Is there energy not based on idea or ideology?
Is there a movement other than the movement of thought?
2nd Public Talk, Saanen
July 16, 1974
Shall we go on talking about what we said on Sunday morning? Shall we go into all that again? We were saying, weren't we, that the world outside and in us is in such chaotic condition, and the politicians and the leaders and the religious priests are trying to solve these problems in the field of thought. This has been the game for centuries upon centuries, trying to solve all human problems at the level of thought. And apparently from what one sees, suffering still goes on, wars are endless, governments are more or less corrupt, politicians play a crooked game, and ideologies, systems have taken the place of morality and intelligence. Seeing all this, objectively, without any prejudice or dedicated to a particular ideology or a system, one observes that thought is divisive, thought divides, and excellence in thought is not excellence in conduct.
As we said the day before yesterday, please, these are serious talks, these are not mere entertainment; these are not something over which to be amused or cried over. It is something one has to go through, investigate deeply, as deeply as one can, verbally and non verbally. And that demands a great deal of care, affection, consideration, a sense of intimate communication with each other. And therefore that demands that you and I share the thing together, that you share it, not just listen to a series of words or ideas or concepts - because they are not ideas or concepts - agreeing or disagreeing, but rather really taking part in it with your heart, with your mind, with all your energy. Then I think such a serious concern and commitment does reveal a great deal, does reveal not only the source of our thought and so our mischief, but also the source of action. Because we live by action, we cannot possibly avoid action. You may withdraw from the world into a monastery, that is action also. You may take a vow, that is action. Or you might specialise in a particular field which gives you an opportunity for your talent and a career, that is action. Action is also in relationship between you and another. So the movement of life is action. That is again fairly obvious.
And we are enquiring as thought so far in civilisations has produced actions which are conflicting, contradictory, opposing and therefore breeding a great deal of mischief, misery, conflict. That is again obvious. And is there excellence in thought and therefore action? Or is there always conflict when thought with its ideas produces an action? You are following all this? Please, this is your life, not my life. And if one would understand one's life, one's behaviour, one's conduct, one's relationship, and in this confusion find out what to do so that that action is excellent at all levels, then we must enquire: is there an action which is not fragmented by thought, because thought is fragmentary in its very nature? And through thought we are trying to find an action at all levels of our life which will not be contradictory, which will not be regretful, which will be whole, total, complete. And can such action be the product of thought? That we must examine very carefully first before we take the next step. Which is: is there an action which is supremely excellent, which is not based on the movement of thought? That is the next question we will have to ask after we have enquired into this fragmentary action, which is the product of thought; and why is thought divisive?
That is, why does thought divide? I do not know if you have not noticed it - geographically, historically, economically, socially - god and man, the devil and the - divisive - why? Why is thought, upon which we live, upon which our whole social morality is dependent, why is thought divisive? If thought is matter, which it is, and thought which is the response of the past, which it is, then thought creates the movement of time as yesterday, today and tomorrow. So thought has its source in the very root of the past. And having its root in the past it must create time as movement. I don't know if you are following all this. We will go into it. Just quietly listen to it first, don't agree or disagree and say, 'Oh, Lord, what is it all about, I am unhappy, I want my problem solved immediately, I want to meditate, I want to do this, I am a vegetarian, should I be a vegetarian' - we will come to all that - whether I should smoke, not smoke, whether I should wear leather or not - you follow? - all those problems we will come to a little later. But we cannot come to them without understanding this extraordinary movement of thought.
We said, why is thought divisive, dividing? One sees by its very nature, by its very function and structure, it has its being essentially in the past, it lives there - in tradition, in the accumulated knowledge that one has acquired or society has acquired, or the great accumulation of scientific knowledge which is in the past; so thought is essentially the movement from the past therefore it must be divisive. It can pretend, or stipulate, or conceive that it is beyond time, but it is still thought functioning. It can imagine a timeless state, but it is still thought. It can pretend that it is going beyond it own limits, it is still thought. So thought creates a boundary of time around itself, and that is the factor of division. Are we communicating with each other? Please, this is really important if we are to go any further into this matter, as we are going to, day after day for the next three weeks.
