Meditation is to discover an area in which there is no movement of thought
Is there a movement other than the movement of thought?
7th Public Talk, Saanen
July 28, 1974
This is the last talk or whatever you call it, and we will have discussions on the 1st, which will be Wednesday.
We have been, for the last two weeks that we have met here, talking about human problems. And our chief concern and commitment, if we have been at all serious here, has been the transformation, the radical change of the human mind - the mind which includes the brain, the heart, and the whole organism as a whole, that has created this world around us, the world of corruption, violence, brutality, vanity and all the structure which has, and does, bring about war. We have been concerned with the change of the content of consciousness, because the content makes consciousness. Unless that radical revolutionary, psychological change comes about, do what we will outwardly, certain parts of it are necessary, there will be no end to conflict, no end to suffering, and all the violence that is going on throughout the world. This is what we have been talking about for the last fortnight.
And to go further into the matter, this change cannot possibly be brought about without knowing oneself, which is self-knowledge - not the higher self, not the knowledge of some supreme consciousness, which is still within the field of consciousness, which is still thought. Unless one understands oneself, the self of every day, what it thinks, what it does, its devotions, its deceptions, its ambitions, all its self-centred activities, identified with something noble or ignoble, or the state or some ideal, it is still within the field of the self, the 'me'. And we have been considering whether that narrowing field of which one is so little aware, the field in which there is the unconscious as well as the conscious, which is all concerned with the individual ego, the individual ambitions and reactions, and mindlessness, which is essentially a part of the whole, part of the community, part of the culture in which it lives, part of that conditioning, whether it is the Christian conditioning or the Hindu, the Moslem, the Buddhist, the Jewish and so on, unless we understand that radically, that is the knowing of oneself, its reactions, how it behaves, its pursuits and so on, the content of consciousness cannot possibly be transformed. That is what we have stated, and I think that is fairly clear for those who are serious, who want to go into it very deeply.
And when one goes into this problem, into this issue, there are two fundamental things, as we said the other day which we stopped at - a gentleman asked could we go into the question of fear. Thought is the measure of fear. And when we are going to go into this question of fear, though it will be a verbal description, description through words of the fact of fear, the description, the word is not the thing, nor the described. I think that too is clear. Unless you share in it, unless you partake in the understanding of that fear, mere description will have no value whatsoever. And we are using the word 'understanding' not intellectual, or emotional or a passing thing, but an understanding that comes with action, and therefore it is a complete understanding, not a partial understanding.
So in understanding oneself, one's consciousness and its content, which makes up consciousness, because there is no consciousness without the content, in that content there are these two principle factors, pleasure and fear. They cannot be separated. Where there is the pursuit and the insistence and the demand for pleasure, there must be in its wake, fear. And in understanding, or going into, or investigating this question of fear one must also not disregard the fact of pleasure. We said just now that thought is the measure of fear. We went into the question of thought the other day, in fact many times. We said thought is the response of memory. Memory is experience, knowledge, stored up in the brain cells and tissues, therefore thought is matter. And when the whole world is constructed, its very nature and substance and activity is based on thought, one has to find out whether thought has bred fear. You follow the question? Not how to be free of fear, that will inevitably come about when we understand the structure and the nature, and the activity, function of thought.
I hope we are all sharing this together, that you are not merely listening to a description of fear, or to a verbal statement, but to the actual reality, which each one has, which is fear, and the insistent, continuous conscious or unconscious pursuit of pleasure. Right?
