What is a chaste mind?
Is there a movement other than the movement of thought?
5th Public Discussion Saanen
August 04, 1974
As this is the last dialogue, at least for this year at Saanen, what shall we talk over together?
Q: Will you talk about creativity?
K: Would I talk about creativity.
Q: What is actually the process of the mind that identifies with the tree? Is it becoming the tree?
K: No. What is the actual process of identifying the mind with the tree or becoming the tree. I hope the mind doesn't become the tree.
K: (Repeating) The daily life, with all its problems, and the other area, which is not daily life, what is the relationship of the two?
K: Energy and action.
Q: Would you say a word about celibacy.
K: Ah, celibacy.
K: Of course, madame, I was only joking, madame. Don't you know when you hear a joke and when you don't know my lord! (Laughter)
K: (Repeating) The speaker has said that in talking over things together his words act as a mirror, therefore the speaker is merely an information bureau. And could the speaker put questions, instead of you putting questions, and then go into those questions himself. That's right?
So, in other words you are saying, have a small group of people - few with whom you can discuss very seriously and the others listen. Is that it? Or there are not many, only a few, with whom to discuss.
Q: But I don’t seek help. I don’t want your help
K: Oh, no. I understand what you are saying, sir. And then discuss with him. Now I am going to do that. Not pick up persons, but I am going to put you a question. Not really a question. We have been talking now for five discussions, and seven talks, what has been the action of all that? In what way has your mind changed? Or are we going along the same pattern - the pattern of a new record, gramophone record, a new one, and repeat, repeat, repeat? Or is there a totally different kind of activity going on? Now who would like to ask that question?
I think it would be better for me to proceed. There have been several questions put: what would you consider is the important question that needs to be answered among all these, by you, or by another, or by the speaker? The question of meditation - what's the other? - celibacy, meditation in action. Now which do you think is an important question in all that which can be answered?
Q: I don’t know what you are talking about.
K: You really don't know? The gentleman really doesn't know what it is all about that the speaker has been talking about for the last month - is that it?
Q: I wish to thank the speaker for listening to us
K: Don't give the speaker a certificate, please! (Laughter) Now sir, nobody wants to answer it. May I propose a question, which is: the energy that matter creates is one thing, and is there another energy which is not the product of matter - matter being thought? You understand? That is what I would like to talk about, to discuss with you. I think that will include meditation, celibacy, meditation in action and so on.
Q: Yes. The speaker, he is considered an authority.
Q: You reject, though the speaker rejects, he is considered as a guru and an authority, therefore for myself I can’t utter what I think.
K: But sir, nobody has prevented you.
Q: Yes, sir.
K: Sir we have got several problems, several questions that you have all put: meditation, celibacy, meditation in action - what else was there? - energy and so on. Now can we have a conversation, a dialogue, about this question of energy - energy produced by the machine, energy produced through conflict, energy produced through a formula, energy produced through competition, energy produced through various forms of struggle, imitation, following and so on? That's what we mean by energy, mechanical energy. Right? Is the explanation of that word clear, what we mean by the word 'energy'? Energy created by thought in its action towards an end; energy created by thought in conforming, in competition; the energy created by thought as the 'me', and that 'me' struggling to assert itself in all the various areas of existence. We mean that by energy. Right? Right, sir.
Now we have functioned in that area all the time - function being acted, moved, changed, adjusted, imitated in that area. Right?
This is a dialogue, which is a conversation between you and me, I am not the speaker only. You and I are talking over together this question of energy, because it seems to me such a question is important, whether the mechanical energy of thought, which is matter, can ever bring about a transformation in the human mind, and therefore in society. That is what we are talking about.
Q: It seems we are talking about different centres of the mind. But it is impossible for one centre of the mind to bring about something in another centre of the mind.
K: Therefore, sir, I am asking, sir, this mechanical energy of matter - thought is matter - is there another form of energy? Wait sir. I am enquiring, sir, I am not saying it is, or it is not, there is, or there is not. I see this mechanical energy of thought cannot possibly change the social, economic and inward structure of human beings. They may alter a little bit here and there. Reformation and revolution are within the area of mechanical activity of thought. If that is so, then we are asking: is there another kind of energy necessary to break down this mechanical process?