Because we are all reared in the field of thought. Our education is the movement in thought, getting more and more accumulation of knowledge, refinement of thought and so on and so on and so on. And when thought is divisive, whatever action it creates must also be fragmented, and therefore conflict. This is the principle. Are we meeting each other? Come on sirs. You see man has lived, historically as we know it, lived in a series of crises and responses which breed inevitably more conflict. As you can see in the modern world what is going on. There is a crisis, thought tries to answer it and in the very answering it you create more problems. You supply arms to one country knowing jolly well that is going to create more trouble, and so on.
So can thought ever bring about an action that is total, whole, sane, not contradictory? Because our life is contradictory. We live at different levels: at the business level, family level, or the scientific level or the religious level, or the artistic level, or each opposing the other, each specialising in its own department. And specialisation, which is the fashion now, becomes exclusive and therefore contradictory, and therefore destructive. The man who specialises in religion, he is called a saint, and he is the most destructive man because he has specialised in one department, like the military, and so on and so on. So thought trying to be excellent in its action specialises and brings about more conflict, more division. I wonder if you are following all this? Sir, don't follow it verbally, watch it in yourself, because we are talking about yourself. The words, the phrases that the speaker is using are a mirror in which you are looking at yourself, and you see this happening round you and in yourself. So each specialisation has its own ambitious end, each career has its own reward, contradictory, opposing to affection, care, consideration, love and all the rest of it. Right?
So looking at it, then one asks: is there an action which is whole, not fragmentary? In that action there is no regret, no sense of fulfilment, no sense of frustration - is there such an action? Because that is what we are asking all our life. Because whatever we do brings a certain pain, a certain confusion or a certain reward. And in the pursuit of that reward we create more division. So it is inevitable and natural and logical to ask if there is an action which is not born out of the movement of thought?
May I go into something which may appear to be different, but it is not? We need energy, we have energy. A physical energy, emotional energy, the energy of hate, the energy of lust and the energy of great passion; and there is also the energy of great tension, which is brought about through a sense of frustration, division and lack of fulfilment. I do not know if you have not noticed in yourself, as one gets older the body becomes rather worn out; disease, old age, pain and all the rest of it begins, and the energy wastes away. And most of our energy is the product of conflict. I am, I should be - the fight, the aggressive desire to continue in that direction. You have noticed all this. And the energy that is brought about through an ideal, through a commitment to that ideal - the whole Communist world is based on that, from the beginning of Lenin till now, destroy people by the million to get what you think is right. And that gives one tremendous energy. Like the saint dedicated to an ideal, to a picture, to an imagination, to a formula, it does breed extraordinary energy. The idealists have an extraordinary energy. In any form of specialisation energy is required. The more you specialise the more energy you have, discarding all other forms of energy. This is what you see, not only in oneself but also outside.
Thought creates its own energy, which is what is happening in the western world. To produce one of those marvellous machines as the submarine one must have tremendous co-operation, energy, and that energy is brought about through an idea. Idea is organised thought. I hope you are following all this. And this kind of energy is always, in the deep sense of that word, destructive, because it is divisive. Now is there an energy which is not destructive, which is not divisive, which is not mechanical? I will go into it. Give me a chance. You know I didn't prepare this talk. I never do and so I am also investigating as I am going along. Otherwise if I prepare a talk and come here it is a beastly bore.
So I am asking myself and you: is there an energy which is not based on an idea, commitment to an ideology, an energy which is not dependent on attachment, whether it is to furniture, to an ideal or to a person? You are following all this? Is there an energy which is not in any way involved in the field of time as thought, movement? Right? What are we going to find out? You understand my enquiry? Life is action, the very living, all relationship is action, movement in action. Action is movement. And that movement is based on thought, at present - political, religious, social, economic and moral relativism, which is rampant in the world now - all that is based on thought, which is divisive and therefore contradictory and breeding more misery. And is there an action totally unrelated to all that? And to find out one must have energy, not mere intellectual energy, with all its accumulated, educated knowledge. It is not the intellectual energy, nor emotional energy, which is recognisable by thought, therefore it is still part of thought. So is there an energy which can come about so as to bring about a total transformation in the very process of the mind? You understand? (Sound of train) I am glad for the train! You understand? Our minds are educated in so many ways, in excellent ways on the foundation of thought; and that thought has its own energy, and in action that energy does breed a great deal of mischief and confusion. That is clear. And in enquiring if there is an action which is not based on the movement of thought, to enquire into that very deeply you need a great deal of energy, not the energy of trying to find an end, not the energy that you have when you are moving in a particular direction, but the energy that can change the content of consciousness. You get what I am talking about?
