What is a healthy mind?
The nature of the mind
4th Scientists Discussion Ojai, California
April 18, 1982
Tom Krause: This is one of a series of dialogues between J Krishnamurti, David Bohm, Rupert Sheldrake and John Hidley. The purpose of these discussions is to explore essential questions about the mind: what is psychological disorder and what is required for fundamental psychological change?.
J. Krishnamurti is a religious philosopher, author and educator who has written and given lectures on these subjects for many years. He has founded elementary and secondary schools in the United States, England and India. David Bohm is Professor of Theoretical Physics at Birkbeck College, London University in England. He has written numerous books concerning theoretical physics and the nature of consciousness. Professor Bohm and Mr Krishnamurti have held previous dialogues on many subjects
Rupert Sheldrake is a biologist whose recently published book proposes that learning in some members of a species affects the species as a whole. Dr Sheldrake is presently consulting plant physiologist to the International Crops Research Institute in Hyderabad, India
John Hidley is a psychiatrist in private practice who has been associated with the Krishnamurti school in Ojai, California for the past six years.
The first three dialogues have focused on various processes of self-identification, and their effects. The need for psychological security has been discussed as growing out of a basic division in which the contents of consciousness appear to be separate from consciousness itself. Today's discussion begins with the importance of attention
Krishnamurti: What is analysis? And what is observation? In analysis there is the analyser and the analysed. And so there is always that difference maintained. Where there is difference there must be conflict - division, and that's one of the factors that really is very destructive to the whole psychological freedom - this conflict, this division. And analysis maintains this division. Whereas if one observes closely - I'm not correcting you, sir, I'm just enquiring - the analyser is the analysed. Again the same problem, thought has divided the analyser and the analysed. The analyser is the past who has acquired a lot of knowledge, information, separated himself, and is either correcting the observed, the analysed, make him conform, he is acting upon it. Whereas the analyser is the analysed. I think if that is really understood very deeply, the conflict, psychological conflict ends, because in that there is no division between the analyser and the analysed, there is only observation. Which Dr Bohm and we discussed at considerable length last year
So if that is clearly understood - I am not laying down the law, but I am just as I have observed as one has observed this whole business of conflict - whether one can live the whole of one's life without conflict. That means the controller is absent; which is a very dangerous question. I feel where there is inattention, lack of attention, is the really the whole process of conflict.
Rupert Sheldrake: Yes, I can see that if both sides saw this with the utmost clarity...
K: Yes. That means they are giving intelligence to the whole problem.
RS: What happens if only one party in a conflict sees it with that utmost clarity?
K: What happens? One gives complete attention in one's relationship between man and woman; let's begin with that. You have given complete attention. When she insults you, when she flatters you, when she bullies you or when she is attached to you, all that is the lack of attention. If you give complete attention and the wife doesn't, then what happens? That is the same problem. Either you try to explain day after day, go into it with her patiently. After all, attention implies also great deal of care, affection, love. It's not just mental attention. It's attention with all your being. Then either she moves along with you, comes over to your side, as it were, or she holds on to her separative contradictory state. Then what happens? One is stupid, the other is intelligent
RS: But the conflict...
K: So there is always the battle between the stupid and the ignorant. I mean between the ignorant, the stupid and the intelligent
John Hidley: A thing that seems to happen in that situation is that the one's intelligence makes room in which the other person who is caught in some attachment may have freedom to look at it.
K: But if the other refuses to look at it, then what is the relationship between the two people?
JH: There is none.
K: That's all. You see tribalism is deadly, destructive. You see it basically, fundamentally, and I don't. You have seen it probably immediately and I'll take many years, a long time to come to that. Will you have the - I won't use the word patience - will you have the care, affection, love, so that you understand my stupidity? I may rebel against you. I may divorce you. I may run away from you. But you have sown the seed somewhere in me. But that does happen, doesn't it, really, in life?
JH: You said something that interests me here, you said that if you have seen it immediately and the other person may take a long time to come to seeing it. And it seems like in this attention that you're talking about, perception is immediate.
K: Of course.
JH: It isn't built up out of...
K: Oh, no, no, then it's not perception.