Q: You speak about mechanical energy in a derogatory way. Whereas my life’s work requires this mechanical energy.
K: I agree, sir.
Q: So I must find how to live with both.
K: We are going to find out. There is this mechanical energy - first see all the implications of that mechanical energy, which is, the energy of matter, thought and so on, and what it has done in the world, technologically, economically, socially, morally, religiously, which affects our daily life of which we are a part. And we are saying as long as we live in that area of energy mere reformation and revolution are changing the corners, changing the surface. In that there is no radical transformation. That's all I am saying.
Now we are enquiring, talking over together, if there is any other kind of energy.
K: (Repeating) The destruction of ideas can also bring about energy. Obviously.
Q: It is a matter of direction.
K: It's a matter of direction.
Q: What do you mean by energy? It is very difficult to define.
K: Sir, I explained just now, I defined, or put into words what I thought was energy. Scientists will have a different definition of energy, or the business man, and so on, so on - each has his own definition of what he considers energy. When you look it up in a dictionary it means - force, drive, vitality, life, all that is involved in that word.
Q: Are you saying that you are only dealing with mechanical energy?
K: Sir, first we are considering - at least I hope we are considering - the mechanical energy of thought, and whether there is through that energy a release of man - you understand? - a release, a freedom, an ending of suffering, a different structure of society, different morality and so on.
K: I know, but apparently, sir, apparently, we are still there, because all these questions are related to that - like saying, celibacy. Now that is All right, that is the way you want to tackle it, all right, we will tackle it your way.
Celibacy: in religions, ancient and modern - perhaps not modern - celibacy was considered necessary. Priests, monks, took a vow to be celibate. And though they took a vow, inwardly they were burning. Right? Obviously. So there was a contradiction. The mind verbally took a series of vows and said, 'I am going to remain a celibate in order to serve...' - whatever the image it had created. But he suffered enormously, conflict of all his desires, he was burning. Right?
Q: I agree that majority of people
K: Wait, sir. Wait, I am just beginning, sir, I'm just beginning. Or you identify, the monk identified himself with the symbol, or fell in love with the symbol so completely he was absorbed by the symbol, and therefore there was no conflict. He was married to Jesus, or to Krishna, or whatever it was, and in that absolute identification with the image, with the symbol, with the idea, the conflict didn't arise. This identification obviously helps one to soften the desires, the urges, the sexual lust. It is like putting a toy in front of a child and the child is completely absorbed in the toy. But deep down the thing goes on, the mischief in the child; remove the toy and it becomes again mischievous, or does something else.
Now what is a chaste mind? That is the real question, not celibacy, or the vows, or all the conflicts involved in taking a vow, or so completely identifying oneself with a symbol, with an image, with an idea, but what is much more important is to find out what is a chaste mind? Would that be all right? Right, sir?
What is a chaste mind? The word 'chaste' means pure - I am quoting the dictionary, please don't jump on me - pure, clear, untouched, a mind that has not been through conflict, it is an innocent mind. I am using that word - please bear with me, I am describing what that word 'chaste' means. You may not accept the meaning of that word, but I am using the meaning from the dictionary - clean, a chaste mountain, the snow is fresh, chaste, untouched. I think we ought to talk about that rather than the mind that is caught up in sexual desires and all that.
Chaste also means a mind that is really innocent. The word 'innocent' means a mind that has not been hurt. The root meaning of the word 'innocent' means not capable of being hurt. Right? Is there such a mind? Wait, sir. Wait. Is there such a mind that is incapable of being hurt, and therefore chaste, and therefore clean - in the ordinary sense of that word?
Q: All very young children have chaste minds.
K: All young children have chaste minds. I am sorry, I wouldn't know. But have we such a chaste mind?
K: Wait, sir. Have we human beings now in this tent, or a few with whom we can discuss and go into it, have we got such a chaste mind - a mind that has not been hurt, or a mind that has no image created by the senses, a mind that is free from the pleasure of yesterday?
Q: Is chastity a quality of the mind?