Look sir: to put it differently, one knows what the content of one's consciousness is, if one is at all awake, aware, attending to one's behaviour, watching, looking, hearing. One knows what the content of one's consciousness is. And the desire to change that is a movement in a particular direction, and that does give you energy but that is divisive. Right? And one realises the content must be totally changed because we can't go on as we are, unless we want to destroy the whole of humanity, we can't go on as we are. It requires a total transformation of the content of consciousness. The content makes consciousness, therefore when there is total transformation of the content there is a different kind of - I wouldn't call it consciousness - a different level altogether. And to bring about that change you need tremendous energy. Right? Ben?
So there must be freedom from direction - please see the logic of it, the sanity of it - there must be freedom from direction, from a conclusion, though conclusions give you a great deal of energy, but that kind of energy is a wasteful energy. So the mind must be freed of idea. You understand? Idea is the response of thought, the mind must be free of ideals because that is again a direction; the mind must be free of all the divisive movements of thought as nationality, the race, freedom from the stupid religious divisions, all that. Now can your mind be free of that? If it cannot then it is not possible, do what you will, stand on your head for ten thousand years, or meditate sitting in a position, posture, breathing rightly, for another ten thousands years, you will never find the other. So can the mind, seeing how stupid, how unintelligent ideals are, see it - not say they are wrong and put it away, but see the truth of it. When you see the truth of it you are free of it. Not when you logically, historically examine all this. When you see something as poisonous you drop it. There is no conflict because your intelligence says it is too stupid to go that way. Can you free your mind from all this? Please listen to this. Do you free it one by one? Or do you free it totally? If you free it one by one that takes energy - doesn't it? Well I'll look at my nationality, how stupid it is, I'll drop it. I'll look at my ideals and say, good lord it is too old fashioned, it doesn't lead anywhere, it breeds conflict and I'll drop it. You follow? Will you free the mind layer by layer, which will take time, which will take analysis, and analysis is paralysis? And will you go through that period taking long years? Or is there a way of looking at all this totally, and therefore be totally free of it? You understand?
Now traditionally it is said you must go step by step. First you must get rid of, control your body, breathe rightly - you know all the beastly games they play. Traditionally, and modern psychology also says, go step by step, analyse, tear away. And you can spend years, till you die doing that. Right? Now is that not a wastage of energy? If it is, then how shall the mind - please go into this - how shall the mind which is the storehouse of all its content, how shall such a mind empty itself of its content so that it has a totally different existence, totally different kind of energy? Have I conveyed my question? Look sir, the content of my mind is your content. Your content of your consciousness is the content of my consciousness, slightly modified, with a little more colour, a little less colour, a little more elaborate, a little less elaborate, more artistic and less, and so on but it is more or less the same as your consciousness. The mind becomes aware of it, and it says, 'How can I be aware of the totality of it?' - not only the unconscious but the conscious. I know I can strip layer after layer, both the conscious as well as the unconscious, go through that process taking time, analysing - knowing the danger of analysis - I can do that, that is the traditional, accepted way of the world to do this; if you are serious and if you are interested. And I see that it takes infinite time, because every analysis must be totally accurate, otherwise the next analysis will be corrupted by the past analysis. Right? So each analysis must be complete, true and final, otherwise I am lost. And can such analysis take place? And who is the analyser? The analyser is the analysed. Right? I don't know I am going too fast?