If one observes in the structure of consciousness, one sees what an extraordinarily important part is played by thought. Fear is related to thought. Right? There are various forms of fear. I cannot go into all the details of it this morning because it would take too long, because I want also to talk over with you the whole question of meditation. So we must go through it fairly rapidly in not too many details, but grasp the whole significance of fear, conscious as well as unconscious. As we said, when one observes this whole process of thought, which has created the world with all its religions, with all its gods, with its saviours, Christ, the Buddhas, Krishnas and all of them, essentially based on thought. Therefore thought is material and a materialistic world in which we live, as long as we function there and remain there, fear must continue. Right? Because fear is the outcome or the cause of loneliness, of deprivation, both physical and psychological - attachment to property, to people, ideas, concepts, nationalities, families - as long as there is this manoeuvrability of thought, functioning within the material world - and it has to function in that world - fear must remain, because what else have I or you if we live in that world. You understand? There I must seek security, as you must seek security, physical or psychological. And we went into that question the other day again, which is, as long as the mind seeks material security, as long as the mind psychologically asserts a permanency, there must be fear. Right? Please this is simple enough.
That is, sir, the brain can only function effectively, objectively, rationally, if it has got complete security. That is obvious. When it has no security it finds security in belief, in gods, in symbols, in ideologies, which become neurotic action; nationalities and their activity is essentially a neurotic action. As long as I call myself a nationalist of a particular country, it is a neurotic behaviour, because that brings about conflict, separation, division between people. And that is one of the causes of fear. Right?
So that means, when you realise that, and are aware of its whole nature, are you still a nationalist? Do you still think in terms of a country, of a people or of an idea, of a particular race, or an ideology, and so on? If you do, there must be continuance of fear. That is fairly clear. And the mind also, because it lives totally in the material world - we have described what is materialism: materialism is opinion, a concern, nothing matters but matter, nothing exists but matter, matter, which is manoeuvrable, movement, consciousness and will. All that is materialism. And thought is matter, and we live in that area. Please see that. See the reality of it, not my description of it. Unless you fundamentally grasp this, fear will go on, because there, there is nothing else but the demand for security, permanency. And where there is a demand for this, there must essentially be fear. Right?
And there are the various forms of fear concealed, hidden, in the very recesses of one's own consciousness. Right? Hidden. These fears are racial, traditional, collective and the fears of the famine - and so on: you know, the whole tradition which is essentially based on thought. And tradition implies also as we said the other day, not only handing over from the past to the present, but also it means betrayal. So that traditionalists are the betrayers, are the treacherous people, whether in the religious field, or in the political field, or in a scientific field. The speaker is not being dogmatic. The speaker feels the responsibility, the responsibility to answer - responsible means to answer - answer to the whole of human beings, not to your particular little self. Because your little self is the rest of the world, so you are the world, and the speaker feels utterly, totally responsible for the world, for that. And therefore he speaks rather passionately, which is not put on for your amusement, or for your emotional reactions: I am not interested in that, that is neither here nor there.
So there are these hidden responses. Right? These hidden fears and the extraordinary subtle forms of pleasure. Now can all that be exposed, without analysis? We explained also the futility of analysis, because the analyser and the analysed are the same. And in the process of analysis, every analysis must be totally complete. And if there is any disproportionate, inaccurate analysis, that inaccuracy is taken over to the next analysis. So altogether analysis is paralysis, and it takes time, and you can go on analysing for the rest of your life, and die analysing yourself, if you are still conscious. So what is a mind to do when it realises the absurdity, the falseness of analysis or introspective examination, what is it to do? You understand? There is fear, both conscious and unconscious - fear of death, fear of loneliness, fear of losing a job, fear of what people will say, fear of your own attachments and the loss of attachments, fears of not succeeding, becoming great, noble, all the rest of it. When you realise all this, and there is no analysis, what is the mind to do? You understand? Is this question clear?
If it is clear, we are asking then what is the mind, which has been conditioned by thought - all its culture is based on thought, whether religious, social, economic, environmental, family and all the rest of it, it is essentially the structure of thought - and when the mind realises the futility of analysis, the futility of time as a means of understanding the content of fear and pleasure, what is it to do? You have understood the problem?