K: Is chastity a quality of the mind. Is anger a quality of the mind? Is violence a quality of the mind? Why have we made chastity one of the most important things in the so-called religious world, why? And before you can answer that question, is it a quality? Is goodness - please listen - is goodness a quality of the mind? - the mind being the brain, the intellectual capacity of perception, the various thoughts and the emotions that thought can recognise. All that we call the mind - at least I call the mind, you may call it by a different name, but if we both agree that it is the mind then we can proceed.
So is chastity a quality of the mind? - the mind being intellectual perception, and all the memories of the brain, experience, knowledge, the capacity to draw a conclusion, the capacity to understand verbally and non-verbally, all that is the mind. Now we are introducing a word like chastity, and saying, is that a quality of the mind. Right? What do you say? This is a discussion please, a dialogue. Now what do you say?
K: Sir, we are not discussing consciousness, not energy. We are saying are chastity, anger, violence, a quality of the mind. Is the word the thing? You understand?
Q: You are saying the mind is thought, but if you say also emotions, I would say yes.
K: Is the mind emotion?
Q: Right. You have defined the mind as thought, but before the mind, emotions and thought, then yes, then anger could be the mind, a quality of the mind.
K: If you say the mind is thought, emotion, and the recognition of emotions, and the whole of the brain, memory, all that is the mind, and if you say, is chastity, violence, anger the quality of such a mind, then the lady agrees that it is the quality of the mind.
K: (Repeating) It is the product of the mind.
Q: It is the mind itself, the mind is emotions.
K: That is what we are saying too. Now is chastity, the word - the word - does that denote the state of the mind? Look, I use the word 'violence', is the word the actual fact? So the word is the description. Let's go slowly into this. So the description is not the described. Right? So what is the described? What is the described, which says, 'What is chastity?' You understand my question? Sir, we have used the word 'chastity', and in using that word we have the various images and associations connected with that word. Obviously. But those words, associations with their feelings, is not the quality, is not the thing. Right?
Q: Right, right.
K: One moment. So what is the thing that is described? Look sir, look sir, may I put it this way. Let's be simple. I want to find out objectively, not with some hope or with some desire to be inviolate, I want to find out if my brain, my mind, this mind is really chaste. Right? I want to find out. And so I say to myself, 'Am I caught in the word?' The word, the association, and all the remembrances that are awakened with the word - the condemnation, the approval, the holy man, the unholy man - you follow? - all that is involved when we use that word 'chastity'. It is the traditional word to denote a man of god - whatever that may mean, I'm just not going into it. So I say to myself, is my mind caught up in the word and its associations? That I must be very clear about first, mustn't I? Right? So can my mind be free of the word, the symbol, and all the condemnation and approval of that word? Go on, sirs, this is a dialogue, a conversation.
Q: As long as thought...
K: We're going to find out, don't say, 'As long as'. I don't want 'as long as', 'if', 'when', 'must'. I want to see the state of my mind actually as it is when the word 'chastity' is removed.
Q: The word ‘chastity’...
K: That's what I said, madam.
Q: Before we can get on to chastity don’t we have to observe chastity?
K: Oh, there is nothing much to look at, is there? Oh, don't let's make this all become so silly. I am going to stick to that word because it is a very good example of how our minds refuse to look at something that is not held in a word.
K: Sir, look, do be simple. I am not trying to convert you, or tell you what to do. Let's find out, as two friends discussing a very serious matter, which has somewhat coloured the whole of humanity. Humanity has said, 'To reach God you must be chaste, you must have chastity'. And people have gone through tortures about it, people are so deeply identified with their symbol and therefore no contradiction and so on and so on, so on. I want to find out if my mind which has been brought up in these traditions, in these ideas, in these conclusions, whether it is chaste at all. If I understand it, then sex, all the other things become fairly simple and clear. Because the moment a conflict arises in sexual relationship, it is no longer love, chaste, or anything. So I want to find out. How am I to find out? Go to books? Go to my guru? Ask somebody, what is chastity? He will immediately translate it in terms of his own traditional conditioning, and I have to either accept it or reject it. So I won't go through all that business because I know it very well. So I say to myself, is the mind free from the word? - and the word includes condemnation, justification, all that, and all the associations involved in that word. Right?
Q: My mind...