So I see that that is not going to do a thing. So what am I to do? You understand my question? What is my mind to do when it has seen the absurdity of this? Now has it seen the absurdity of it? Or does it imagine it has seen it because somebody has said that's absurd, because we are second-hand people. You understand? So I accept the authority of another and say, 'Yes, that is absurd'. It is a verbal assertion without any reality. So I have accepted authority of another, and the acceptance has no validity because it does not produce results. Right? So the mind discards authority, traditional, recent, or the authority which I have cultivated because out of my own desires, selfishness, demands - my authority, I know. So the mind totally discards authority. Can you do it? Not the authority of law and tax and all that, I am not talking about that, the psychological authority of someone to tell you what to do, because I am in confusion and I look to somebody who will free me from this confusion. Out of my disorder I create the authority - I wonder if you understand this? It is historically so: wherever there is disorder a man springs up tyrannically and brings about some kind of order, which is total disorder.
So can the mind put away authority because it sees the truth of it, the significance of it, the nature of it? Not a reaction to authority - which is what is going on. When you react against authority you are creating another authority. That is obvious. I do not know if you have ever seen that caricature which appeared in 'The New Yorker' - a little boy and a little girl were looking down from a window, and they see two hippies going along on the path. The boy says to the girl, 'There goes the Establishment'. That is reaction!
So can the mind, your mind be free of this traditional approach, traditional analysis, introspective, trying to improve, all that, because you see the truth of it? Therefore there is no guru, no saviour, no steps through meditation to come upon something extraordinary. There is something extraordinary, but not through this way. So can the mind put away all this, deny all this without any resistance? And to do that you must look. You must look outwardly and inwardly; hear the music of the world and the discord of the world, the music of inside and the discord of inside, because both are the same. We are an intrinsic part of the world. Right? And to do this I said we require energy. And this energy is not brought about by a concept, by words. Right? This energy comes when you have the insight into the disorder of a mind which functions mechanically in the movement of thought. Right? Have you got this?
So no belief, no idea, no concepts, no ideals, no commitment of any kind in that field. I hope there aren't any gurus here! Or probably you are becoming one; don't become one!
So through negation of what is false, not through resistance or reaction to the false, but through choiceless rejection of what is false, you have a different kind of energy, don't you? Look at it sir - simple enough. It is like if you are climbing a mountain you must discard all the things that you have been carrying on the plain, you must put aside all that - the corrupting factors of thought, which is attachment and power, domination in different forms. It is far more important to understand attachment than the search or taking vows, of seeing the corruption of property, possession and power. You follow? May I go on with that a little? We said the understanding of the nature and the structure, and the action that comes from that understanding of attachment. Most of us are attached to possessions, whether it is the possession of a table, antique table which you polish very carefully and look after it, or a house, or a person, or an idea, attached to a particular form of experience, attached to a group and so on and so on, so on - why is the mind attached? Aren't you attached to lots of things? I am afraid we are: our looks, our hair, our bodies, my god, there are so many things we are attached to. Why? And knowing possessions in any form are one of the major corrupting factors in life. Right? - and therefore we say, 'Don't possess; have a few clothes necessary don't possess, take a vow on non-possession'. And in that there is a lot of bother, travail, 'I want that and I don't want it, I mustn't, I must give it up, I have taken a vow', you know. So possessions corrupt. And we say we must be detached from possessions. And all the conflict involved in that. For the speaker attachment is much more important than detachment. Because if one can find out why the mind is attached, doesn't matter to what - my sitting here, I have done it for fifty years on a platform, talking, and I am attached to that - if I am attached, I hope I am not - if I am attached. And why is it attached? You see the difference? Not how to be detached but why it is attached. Why are you attached to your house, to your wife, to your girl, to your ideas, to your meditation, to your systems, why? What would happen if you were not attached? Attachment gives a certain occupation to the mind. Right? You constantly think about it. And this constant occupation is one of the factors which the brain and the mind says, 'Yes, I must be occupied with something' - please follow all this. With my god, with my sex, with my drink, with my god knows what - I must be occupied, with the kitchen or with the king, or with some social order, or communism, or whatever it is. And out of this demand for occupation there is attachment, to hold on to something.
Now why is the mind occupied? Why must it be occupied? And what would happen if it was not occupied? Would it go astray? Would it disintegrate? Would it feel utterly naked, empty and therefore the fear of that emptiness, therefore occupation? And therefore the importance of the furniture, the book, the idea, and all the rest of it. So out of this empty feeling and loneliness of not being totally whole, the mind is attached. You've followed? And can the mind live, be vital, energetic, full of depth, without attachment? Of course it can.