JH: Well, that may be part of the reason the other person is having difficulty seeing it, is that they want it to be proved to them.
K: You see conditioning is destructive, and I don't.
K: What is our relationship between us two? It's very difficult to communicate with each other...
K: ...verbally or with care, it's very difficult, because...
JH: You won't know what I'm talking about.
K: No, and also I'm resisting you all the time. I'm defending myself.
JH: You're defending what you think you see.
K: What I think is right. I have been brought up as a Hindu or a British or a German or a Russian, whatever it is, and I see the danger of letting that go. I might lose my job. People will say I'm little-minded. People might say I depend on public opinion, so I'm frightened to let go. So I stick to it. Then what is your relationship with me? Have you any relationship?
K: No, I question whether you have no relationship.
JH: I can tell you what I see.
K: Yes. But if you have love for me, real, not just attachment, and sex and all that business, if you really care for me, you cannot lose that relationship. I may run away, but you have the feeling of relationship. I don't know if I am conveying what I mean
JH: In other words, I don't just say, well, I see it and you don't, and if you're not going to listen, the heck with you.
K: No. But, sir, you have established a kind of relationship, perhaps very profound, when there is love. I may reject you, but you have that responsibility of love. And not only to the particular person, but to the whole of humanity. What do you say, sir, about all this?
David Bohm: Well, I can't say a great deal more. I think that this care and attention are the essential points. For example in the question of the observer and the observed or the analyser and the analysed, the reason why that separation occurs is because there has not been enough attention
K: Attention, that's what I'm saying.
DB: So that one has to have that same attitude even in looking at one's own psychological problems.
JH: An attitude of care?
DB: Care and attention to what's going on, you see, one starts to analyse by habit, and one might condemn that, for example, that would not be the right attitude. But one has to give care and attention to exactly what is happening in that just as in relationship with people. And it's because that there was no attention or not the right kind of attention that that division arose in the first place, and was sustained, right?
RS: But it's possible to have perhaps this kind of attention towards people that we know: wives, children, friends, etc., but what about people we don't know? I mean, most of us have never met any Russians, for example, and we feel, many of us, there's this terrible fear of Russia and Russian nuclear weapons and the Russian threat and all the rest of it. And so it's very easy to think, well, we've got to have all these bombs and so on because the Russians are so terrible. We can think all these things about Russians; we've never met them. So how do we have attention to enemies or imagined enemies that we don't know?
K: What is an enemy? Is there such thing as an enemy?
RS: Well, there are enemies in the sense that there are people who...
K: ...who disagree with you...
RS: ...not only disagree
K: ...who have definite idealistic ideological differences.
RS: Well, they're usually people who are afraid of us, I mean the Russians are afraid of us and we're afraid of them and because they're afraid of us they're in a position of being our enemies.
K: Because we are still thinking in terms of tribalism.
RS: Yes, certainly.
K: Supposing you and I move out of that. I'm Russian, you are English or British or German or French. I move, I despise this sense of tribalism. What's my relationship then with you?
JH: Well, we...
K: I'm not Russian then.
K: I'm a human being with all my psychological problems and you are another human being with all your psychological problems. We are human beings, not labels
DB: Of course the Russians may reject this, you see, that is, suppose we're in this situation...
K: We are in that...
DB: ...and the Russians will reject us, right. Then we have to then what's the next step, right?
K: So what shall we do? You see, I represent all humanity. I am all humanity. I feel that way. To me it's an actuality, not just an emotional explosion, emotional, romantic idea. I feel I am the rest of mankind; I am mankind. Because I suffer or I enjoy, I go through all the tortures and so do you, so do you. So you are the rest of mankind. And therefore you have terrible responsibility for that, in that. So when you meet a Russian or a German or a British or Argentine you treat them as human beings, not labels
RS: Then does this simply mean that in this largely tribal society with governments and bombs and weapons of war, there'll just be a few individual scattered here and there who've dissolved tribalism in themselves?
K: Yes. If a hundred of us all over the world really had a non-tribalistic attitude towards life, we would be acting like a - I don't know - like a light in the midst of darkness. But we don't. This just becomes an idealistic romantic idea and you drop it because each pursues his own way
K: Sir, I think we ought to differentiate between attention and concentration. Concentration is focussing your energy on a certain point. And attention, there is no focussing on a certain point. It's attention
JH: Concentration seems to have a goal in mind.