K: Wait. I have asked a question, let's find out. If I say, no, I have finished, then no enquiry is possible. Or if I say, 'Yes, it is possible', it again blocks enquiry. Right? Can we now find out, your mind and my mind, whether it is a slave to words and therefore cannot possibly investigate. Right? Because if I have a conclusion that one must have chastity in terms of tradition, it is finished, I can't enquire.
Q: What is a chaste mind, sir?
K: I explained, sir, what chastity means. A chaste mind, a mind which has not been hurt.
Q: An innocent mind. That was the definition of a chaste mind.
K: No, no. A mind that is innocent is a chaste mind. A mind which is incapable of being hurt is a chaste mind.
Q: They are also incapable of hurting.
K: That follows naturally. So a mind that is not caught up in images, in pictures, in the remembrance of things past and desiring more of it. All that is implied and more in that word 'chaste', or 'chastity'. And I am saying, asking you, and I am asking myself, whether it is possible for the mind to disassociate itself from the word, or is the mind merely a verbal structure? You understand, sir? Therefore it cannot disassociate itself.
Q: Words are like an old
K: Sir, don't introduce a simile, that takes off Sir, please put this problem to yourself and find out whether the mind, the brain, and all the things associated with it, are merely the structure of words. That structure of words being pictures, images, conclusions, depending on your like and dislike, pleasure and pain - all that is implied in the word and the memory which contains the word. I am including everything into it.
Q: Also included is traumatic shock.
K: Shock. Traumatic shock. Have you had a traumatic shock now, as somebody else? Sir, I want you to look at your own mind, at yourself, and I say to you, is the mind merely the result of words - not just words but the whole complex of verbalisation and the word - or is the mind something different? I am not saying it is, or it is not. And can the mind disassociate itself from the word? And if it does, what then is the mind? Sir, this is part of meditation. Sir, just a minute. This is part of meditation. Because meditation implies action in daily life. And if meditation is merely the continuance of a verbal structure, of a verbal structure and the pursuit of a verbal structure with all its images and so on, then action is merely mechanical. Obviously.
And is meditation - if you want me to define meditation, I will - can the mind disassociate from the word? The word has its own energy. The word has its own content which has been put there by thought. Of course. And if the mind merely lives in that area meditation is then a purposeful, directed activity of thought and will. Right?
Q: Sir, what do you mean by disassociate?
K: Sir, that microphone, this thing which we call microphone, is not that thing, is it? Right? The thing - you follow, sir? This metal thing is not microphone, the word, but we both agree to call that microphone; we might call it, giraffe, if we both agree. That's all. The disassociation of the word microphone from the fact. Now can the mind disassociate itself from the word, and if it does, what is the mind, and can the mind disassociate itself? You follow the problem? This is really You have got to work at this, it isn't just an agreement or disagreement. When you realise the word is not the thing, the word 'wife' is not the woman, but to us the word 'wife' covers everything.
Q: When I try to do this, look at chastity, the word disappears.
K: Sir, look what you have meditation is not a conscious action and that is what you have all been doing. Right? Meditation is not a deliberate act.
Q: Why do you talk about it?
K: Why do I talk about it. Because from India some of these gurus have brought it over to this country and to America and they are polluting the air. And they are forming groups, getting money, and doing all kinds of things, mischievous things with the mind. And somebody raised it, not only now, previously and at all the other talks, and said please talk about this. So I am saying, meditation is not a conscious act. If you realise that, it is something entirely different. Because as that gentleman pointed out, I can try, try to disassociate the word and see what happens. You understand? Therefore there is a deliberate action taking place to see what is the state of the mind without the word. Now who is trying, and who is recognising the result? And if the result is according to his desire then he accepts the result. But I say, please don't try, don't deliberately disassociate, look at the problem. You understand? Just look without saying, 'I must disassociate', 'Associate', 'What is the quality?', but just look. That is, there is this mind, the mind which includes the brain, the brain cells, memories, experience, which is knowledge. That knowledge is the known, the known is the word, the known is the field in which we are all operating. That's obvious. Right, sir? It is the area of all our activity - sexual, moral, ethical, artistic and all of that is within the area of the known. And within that area there is tremendous activity of energy. Right? And I say to myself, 'I must meditate'. And I am still meditating in that area, when I say, 'I must meditate, I must breathe rightly, I must learn to breathe rightly, I must control, I must' - you follow? So meditation as has been accepted and practised throughout the world is within the area of the known, and the attempt from the known to enquire into the unknown. You understand all this? Just listen.