So one asks: is love attachment? Not, love is detachment. And love, if it is attached and detached, then love is painful - which we all know because we go through that ugly state, or whatever it is. And power is another form of corruption - political power, religious power, power in the business world, power in carrying out a certain talent that one has, the pleasure of power. Don't you all know it? When you dominate somebody, your cook or your servant, or your wife or your husband, or somebody, dominate, there is tremendous pleasure in it. That is another factor of corruption. Which means energy, which is so necessary to bring about a transformation in the content of consciousness, is dissipated in all these ways. Right? Can you see all this as fact, as a dangerous fact? Not relative danger but total danger for human beings.
Now if you see that as real danger as you would see the danger of a falling rock, you move away from it instantly and you are free of it. You understand? So to observe this you need a certain sensitivity, both physical as well as psychological. And you cannot have this sensitivity if you are indulging in all kinds of things - drink, sex, overworking - you follow? You know the whole business. So if you are at all serious, if you give your attention, your care, your affection to this, then you will see for yourself that out of this freedom from the division which thought has created, there is another kind of energy, which is intelligence. You understand how intelligence has it is not put together by thought, it is not the cunning intelligence of a politician or a priest or a businessman. It comes out of the freedom which is perceiving the falseness, the unreality of all this. Can your mind see it totally? And it cannot see it totally if you have any direction at all. Right, you are following all this?
So an intelligent mind acts in the field of thought intelligently. You understand? One's mind has seen this and therefore sanely, without resistance, it is free from that - from all the implications of attachment, the structure of attachment, the action of attachment, the pursuit of power with all its complications, the ruthlessness of it, and also seeing the dividing process of thought. Seeing all that clearly, totally, out of that you have energy; and that energy is intelligence. Now having that energy, that intelligence, it can operate in the field of thought, not the other way round. I wonder if you see. Am I conveying this?
Look sir: one can see what the world actually is outside and inside, it's interrelationship, there is no division between the outside and the inside, it is an interrelationship. And I see it. And I need energy to transform the mind. So I must discard everything that is wasteful, everything that is, psychologically, everything that breeds division and conflict within the mind. Right? It can be done only when there is an observation of it, not a resistance to it. And there is an observation only when the observer is the observed, which we went into the other day a little more. The observer is the past. Right? The observer is put together by thought in terms of experience, knowledge, memory, tradition; that is the essence of the observer. And what he observes, which is the result of thought, is still thought. Right? I wonder if you see all this!
Look sir: the chaos in the world, the misery, the starvation, the poverty, the brutality, the violence, the mess that is going on, the madness that is going on, is created by thought. And the observer says, 'I must change all that', if he is at all intelligent, if he is at all awake and not concerned with his own little pattern of life. And is the observer different from what he observes, because the observer is put together by thought also. Right? So the observer is the observed. Now when that takes place not as a verbal statement but as a reality, conflict ceases, therefore you go beyond the limitations which thought has imposed on action. I wonder if you are getting all this! I hope you are all as hot as I am.
Now can you do this? If you cannot, why not? Is it because you are indolent, lazy, indifferent, not only to your own sorrow, to your own suffering, to your own misery, to the misery of millions of people - what is going on in Russia, in India, everywhere, you are totally indifferent to all that because you want to find god, you want to meditate, you want to learn how to breathe properly, how to have the right kind of sexual relationship and this and that? If you are concerned with the whole. You understand? - with the whole of humanity, not your neighbour or your wife, with the whole of humanity, then when you see the whole then you can put the detail in order. But without the perception of the whole you cannot put the detail in order. Right? That is why the politicians are failing, they never answer this problem, nor the analysts, nor the priests, nobody. It is only you and I, if we are utterly responsible, concerned, serious, committed, then we will be able to answer this question because we'll have seen the whole and therefore are extraordinarily alive and intelligent and function in detail. You have got it sir? Have you understood?
What time is it, sir?
Now would you like to discuss anything? Would you like to discuss or answer questions about what we have been talking about?