Now, to understand what the mind is to do, we must go into the question of meditation. Please follow this. They are related, they are not something extraneous, about which the speaker is talking about. When we use the word 'meditation', don't take postures. Don't sit suddenly straight. That is one of the things that has been brought over from India. And when we go into this question of meditation, please look at it as though you have never heard the word, or the meaning of that word, or anything about it. But unfortunately you can't do that because you have a lot of gurus, sannyasis, swamis, and all the rest of that gang, that come to this country or to America, to teach you how to meditate, how to sit properly, how to breathe, how to concentrate and all the rest of it. So what is meditation? Not how to meditate: that is irrelevant. The moment you understand what is meditation it naturally happens, like breathing. You breathe naturally. So you have to find out what is meditation. Right? Can you learn from another? Can you learn from another what is the real meaning of meditation? Volumes have been written about it, people have meditated according to a particular system - Zen, or the Hindu systems of many, many varieties and models and methods of system - the content of all those imply an end to be achieved through control. Right? Control implies a controller. Please follow this a little bit. And is the controller different from the controlled? You understand the question?
They say - the whole meditative groups, and their systems and their philosophies, their breathing - they say, control your thought, because thought wanders about, and the wandering about is a wastage of energy. And therefore thought must be absolutely held, disciplined, subjugated in the pursuit of that thing - enlightenment, God, truth, what you will, Jehovah, the nameless - all that! That implies a controller, obviously. Right? And who is the controller? Is he different in quality, in nature from that which he says he is going to control? You are following all this? Please, this is very important to understand because the speaker wants to point out that one can live completely in daily life without any control, against all the traditions. You understand? Against all your education, your social, moral behaviour. So he says, live a life without absolutely any controls, but that means you have to understand very, very deeply who is the controller and the controlled, and this is part of meditation. Is the controller different from that which he is controlling, which is thought? Some say the controller is different: he is the higher self. Please listen to all this. He is the higher self, he is the part of higher consciousness, he is the essence of understanding, the essence of the past which has accumulated so much knowledge. So they - the whole traditional, and the gurus, and the swamis, the yogis, all of them say - control! Right? They have never asked, who is the controller. They may have asked it, but they have translated it, yes the controller is the supreme self - which is still within the field of thought. However much thought may be elevated, it is still within the area of time and measure, which is thought. Right? Do please see this. See the truth of this, not the verbal acceptance of it, or the intellectual comprehension of it, but the truth of the matter: that all the gods - Christian gods, and the Hindu - all of them are the invention of thought. And thought can project itself into all kinds of states, into all kinds of illusions, and when thought says, there is the higher self, it is still within the field of thought, and therefore the higher self is still matter. I wonder if you get this?
So the controller is the controlled. Right? Do see this. Therefore the whole aspect of meditation changes. And what is the meaning of meditation? The meaning of meditation is - objectively, not my personal opinion, judgement, evaluation, dogma, experience, none of that - meditation means the emptying of consciousness of its content. Then only can the mind and the brain be absolutely quiet. That absolute - not relative - absolute quietness is necessary to observe, not to experience. Right - please see all this. Most of us want experience - experience which we have had - sensory experiences, sexual, every kind of experience we have had - and thought desires more experiences, an experience of another state, of another dimension. Right? Because we are fed up with this world and its experiences - they are boring, they have a limitation, they are confined, narrow. And we want an experience which is totally different. Right? Now to experience involves recognition. Right? You are following? If I do not recognise, is there an experience? I have had the experience of looking at a mountain: the beauty of it, the shadows, the lovely deep blue of an early morning, the whole sense of something extraordinary, magnificent. And that experience cannot exist if there is no relationship to the past. Right? So experience implies recognition from the past. Obviously - it is so simple. So I want to the mind wants to experience something supreme; and to recognise it, you must have already had it, therefore it is not the supreme. You understand? It is still the projection of the mind, of thought. So meditation in which there is no experience. Swallow that! Because in that there is no element of time. Are we meeting each other? As we said, time implies movement and direction. Direction implies will. And can the mind empty itself of time and direction and movement, which is the ending of thought? That is the whole problem. You understand?