K: (Repeating) I am not trying anything. Don't, don't. I have said, don't try. Sir, meditation must be totally uninvited. We will go into that.
Q: Do you say, don’t try?
K: Yes. Don't try. Don't try, don't try to exert will, just - sir, do you know the art of listening? Just to listen, not interpret or translate what he is saying - just to listen to the music without the romance, without the association, without all that, just you listen to that lovely sound. In the same way, if you can listen, not try, just listen, which doesn't mean you accept, you deny, you agree, you this, or that. Just the art of listening, sir, as the art of seeing.
So I am saying, can your mind disassociate itself from the word? The word has an enormous tail not just You follow? And can that happen? Don't try. See what takes place. If it cannot, then we are always living within the field of the known - right? - and therefore it is a prison. And the scientists, the really top scientists are enquiring into this problem: whether the mind can go beyond the known, not deceptively. You understand? Whether it can enter an area where the known has not penetrated, where the known with all its contamination has not touched it, therefore that area may have quite a different quality of energy. Now, I have said this.
K: (Repeating) How does that tie in with meditation being uninvited. It doesn't tie in at all. But we must know the whole field of the known, and all its activities, which is the 'me'. You understand, sir? I must know myself; myself is discoverable, the known. I may not have looked at it, it may be hidden, but the 'me' must be totally exposed. The 'me' is the word, the 'me' is the memory, the remembrances, the experiences, the struggles, the tradition, the past, all that, with all its complexities, conscious and unconscious, the hidden motives, secret desires, all that is within the field of the known. And when I say, 'I must meditate', I am meditating from the known, in the known. I control myself, I breathe in a certain way and I concentrate, control - all that is within the field of the known. And I say, meditation consciously done is no meditation at all. Right?
Q: Sir, all that is said is in the field of the known, so who is the
K: Of course, of course. I'm sure, please, that's all admitted. But having put the question, what is important is to put the question.
Q: Then in your view the artist
K: No, that's the whole problem. When we put that question we are still within the area of the known. And we want an answer within that area. But we never put the question without wanting an answer, but just to see what the question does. You have understood, sir? Look, there is violence, human beings are violent, with their opinions, with their conclusions, with their gods, with their possessions, it is all violent. Violence means anger, jealousy, competition, aggressiveness, the desire to be someone, all that is included in that word, violence. I have defined it, so we can go on.
Now when there is an attempt to be free of violence, you must find out who is the entity that is attempting to be free. Is the entity different from violence? They are both the same, aren't they? You agree, sir? Now I have described it. Then you say, 'What am I to do?' - you understand? - when you realise that the observer of violence is himself violent - when the observer realises
Q: Isn’t there a trick there?
K: No, there is no trick, no trick. Please, just listen. There is no trick at all. I will show you. I am violent. I say I am angry. Is the anger different from the man who says, 'I have been angry'? Is he different?
Q: He doesn’t realise it.
K: It is not a question of realising. I am asking; and you say, no, obviously it cannot be. And we are saying, the mind is the field of the known. The mind is the result of centuries of growth, centuries of experience, million years of knowledge, and it has operated always within that field. And it says, meditation is from this field to that field - whatever that field is. And therefore it makes a deliberate attempt to meditate. That is, try to control, try to suppress, try to silence the mind so that in that silence it sees something new. Right? That is the idea of meditation.
Q: What happens during dreams?
K: No, what happens during dreams. That's a different question. Sir, please.
Q: Mind is a concept.
K: Mind is a concept. Which means thought has created the word, the idea, reasoned the idea and put it as a formula, then the mind says, 'Yes, I am that'. But you are not following it. You see how difficult it is, sir? I want to talk with you and you are going off all over at a tangent.
K: Sir, look, all that, different parts of the brain, aren't there? No, sir, we are not dividing the brain or the mind into different categories.
Q: The brain divides itself.
K: Wait, sir, I know that. We are asking a very simple thing, sir: if the mind is incapable of freeing itself from the known it must live a mechanical life - whatever it does, and its society must be based on division, and therefore no morality.