Questioner: Is the operation of intelligence insight?
Krishnamurti: Is intelligence insight? What is insight? To have an insight into something: to have an insight into as we examined, attachment. You understand? To have an insight into attachment, what does that mean? To see what attachment does; what is the nature of attachment; why attachment arises; what is the structure of attachment, and the responses and actions of attachment. To have an insight into all that you must look at attachment. Right? You must look at attachment, your attachment: your attachment to your possessions. Have you ever looked at it, to your ideas, to your opinions - have you ever looked at your opinions? Why you have a thousand opinions? That is another occupation of the mind, to have opinions; and to have opinions you think is extraordinarily important about - I mean it doesn't matter who. So to have an insight implies that you have looked into the nature, structure and the response of attachment, into attachment. When you have an insight you go behind the word, you go behind your reactions of asserting and not asserting, you see how the mind has built up this whole process of attachment. To observe it. And you can only observe when you are not against it, when you are not opposed to it, when you don't want to discard it. You can only observe when you see the observer is that thing which you are seeing. The observer has created the attachment and then disassociates himself from it and tries to change it: control it, shape it, deny it, alter it, go beyond it and all the rest of it. Now when you have an insight of that kind then out of that insight comes intelligence. Simple, sir, but you have to do it, not endlessly talk about it.
Q: How can one live without foundation? It’s impossible to live without foundation.
K: How can you live without foundations. What do you mean by foundation? Please, this is the question of most of us, it applies to all of us - we need a basis, a foundation, a something from which to start. Right? Something on which we can rely, something which says, that is so. And then on that we build, we move. We say there is god, millions and millions have said there is god, and on that they build their life, that is their foundation. Right? I may have my foundation because I have a family, children, my responsibility to them, and that is my foundation. Maybe, I said maybe, madame, don't deny it. Others may have the foundation of the ideology that the State is the only god - the Communists and that is my You follow? Each one invents a foundation according to his own temperament, according to his own conditioning or in the culture in which he is born. So we say a foundation, a basis is necessary. Right?
Now who has built that basis? Lenin, Marx, Trotsky, Stalin, and all the rest of that group, laid a foundation for you and me if you accept them as our gods. Right? And on that I start. If I am a Catholic or a Hindu, that is my basis. Now who has created this basis? Obviously thought - thought in different forms, in different manifestations, those manifestations depending on one's peculiar reactions, and so on. Now why does the mind need foundation? Please ask that question yourself: why do you need a foundation? Because then you would have no rudder, no direction, every wind, every whiff of pushes you in every direction? Now see what happens if you have a foundation. Say for instance if I had a foundation as a Hindu - which I haven't got, thank god - or a Christian, or this or that - I've no foundation - if I had a foundation as a Hindu what takes place? I live according to the tradition, according to the beliefs, dogmas and all the rest of it, handed down through centuries, which is the past. That is my foundation. The result of that foundation is I am not you - you are a Muslim, a Hindu, Buddhist, whatever, god knows what else, I am not you, so I am willing to tolerate you - toleration is the invention of the intellect, to live amicably, but it has nothing to do with reality because I am rooted in my foundation as a Hindu. You are following all this? So there is conflict between you and me, me a Communist, you a Catholic, and so on, so on, a believer in god and a non-believer in god, in Jesus, in Buddha, or Krishna, or god knows what else. So I say to myself; 'Why should I have a foundation at all?' If I had no foundation, would I go wrong? Does a foundation give me direction? Or a foundation brings confusion? You are following all this? Don't go to sleep please, we will stop in a minute!
Does a foundation as a Hindu, does it breed more confusion - as a Catholic, Communist, Socialist, whatever it is, does it involve greater confusion, greater misery, dividing? You have your conclusions, I have my foundation. And I see foundations have brought man to a great deal of sorrow and misery. They are willing to fight and kill each other - for what? For ideas, which are part of reasoned thought. And if my foundation is based on thought then I live a life of conflict and misery for the rest of my life. That is obvious.