Are we following each other - or is this still verbal description, and you are just enjoying the speaker's delight in talking about meditation? We are asking: what is meditation? We said it is the emptying of the mind of the known. Emptying of the mind of its content as consciousness, with all its accumulation, and whether that is possible. Right? Because we need knowledge to function, to speak any language you need knowledge, to drive a car you need knowledge, to do anything you need knowledge. And what place has knowledge in meditation? Or, it has no place at all. It has no place because if it is merely a continuation of the past, it is still the movement of time, the movement of the past, and so on. Have you understood? So can the mind empty itself of the past, and come upon that area of the mind which is not touched by thought? You have understood the problem - my question?
You see, we have only operated so far within the area of thought as knowledge. Right? Is there any other part, any other area of the mind, which includes the brain, which is not touched by human struggle, pain, anxiety, fear - all the violence, all the things that man has made through thought? Right? And the discovery of that area is meditation. That implies, can thought come to an end but yet for thought to operate when necessary, in the field of knowledge? You understand my question? Please understand this question - pay a little attention, you may be tired but just give a little attention to it. We need knowledge, otherwise you cannot function, you can't go home, you wouldn't be able to speak, you wouldn't be able to write, and so on. Knowledge is necessary to function, and that functioning becomes neurotic, out of function status becomes all important, which is the entering of thought as the 'me', which is status. Right? So knowledge is necessary. And meditation is to discover, or come upon, or to observe an area in which there is no movement of thought, and can the two live together harmoniously, daily, in action? That is the problem, not breathing, you understand, not sitting straight, not repeating mantras, you know, slogans, paying a hundred dollars, or whatever you pay in order to learn some ugly little word, and repeat that, and you think you are in heaven, which is called transcendental nonsense!
And that is the whole problem of yoga, practising yoga, standing on your head and proficiency in yoga, and all the rest of it. It must originally have had a totally different meaning. The word 'yoga' means to join - to join the higher and the lower. You follow? That was what we have, but it must have quite a different meaning, because who is it that has divided the two, and who is it that joins them together? You follow? It is still thought. Right? So yoga exercises are excellent. One must do it. I do it - the speaker does it every day, for an hour or more, but that is merely physical exercise of a different kind, to keep the body healthy, breathing and so on. But through that, you can never come upon the other. Never! Because if you give to that all importance, then you are not giving importance to the understanding of yourself - which is to be watchful, to be aware, to give attention to what you are doing every day of your life: how you speak, what you say, what you think, how you behave, whether you are attached, whether you are frightened, whether you are pursuing pleasure, and so on. To be aware of this whole movement of thought. If you are, and if you are really serious about it, then you will have established right relationship, obviously. You understand?
You know relationship becomes extraordinarily important when all things about you become chaotic. When the world is going to pieces as it is, relationship becomes extraordinarily important. There you seek security, you want to hold on to that one thing that can possibly give you a complete sense of unity, and all the rest of it. Right? So unless there is this establishment between you and another of total relationship, that means a world relationship, not between you and me, but human relationship with the whole of the world, that is the basis: from there you can go on to behaviour - how you behave. If your behaviour has a motive, then it is not behaviour. If your behaviour is based on pleasure or on reward, it is not behaviour. It is merely the pursuit of pleasure or fear - not the pursuit of fear - fear arises.
So relationship, behaviour, and order - these are absolutely essential if you want to go into the question of meditation. If you have not laid this foundation, then you can do what you like - stand on your head, breathe in for the next ten thousand years and repeat words, words - there will be no meditation. You can even go to India if you have the money. I don't know why you go to India - you will find no enlightenment there. Enlightenment is where you are. And where you are, you have to understand yourself. Having established that, laid the foundation there, order - not mechanical order, because order is virtue, from moment to moment, it is not following a pattern, it is not the order for the establishment, it is not the order or the virtue of society, which is immoral. So order, behaviour and relationship. Then you can go into the question of finding out what is meditation.