K: A goal, motive. It's a restrictive process. I concentrate on a page, but my thoughts I am looking out of the window and I'll pull it back and keep on this business. Whereas if I gave complete attention to what I am looking out of the window - that lizard which is going along the wall - and with that same attention I can look at my book, look what I am doing
JH: Concentration presupposes that there's a controller in there pulling it back.
K: That's just it.
RS: But then, if there's no controller of the attention, the attention is simply a response to whatever the present circumstances are.
K: You insult me - I'm attentive. There is no recording that insult.
DB: Yes, that's it.
K: You flatter me: a marvellous talk you gave the other day. I've heard this so often repeated. And I'm bored with it, so - I'm not only bored, I see - what? You follow, sir? Is it possible - really, that's the much more difficult question - is it possible not to record, except where it is necessary? It's necessary to record when you are driving. To learn how to drive. Record when you do your business and all the rest of it. But psychologically, what is the need to record?
RS: Isn't it inevitable? Doesn't our memory work automatically?
K: Memory is rather selective.
JH: We seem to remember things that are important to us...
JH: ...have some connect in with who we think we are and what our goals are.
DB: It seems to me that when there is paying attention then in general attention determines what is to be recorded and what is not, that is, it is not automatic anymore.
K: It's not automatic any more. Quite right.
DB: If it comes from the past, from the concentration or from the analysis, then it will be automatic.
K: Another problem which we ought to discuss - we said yesterday we would - religion, meditation, and if there is something sacred. We said we would talk about that
Is there anything sacred in life? Not thought creating something sacred, and then worshipping that sacred, which is absurd. The symbols in all the Indian temples, they're images, like in the Christian church, or the Muslim, in the mosque there is this marvellous writing - it's the same. And we worship that
JH: That's idolatry.
K: No. Thought has created this. The thought has created the image and then it worships it. I don't know if you see the absurdity of it
RS: Well, that's manifestly absurd, but the more sophisticated members of different religions would say that it's not the thought, the image that's created by thought that's being worshipped, but the image points to something beyond thought which is being worshipped.
K: Wait a minute, let's look at it. That is, the symbol, we know symbol is not the real, but why do we create the symbol? Please answer it. If there is something beyond, why do we create the intermediary?
RS: Well, I think that this is a question which in certain religions has been central to them: the Jews, who were against all idolatry for exactly this reason, and the Muslims, who don't have images in the mosques.
K: No but they have these scripts.
RS: They have writing.
K: Of course.
RS: Well they think writing is what tells them about what lies beyond all symbols, you see.
RS: Now you could say the writing simply becomes a symbol, but I mean, these are words, and words can help us. We're having a discussion, and these words that we're having - your words may help me, for example. If they're written down, then they're written words like Muslim words.
K: So; why do I have to have an intermediary at all?
JH: Because I think I'm here and it's over there and I don't have it. I need some way to get there.
K: No, you're not answering my question. Is it that you, the intermediary, understand or realised or follow truth or whatever it is, and therefore you are telling me about it?
JH: Well, maybe I've seen something and I want to tell you about it.
K: Yes, tell me about it, but why do you make yourself interpreter? Why do you become the intermediary between that - I don't know what that is - and me, who is ignorant, who is suffering? Why don't you deal with my suffering rather than with that?.
JH: I think that that will deal with your suffering. If I can get you to...
K: That has been, sir, that has been the old trick of all the priests in the world. We have had priests from time immemorial, right?
K: But you haven't released my sorrow. I am still suffering after a million years. What for? Help me to get rid of that. Help me to be free, without fear, then I'll find out. Is it that you want position, power, status - like the rest of the world. Now this is really quite serious
DB: I think, you know, if we try to give the priests the most favourable interpretation, that they may have considered, at least the best among them, that there's a kind of poetic imagery that people may use to point to something beyond that - right? - in a communication, they are trying to point to this sacred which we were talking about. That's perhaps the way they would look at it. Now would you say that that would that make no sense, you know, to have a poetic image to point to the sacred.