So we are asking: there is this brain, mind, can it be free of the word - the word is the known - and what happens when the word is not? - word being knowledge - you understand sir? - word being experience. That means, can the brain, can this whole thing called the mind with its brain and so on, so on, so on, see the importance of the activity of the brain - you follow? - and not merely hold on to that? I don't know if I am conveying anything.
K: Yes. Sir, I had an experience yesterday, pleasant or unpleasant, and I carry it over today, the brain carries it over today. Can that experience of yesterday, pleasurable or painful, end with yesterday? Otherwise it is a continuity of the past.
Q: It happens with some things you don’t like.
K: Find out. It happens with some things you don't like. You can drop those things very easily. But something that gives you great pleasure, great excitement, sexual, I don't know, whatever it is. The experience can it be dropped, instantly removed? That's what we are asking in different words. You have hurt me and I know all the implications of that word hurt, and can I drop it, and not carry it over?
K: You say, yes. Do you do it? Intellectual agreement is not action. It is the same thing, we are saying, the mind, the brain, carries over, therefore it is continuing within the field of the known all the time. And in that field, do what you will, there is no hope. As we see what is happening politically, religiously, economically, pollution, all of that, overpopulation and all the misery that is going on. So if you are serious, and I mean serious, not just words but burning with it, with the responsibility of it, then you have to ask this question, whether the mind can ever be free from the known? You see that is what man has done, attempted to free himself, attempted so that I can't free but there is an outside agency that will help me. If you reject all that - the outside agency, attempt, trying, will, direction, if you deny all that totally, which you must because they are all still within the field of the known, then what is the mind without the movement of time as the past? We live in the past. Right? That's our life, isn't it? What he said, what he didn't say, why this, and why that, my memories, my anxieties, everything is in the past - my fears, my remembrance of fears, my sexual appetites and the appetites projecting themselves tomorrow through image, through sensation, through pictures and all that. Now what is the nature of the mind when there is, not through will or desire or attempt, when you see that there is no way out through the known, then what does the mind do? Does it get depressed, hopeless, cynical? All that is still part of the known.
So can you - this is a dialogue, that is, a conversation - have you done this, not verbally but actually gone into it? And you will say to me, have you done it - naturally, right sir?
K: I thought so. (Laughter) Look sirs, the speaker would never say anything which he hasn't done.
Q: Have you found anything? Have you seen anything?
K: Seen what? Have you seen? You see the gentleman's question? If you have ever done this, the gentleman says, what have you seen?
K: No, sir, he wants something else. (Laughter)
K: No, you please answer that gentleman's question. To see, to observe without recognition is one thing. To observe with recognition is still within the past. Right? You are following this, sir? So there is nothing to see, and nothing to experience. The moment you recognise something - I recognise you because you were here yesterday, and that recognition is the movement of the past. You were here yesterday, the brain registered it and says, today I recognise you. So if there is recognition when the mind is free of the word and all that, then it is not free of the word, it is free of a certain series of words. Can you say that you have had an experience without recognition?
Q: I cannot name it.
K: That's is what we are saying, it is exactly the same. You are asking me what I saw.
Q: Yes, but it doesn’t lead me to anywhere.
K: Why should it lead you to anywhere?
Q: Why are we here?
K: I don't know why you are here, sir. But why are you here, any of you? Why are you here?
Q: Because we want something from you.
K: Because you want something from me, it is suggested.
Q: To find out about ourselves.
K: Sir, what are you here for? I would like to ask this gentleman who says, 'What are you here for', sir?
K: Sir, that is not quite fair, that's not quite fair. Sir, that's not quite fair, you haven't understood. I have just now said, sir, and I'll put it differently: The speaker doesn't talk about anything which he has not done, and all the rest of it. Otherwise he would be a damn hypocrite.
K: No, I don't speak about that. Madam, you are missing my whole point. I did not say that, madam.
K: I did not say that either. No. Madam, I know what the question was. Please.
K: That was one of the questions. The other questions were: Are you speaking, saying things, which you, which your mind has realised, seen, understood, comprehended, aware, attention (Laughs) - do you know what you are talking about, or is it merely an intellectual amusement? Right? I am sorry, it is not an intellectual amusement. As that gentleman asked, what have you seen, there is nothing to see.