Meditation implies a quality of mind that is absolutely silent, not made silent, not a contrived act, not brought about through will, but a silence that comes in naturally when you have established order, relationship and behaviour. And silence is necessary, because otherwise you can't see. Right? Please see this. If my mind is chattering, as most minds are, in that chatter there may be a period of silence - between two chatterings there might be a period of silence, but that is not silence. Silence is not the absence of noise. Silence is not the absence of conflict. Silence comes only when the content of your consciousness has been completely understood and gone beyond; which means the observer and the observed are one. And when there is no controller - please listen to this. When there is no controller it doesn't mean that you live a life of undiscipline, but when there is no observer, no controller, action then is instantaneous, which brings a great deal of energy. Right?
So meditation means not only the emptying of consciousness of its content, and that happens only when you observe your consciousness and its content without the observer - please see this. Right? Can you look at something, whatever it is, your wife, your husband, your girl, your boy, or the mountains, without the observer. The observer is the past. And as long as there is the observer, he will inevitably translate everything he observes in terms of the past, and therefore he is the maker of time. And he divides the observed, and the observer. And therefore in that there is conflict. When there is an observation without the observer, there is no conflict, there is no past, only the fact, and you have the energy to go beyond it. Do it and you will find out!
So meditation implies a gathering of all energy, because you have established order, relationship, behaviour, therefore you are not dissipating energy in that field, and therefore you have energy. And that energy is necessary to look without the observer. Right? So that you have the energy to go beyond. And with that energy, which has not been dissipated, the mind sees there is an area which is not touched by thought. But all this requires tremendous attention and energy and discipline. You understand? It is not just a plaything for some immature, idiotic people. It requires tremendous discipline. Now discipline means - the word in the dictionary means to learn. Do you understand? Not the absurd thing that we have made of it - that we must control, we must subjugate, we must imitate, conform. Discipline means to learn. Disciple. From the word 'discipline', comes the disciple. Disciple who is one who is willing to learn from the master. Learn. Here there is neither a disciple nor a master, but only the act of learning, all the time. Right? And that requires a great deal of attention, a great deal of energy, so that you are watching, you create no illusion. You understand? Because it is easy to create illusions. Illusions exist only when you are pursuing, demanding, wanting an experience. Desire creates illusion: wish creates illusion.
You know all this implies a mind that is very, very serious, a heart that is of love, that has never been hurt. You understand? We human beings from childhood are hurt; our parents hurt us, our friends hurt us, and in the business world we are hurt. We are hurt in every direction, and when we are hurt we cannot possibly love. Right? So is it possible for a mind that has been hurt, to be free of all those hurts, which is part of the consciousness? And you will find, when you look at it, that it is utterly and irrevocably possible to empty all hurts, and therefore to love, to have compassion. To have compassion means to have passion for all things, not just between two people, for all human beings, for all things of the earth, the animals, the trees, everything the earth contains. When you have such compassion you will not despoil the earth as we are doing now, and we will have no wars. You understand all this? It is up to you, gentlemen and ladies.
So, a mind that is serious, totally dedicated, concerned, it is only to such a mind meditation means something extraordinary, something so immense, because in that meditation you discover mind discovers space. You know what space is? This tent contains space. Right? There is this tent, and space in held within that tent. And there is space outside the tent. Right? And thought creates the space round itself. Have you noticed it? Thought as the 'me' creates the narrow space in which it acts. Which is, it has created through hurt, through all kinds of reasons, a wall within which it lives. Right? There is that narrow space, and the space which thought has created outside of itself, as the tent, and is there a space - not science fiction space - is there a space which is not which has no frontiers, which has no boundaries, and therefore no centre. You understand? I wonder if you understand. This is part of meditation, too. This is meditation, to find out.