So I say to myself: can I live without any foundation? I know the tree cannot live without foundation, it must have the soil, water, sunshine, darkness, light. The foundation is food, clothes and shelter, I need that, but beyond that, is foundation necessary? Knowing foundations have bred confusion, misery, conflict, war - my foundation is me and your foundation is you, and we are fighting each other. Now can I live without any foundation? I can only answer that when I see the nature and the structure of foundations. You understand? The very negation of that is the foundation, which is intelligence. You understand? Come on sir! Then wherever the mind is, in a palace, in a hovel, walking along by yourself in woods and looking at the beauty of light and darkness, and the shadows and the immeasurable sky, that intelligence is in operation, therefore it needs no foundation at all. And that intelligence is not mine or yours, it is intelligence. Right sirs, have you understood?
Q: Sir, I see what the implications of attachment are but nevertheless I would like to ask you if there isn’t a certain biological attachment in the human race. There are attachments in the animal kingdom. How can you possibly see the human race, composed of four billion people, with no possible attachments among themselves? How can you see this human family for instance who throughout the centuries has been the base and unity of man?
K: I understand, sir.
Q: How can we possibly as human beings not feel any kind of attachment to one’s own morals?
K: I understand.
Q: I would like to see, sir, do you see in all reality the prospect of the human race with no attachment whatsoever?
K: Wait, sir. Wait, sir. Are we talking to the millions of people, in India, Mexico, America, millions and millions of people, telling them, talking to them about attachment? Or are we talking about attachment to you? Because - you understand my question sir? - are we talking to you, or to the millions of people? Because the millions of people are not concerned with this. They say, 'For god's sake, give me food, clothes and shelter - I am starving, I am diseased' - they are not concerned with this. And you are saying how do you answer those millions of people and ask them to be detached, or not be attached. You can't. But we are talking to you - right? If your consciousness - please listen to this a little - if your consciousness, which is the consciousness of millions of people, if in that consciousness there is a transformation, then that transformation affects the millions. Then you will have a different kind of education, a different kind of society. You follow? But to say, how can the millions and millions accept this idea of attachment. You are attached to your mother, of course you are attached to your mother when you are five, four, three, two, I mean, you need a mother and a father to look after you; the child needs complete security, the more, the greater security of the right kind, the happier it is.
So security, millions of people want. And they think they will find security in attachment to their country, to their little house, to their country. They are willing to fight the rest of the world for that country - you know what that is their attachment. And the Catholic is willing to fight the Protestant for his attachment.
So we are concerned with the people who are in this tent, for the moment. Because you are here. If I went and talked to labour people they would say, 'Please, go away, we need beer'. We are talking to you. And can you change the content of your consciousness so that in that transformation you affect the consciousness of man? Please sir, this is a fact. Look: the so-called Catholics for two thousand years have talked to individuals, have conditioned you. And your consciousness has accepted this conditioning, and you have been Catholic, Protestant or Communist, and you function from there, if you are at all serious in what you are conditioned. And your consciousness has affected the world. You understand, sir? Go to a village in India, or elsewhere, you find a Christian cross there, and they don't know what it is all about but it is a nice place to sit and chat, or sing or do something or other and they go there. But it has affected the consciousness of the world by conditioning it to a certain idea.
Now we are saying quite the contrary. In the transformation of your consciousness with all its content, then in that freedom you have a tremendous energy, which is the essence of intelligence. And that intelligence will operate in every field if you are so aware of the total human existence. Right sir? I need clothes, we need food and shelter, everybody needs it. That is prevented by the division, the economic division, racial division, national division, America is more powerful than Russia. You follow? That is what is happening. Once we were talking to a very prominent politician, high up in the Cabinet and all the rest of that nonsense, and we talked about this, and he said, 'My dear man, that is impossible, that is so far away, that is a marvellous distant life and ideal. I like what you are saying but it is impracticable. We have to deal with the immediate.' You follow? And the immediate is their power, their position, their (laughs) ideology - the most impracticable and the most destructive thing. You know all this. Do you mean to say if all the politicians in the world got together and said, 'Look, forget your system, forget your ideologies, forget your power, let us be concerned with human suffering, with human needs, food, clothing, shelter', can't solve this problem? Of course you can. But nobody wants to: everybody is concerned with their own immediate sickness, ideologies. Right?