Q: Is it like when the mind is a complete blank?
K: Not blank, sir. You see. You first use a word 'blank' and I have to contradict that word and then we get into verbal communication. I don't say, blank. That's why, sir, I am asking you whether the mind can disassociate or separate or put away, understand the nature of the word and find out what happens, what takes place. Don't previously say, 'It is blank', 'It will see visions of Krishna', or Buddha , or something standing on his head and all the rest of it.
Q: In that quietness are there colours?
K: That's another of your ideas.
Q: It is not an idea.
K: Sir, you see this is so hopeless to talk.
K: Sir, may I put a question this way: has love a motive? No, has love a motive? Sir please, has love a motive? If it has a motive is it love?
K: Wait. Now I want to find out. I want to find out if I have a motive. And if I have a motive it is not love and I won't use that word ever till there is no motive.
Then you ask me, what is that love without a motive. I say, I can't tell you. Then you tell me, you are cuckoo. Because you want a verbal communication, and accept or reject according to your idea of what love is. That's all you are interested in. You don't say, now let's find out if I can live a life without a motive, except in the world of getting money, I have to have a little motive, that's irrelevant, psychologically I am talking about.
Q: Aren’t all these questions that deal with what you are seeing and what you are experiencing – aren’t they misleading? And even your response which says that you wouldn’t speak of anything that you have not experienced, even that response, isn’t it misleading also as it involves belief?
K: Sir, unless you and I understand the meaning of the word, and the difficulty of the word, and the communication - communication implies sharing together. The meaning of that word in the dictionary means sharing together, thinking together - not agreeing - thinking about the problem together, partaking, building, doing things together, all that is contained in that word, 'communication'. Now we know there is a verbal communication and non-verbal communication. The verbal communication may also be very deceptive, misunderstood, and the non-verbal communication is much more difficult, much more deceptive, so we must go through the verbal communication first, that we both understand, and then perhaps we can commune non-verbally at a different level.
K: (Repeating) How can we commune on a non-verbal level.
Q: You say that you have gone beyond
K: Sir, you asked a question, wait a minute. I didn't say - you are misquoting me. I must correct it. I did not say I have gone beyond.
Q: That’s what I understood.
K: Ah, that's what you understood, that is quite a different matter. I said I would not speak of anything that I hadn't gone through. I would be a hypocrite, and I don't want to be a hypocrite. I said that very clearly.
Q: Have you gone beyond?
K: I won't answer your question. That's an impudent question.
Q: I don’t think you have
K: No, madame What time is it? (Laughter)
Q: Twelve o’clock.
Q: You also enquired, why are you here.
K: I didn't ask that question, sir, somebody asked. I wouldn't be impudent enough to ask why you are here. He asked.
K: Madame, don't go into all that. Now, look, we have to stop.
We have talked, the speaker has talked during seven talks, and we have had five so-called dialogues, communications, verbal, as friends meeting together, serious and concerned not with their own little problems, which are included when we consider the whole problem of mankind. The whole problem of overpopulation, pollution, the corruption that's going on right through the world, the deceptions, the divisions of religions, races, and nationalities, wars, violence, all that, and what is your place in it. After listening to twelve talks and dialogues, what is your place in this world? You have to answer it, not to me, I am not your confessor, but you have got to answer that question. If you are serious and feel utterly responsible the answer is there. Because life is action and if your action is based merely on your self-centred opinions, judgements, evaluations, then you are just merely answering irresponsibly. But when you have looked at this whole human endeavour with all the things that are going on in the world - the new inventions, the destructive machinery, all that is going on, and you, who are so-called educated, and what are you educated for, and what is your place in all this? Just to disappear into all that, be swallowed up?
So, if one is utterly responsible for the whole, for the world, because the world is you, and you are the world - there is no question about it. And since we human beings have created this monstrous ugly world, not nature, the world of human relationship, you have to, if you are serious, you have to answer it, and therefore you have to find your place, what is your place in all this. Just go off and meditate? Or join this party or that party, politically? Or follow this guru or that guru? Follow some authority, to save your own little salvation? Sir, the house is burning. If you don't see the house burning there is nothing to be said. But if you see the house is burning you have to act. Right? That's all, sirs.