So to find out what it is, as long as there is a centre, the 'me' or the idea of the 'me', with all its attachments, all the rest of it, that very centre creates a space round itself, and where there is a centre there must be a border. The border may be extended, but it is still within the space which the centre has created. Meditation means to come upon that space in which there is no centre, and therefore no direction, and therefore no time. And all this is meditation. Right? Because without meditation and the coming upon that thing which is not experiencable, which is not to be put into words, which has no time, which has no continuity, unless there is meditation, life has very little meaning. Do you understand? You may have a lot of money, or no money, you may be attached to your property, to your wife, to your friend and all the rest of it: or you may worship your particular little god which thought has invented - the Jesuses, the Christs, the Buddhas and all that - as long as you live there, there will be suffering, pain, anxiety and violence. And that has no meaning in itself - obviously. So unless you come upon this - not invented, not projected, not brought about through any system, then only life has an extraordinary sense of beauty and meaning. Right, finished.
Questioner: Sir, may I ask a question?
Krishnamurti: Just a minute sir. Take a breather. That lady put up her hand. Yes?
Q: In learning to look without the image, when you look outside the image sometimes goes. When you look in, it comes back.
K: Can you look at the world outside you, and can you look at the world inside you without the image? Sometimes it happens. I can look at the world without the image - the image being my country, my people, my opinions, my judgements. I can look at the world objectively. Sometimes that happens. And occasionally, rarely I can look at myself without any image. Now can one look at oneself and the world without any image at all, all the time? Is that the question? And why does it come back? You have understood the question?
That is, I look at myself and another, through the images I have built about myself and about the other. That is, I have built an image about my wife, and the wife has built one about me. The relationship is between these two images. Obviously. And I look at the world as a nationalist, as a Communist, as a Socialist, as a Catholic, as a Liberal, or a Conservative - those are all images, formulas. Now can I look at the world outside and look at myself, and my wife, children and all the rest of it, without a single image? Now how are these images formed? How do I form an image about my wife? (I'm not married) How do I form an image about my wife? How does that happen? I have lived with her - or she has lived with me - for ten years, or ten days, or one day. During that period of time, lots of things have happened - sexual, insults, nagging, dominating, demanding, hurt - all these are registered in the brain. The brain retains them, for its self-protection. Follow this. And builds a wall against hurt. Because my wife or I nag and I instinctively withdraw. So the withdrawal is a form of resistance. That resistance is the image. Which is, I want to protect myself, the idea of myself as another image, the mind wants to protect the image it has created about itself against another image. So I have got two images, you understand? One, that I have created about myself, that I am noble, ignoble, that I am ugly, I am beautiful, I am precious, I am holy, I am not holy, I am so supremely intelligent, I am such an idiot, and so on and so on. And also the image I have created about another. So I have got two images: the one I have about myself, and the one about the other. And the wife has the two images, too. So look what we are doing: we have got dozens of images, not only two. And we have got images about the world - what America should do, America should not do, America is so rich, Russia is so corrupt. You follow? Images, images, formulas.
Wait, I haven't finished yet. Would you mind listening to this question, and not be carried away by your own question. (Voice outside) The mother is calling the baby - it begins the image! So we have got these images. This is part of our conditioning. Right? Is the questioner listening? Then is it possible to be free of these images, not temporarily but completely, wholly? We see why the mind creates images. Right? For its protection and also it is part of our conditioning. Now can the mind be free of images - images which have been in the past and not create future images? Am I aware - are you aware of these images that you have? Actually aware - not because the speaker says be aware of them and therefore you are aware. Are you aware of these images that you have? Or, have you never even thought about it. If you have gone into this question you will see that these images have been created by others, society, religion, and by your own desire to protect yourself, your own anxiety and so on and so on. We are asking, can the mind be free of all images? It can only be free when the mind gives attention at the moment of action. You understand? At the moment I am saying I am a Hindu - be aware of it. Then you will see there is no formation of image. Right? When I am aware that I am Christian - Christian being worshipper of Christ, the symbol, all the rituals, all the conditioning of two thousand years of propaganda, baptism, priests - you know, all that goes on in the name of religion, to shape my mind, the mind of human beings; because that is very profitable for the priests, and so on and so on - now can the mind be aware of that when I look at the symbol? You understand? If at the moment of action I am completely aware, then there is no formation of image or the past image; there is an absolute cessation of images. You try it, you see it is so simple. But you don't do it.