K: But, sir, why don't you help me to see what is happening to me?
DB: Yes, that's your point, don't point to the sacred right away but look at this first.
K: Help me to be free of it, then I'll walk.
DB: Yes, I understand that.
K: We have never talked - nobody has gone into this like that. Always god, some saviour, some Brahma, and so on, so on. And this is what we call religion. All the rituals are invented by thought, marvellous architecture by thought, all the things inside the churches, temples, mosques, created by thought. And having thought create it then thought worships it. But thought is not sacred
JH: Yes, I see that. So you are saying, is it possible to put a stop to thought?
K: Thought. Is it possible?
JH: And thought is the thing that gets in the way by creating the images...
K: Of course.
JH: ...which we take for something really valuable.
K: I start out looking for something sacred. You come along and say, I'll tell you all about it. Then you begin to organise it. It's all gone by then, it's finished.
JH: Then I just stay within thought, that's all I have.
K: So, if we reject or understand that thought is not sacred, there's nothing holy about thought, but thought thinks that what it has created is holy. Right, sir?
DB: Right. Would you also add that, just for the sake of that time is not sacred.
K: Time, of course not
DB: Nothing in time, or people would say that.
K: Tomorrow is not sacred!
DB: They always say only the eternal is sacred.
K: But to find out what is eternity, time must stop.
JH: But we get into a real subtle place here, because you have said things like absolute attention dissolves the self. Then absolute attention can become a thought.
K: Idea of it, yes.
JH: Yes, the idea of it. So we may go the route of creating the idea. That seems to always be the danger.
K: You make a statement: absolute attention. I don't capture the depth of your meaning, what is implied. You have gone into it and you can say that: absolute attention. I hear it and make it into an idea. And then I pursue the idea
JH: That seems to be the process.
K: That's what we do all the time.
K: So - gone. Idea is not what you said. What you said had depth in it, had some...
JH: But we don't know that we're pursuing an idea. We don't realise at the time that we're pursuing an idea.
K: Of course not, because I am used to this reducing everything into abstract ideas. So could we try to find out or realise that anything thought does is not sacred?
RS: That seems self-evident to me.
K: All right. If that's self-evident. In all the religions as they are now, there is nothing sacred. Right?
RS: No, there's nothing sacred in itself in the words or the buildings or the so on. But in a sense all these religions are supposed to point beyond themselves.
K: Yes. And to help me to go beyond all this, I must start with my being free from my agony, understand my relationship with people. If there is confusion here, in my heart and my mind, what's the good of the other? I am not materialistic. I am not anti the other. But I say, look, I must start where I am. To go very far, I must start very near. I am very near. So I must understand myself. I'm the rest of humanity. I am not an individual. So, there is the book of humanity in me. I am that book. If I know how to read it from the beginning to the end, then I can I find if there is a possibility, if there is really something that is immense, sacred. But if you are all the time saying, look, there is that, that will help you, I say it hasn't helped me. We have had these religions for millions of years. That hasn't - on the contrary, You have distracted from 'what is'
So, if I want to find out if there is anything sacred, I must start very near. The very near is me. And can I free myself from fear, agony, sorrow, despair - all that? When there is freedom I can move, I can climb mountains.
RS: Sir, are you saying that the sacred would become apparent if we dissolved fear and all these other things.
K: Obviously, sir. That's real meditation, you see.
RS: Through attention to what is really happening in us.
K: Happening, yes, that's it.
RS: And what is really happening between us and other people and all the rest of it.
K: Between our relationships.
RS: Yes. Through attention to this, this action...
K: ...attention and we have discussed too with Dr Bohm, some time ago, having an insight into the whole movement of the self, which is not a remembrance. Insight is total perception of what you are, without analysis, without investigation, all that - total immediate perception of the whole content of your consciousness, not take bit by bit by bit, that's endless.
JH: Oh, we're broken up so we look at each little piece.
K: Yes. And because we are broken up we can never see the whole. Obviously, that seems so logical!
K: So, is it possible not to be broken up? What is to be broken up? This confusion, this mess in consciousness, which we talked about yesterday.
