise desire has different objects but is still desire then the opposition goes. You're following all this? There is only desire. Then what is desire? Then you go into it and see desire can come into being only when there is sensation, plus thought, and desire. From that arises the image. I wonder if you follow all this. Sensations, thought, desire, then the image-making. I see that car, observe it, sensation, then thought says, 'How nice, if I could drive it' - desire, and the image, which is me sitting in the car and having fun. Right?
So as long as there is image-making there must be hurt. When there is no image-making there is no possibility of being hurt at all. And to have an insight into that frees you from image-making. Isn't it?
And the next question is, which the lady didn't put, which I am going to put: what is the relationship between two people when one has really no image and the other has image. What is then the relationship between the two? You understand? It can happen. You understand? It does happen. You may be married and your wife may be free of image-making - my god, that would be marvellous! (Laughter) And she would call it marvellous if you had no image. So what is her relationship to you - she, who has no image, and you have image? Come on. It is your responsibility, not mine.
Q: I can’t answer.
K: You can't answer. Quite right.
Q: She should love him.
K: Ah, you don't know. You see, you have already formed an image. If you have no image, what is your responsibility to the world, to another, and what takes place when there is no image in this relationship of human beings? You don't know. Right? That is the truth. You don't know. Any formation is just an image-making. You don't know. Remain with that fact that you don't know, which is an extraordinary discovery. You understand sir? You always have an answer, but to say to oneself, 'I really don't know what would happen if there was no image-making, but I am going to find out'. You follow? Look, when you start with certainty you end up in doubt. When you start without any certainty you end up completely certain. You understand? So you don't know. From there move, find out, whether you can be free of image and what is implied, and the responsibility to others. You follow? It is a marvellous thing that is growing, flowering, you discover it.
And the next question is: can one live without a motive? That is, we said where there is a motive there is a direction. Right? The direction set by thought. Right? I have a motive of wanting to get rich. Thank god, I haven't got it, but suppose if I have it. I have a motive, therefore all my life is directed towards that particular thing - getting money. Because then I can have fun, I can travel, I can have a house - you follow? - all the rest of it. So we are traditionally trained, brainwashed to have direction - heaven, Jesus, Buddha, whatever direction, economically, socially, religiously - we are trained to have direction. Right? And so we don't know how to live without a motive. Then we ask, is it possible to live without a motive? Right? Not knowing, we can find out. I don't start by saying, 'I mustn't have a motive', that's silly when I have got it. But to say, 'Well, I have got a motive', I see what is implied in a motive, a movement in a certain direction, pleasant or unpleasant, profitable or not profitable, worthwhile, not worthwhile and so on. The direction is set by thought, which is desire, image, sensation and particular direction. That is the motive operating. And we are trained traditionally, educationally, socially, in every way, even religiously. You follow? You have directions - having directions, motives, then you can find out why thought sets a direction. You understand my question? Are you following this? Why thought sets a direction in life. Direction means non-comprehension of the whole. Right? It is like looking at a map - please, give me five minutes, don't get tired, if you are tired then go to sleep and don't listen, but keep awake for five minutes at least. What is the time, madame?
Q: Twenty to twelve.
K: We will finish with this. Why do we have direction in life? Because, one of the reasons is, it gives security, at least thought assumes it gives security. Right? If I have no motive I don't know what to do. Good lord, I'll be lost. So the fear of getting lost, fear of not being secure, both financially, psychologically and physically, thought says, 'I must have a direction in life'. So it sets a direction, which means pushing away all other things, like one of those athletes we saw in the Olympic Games, he was completely in one direction, diving, running, whatever it is, completely absorbed, trained, concentrated. And the rest of life is, you know - politics, religion, everything is a side issue. There he is completely secure. So thought sets a direction in order to be both biologically and psychologically secure. That is a fact. Right? So it discards the whole map of life. It only sees one direction which is towards that particular village and the rest is denied. So when you have a direction, which is traditional, accepted as normal, then there is division between the one who has a direction going north and the other fellow going south, or south east, south west, you know, break it all up into fragments. You follow? The moment you have a direction you are breaking up life into fragments. I wonder if you follow. I have just seen it now. I have got an insight into it. You understand? No, see it for yourself. The moment you have a direction you have broken up life into fragments. So your life has become a fragment because you have a direction. Get it? You see it? So.
Then the question is: can I live without direction? You understand? I see the whole of the map and the map says there is no motive, no direction. Now just a minute. I'll go slowly into this. I said when there is direction there is the fragmentation of life, of living. That is clear. Fragmentation implies conflict - you in that direction, I in another direction, she another direction, so we are all breaking up and therefore there is no co-operation, except for profit and all the rest of it, so there is always conflict when there is fragmentation. Right? Can we go on? And the mind says, 'Is it possible to live without fragmentation, without direction?' It can only say that when it has seen, or has had an insight into the fragmentary way it is living because it has got a direction. You have understood what I am saying? If I see, observe, am aware that having a direction implies fragmentation. Where there is fragmentation there must be conflict - Arab, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, Catholic, Protestant, the whole business of living. Where there is a direction there is fragmentation, and therefore division and therefore conflict.
Do you have an insight into this reality? It is a reality. Right? It is an actual, factual, daily reality: where I have a direction - I want to be the Prime Minister and you, and so on - you follow? - so there is conflict between you and me. Where there is division there must be conflict, that is a law. Have I an insight into that? Then only I can say, 'Can I live without motive?' Not before, because it has no meaning. So I don't know. You understand? I don't say, 'Well, I can', or cannot, I don't know. But I do know where I have a direction there is fragmentation, conflict and all the rest of it follows. So that I am fully acquainted with, I am familiar with it, everyday of my life. From that I ask myself - because I have an insight into that - I ask myself: is it possible to live without a motive. I really don't know. But I do know the other but I don't know this. So I am going to enquire. I am going to watch. I am watching, there is an observation in my action, in my speech, whether I have a motive. And I say 'Yes, I have got a motive there, why?' You follow? So I begin to bulldoze it (laughs), bring it all out. So at the end I can say, 'I have no motive'. You know what that means? No conflict, no fragmentation, a life which is whole, healthy, sane and holy. Then only you can say this, but to say it before means nothing.
Q: What is the ‘I’ that says I have a motive?
K: I said there is no motive, I say I have no motive. Sir, that's a faon de parler. Quickly say it, actually what it means: there is no motive for living. You know what that means? Then that means real compassion, you understand?