So the mind in attention, is a free mind. That freedom is not brought about by thought. Thought can invent freedom. Thought being in prison, says, there is freedom outside. But attention in action, whether in behaviour and so on, in that attention which is the summation of energy there in no formation of symbols or images. Got it? Right.
You were going to ask something, sir.
K: What you say, seems to me, the questioner says, you are projecting. He asked the same question the other day. You don't listen. The speaker has spent an hour talking about non-projection, saying that any desire, any will, any sense of wish to go beyond itself must create its own illusion. And you are asking after an hour, it seems to me that you are projecting. I am sorry, you have to listen all over again, so that is the end of that question.
K: I am afraid it is not a paradox. It is not a contradiction. Sir I don't think you have listened. Forgive me for pointing out. I'm sorry I can't explain it any more. Anybody else? Yes, sir.
Q: When you return from meditation, the world to which you return, of time and space is inevitably enriched – it is an enrichment of that world. (Inaudible)
K: The gentleman says, from what you have described about meditation, it appears to me you are entering into a kind of vacuum. You might be entering. Is that so?
Q: If I enter into it...
K: Sir, it is not you entering, nor I entering into a vacuum. Sir, are we proceeding or enquiring verbally, intellectually, theoretically, or are we enquiring, living - which is, enquiring means living so as to bring out of this chaos, order in our daily life. Are we doing it? We live in disorder, and by observing that disorder without the observer, there is order. Order is not a vacuum. Order implies no conflict, no division, outwardly or inwardly. This division as the 'me', and not the 'me', is disorder. Now then, to have order, does not mean I am living in a vacuum. On the contrary. It is the most extraordinary, intelligent action to have relationship not based on image but actual relationship, is not a vacuum. And to behave without a motive is love. And that love is not a vacuum. Right? Love becomes a vacuum as an idea, but if you are compassionate you draw the line where you will not kill beyond that. You understand? I have to draw the line - personally I have drawn the line. Let us say I am a vegetarian, I have never killed an animal, eaten meat and so on. I put on shoes, leather, say I have drawn the line. It means you are killing vegetables. Don't eat cabbage. Then you might just as well die. And that may be good also.
So what we are talking about is not creating a vacuum. On the contrary, it is bringing about supreme, excellent intelligence. Intelligence is not a vacuum. Having established that, then meditation is not a vacuum. It is the furthering of that intelligence at its highest level. That's enough.
Q: Thank you very much.
K: Not at all sir.
K: Yes. I understand. Are there schools for wisdom. There are schools for knowledge, of course. Can wisdom be learnt? Is that it sir?
K: Then what is the question?
Q: Higher knowledge.
K: Can one learn without sectarianism, without schools, higher knowledge? Is that it? Are there schools for higher knowledge without sectarianism? It is a lovely question! Are there schools for higher knowledge without sectarianism and authority?
Right? You have answered the question, haven't you? Without sectarianism and authority can there be a school of your kind, which teaches higher knowledge? Who will teach you higher knowledge? Is the speaker teaching you higher knowledge? Go on sir. All the speaker is saying is, watch yourself. Be aware of all you are doing. Learn from yourself, because yourself is the world. Yourself is the highest goal. In that school there is no teacher nor disciple: there is only learning about yourself, and when, in the process of learning about yourself, you have established order and so on, then you can move to higher levels of intelligence. Right, sir.