You see nobody wants to go so deeply into all this. Right, sir? First of all, one hasn't the time - one is committed to one's job, to one's profession or to one's science, to one's whatever one is doing. And you say please, this is too difficult or too abstract, not practical - that's the word they all use. As though all this, what you are doing and all is terribly practical. Armaments - is it practical? Tribalism, is - oh well, you know all about it
So, sir, let's move from there. Is silence of the mind a state of attention? Or is it beyond attention? I don't know if I'm.
DB: What would you mean by 'beyond attention'? Let's try to get into that.
K: In attention is there is attention an act of will? I will attend.
JH: No, we said that's concentration.
K: Sir, I am asking you, where there is attention is there any kind of effort? Struggle? 'I must attend.' What is attention? Let's go into it a little bit. What is attention? The word 'diligent' is implied in attention; to be diligent. Not negligent
RS: What does diligent mean? Careful? You mean careful?
K: Yes. Care. To be very precise. Diligent.
DB: The literal meaning is 'taking pains'.
K: Pains, that's right. Taking pain. Which is to care, to have affection, to do everything correctly, orderly. Not repetitive. Does attention demand the action of thought?.
RS: Well it doesn't demand the action of analysis, in the way you've explained it.
K: No, certainly.
RS: ...and insofar as thought is analytical, it doesn't demand that. And it doesn't demand the action of will insofar as will involves a separation, an attempt to, by one part of the mind to force another part to do something else. And it doesn't imply any sense of going anywhere or becoming anything because becoming leads one out of the present.
K: That's right. You can't become attentive.
RS: But in the act of attention...
K: Just see what is implied. You can't become attentive. That means in attention there is no time. Becoming implies time.
K: In attention there is no time. Therefore it is not the result of thought.
K: Is that attention silence of the mind? Which is a healthy, sane mind: uncluttered, unattached, unanchored, free mind, which is the healthiest mind. Therefore I am asking, out of that in that attention, is the mind silent? There is no movement of thought
RS: Well it sounds like it, yes. It sounds like a state of being rather than a state of becoming because it's not going anywhere, or coming from anywhere.
K: Again, when you say 'being', what does that mean? Being what?
RS: Well, being what it is. It's not being something else.
K: No, what does that mean, 'being'? Are you putting 'being' as a opposite to becoming?
K: Ah, then - the opposite has its own opposite.
RS: Well, by 'being' I simply mean a state which is not in a process of going somewhere else in time.
K: Which means non-movement.
RS: I suppose so.
DB: You could say that, yes.
DB: If you say what you mean by movement, that it doesn't mean it's static to say it's non-movement.
K: No, it's dynamic, of course.
DB: But you see it's a little difficult...
K: There is no moving from here to there.
DB: But there is another kind of movement, perhaps.
K: That's what I want to go into. If we use the word 'being' without movement, it is without thought, without time, which is the movement which we know. But the other has its own dynamism, its own movement, but not this movement, the time movement, the thought movement. Is that what you call 'being'?
RS: I suppose it is.
K: Is that 'being' silent? You follow, sir? We have various forms of silence. Right?
RS: Yes. It may not be silent in the sense of soundless.
K: I am using the word 'silence' in the sense, without a single movement of thought.
RS: Well in that sense it must be silent, almost by definition.
K: Yes. So, has my mind - the mind - has it stopped thinking? Has it - not stopped thinking - has thought found its own place and therefore it's no longer moving, chattering, pushing around. Because there is no controller. You follow? Because when there is a great silence, then that which is eternal is. You don't have to enquire about it. It's not a process. It isn't something you achieve, my god! By fasting, by rituals, by all these absurdities. Sir, you hear that
K: You hear X saying that. What value has it? Value in the sense, what do you do with it? Has it any importance or none at all? Because you are going your way. You are a psychologist, you'll go your way, I'll go my way, because I have said what I have to say and there it ends. Then what somebody comes along and says, 'I'll tell you what he means.' You haven't the time. He has a little time, he says, 'I'll tell you all about it.' And you are caught. This is what is happening. From the ancient of times, the Sumerians, the Egyptians, the Babylonians, they have played this. And we are doing still the same kind of nonsense. And I say what has religion done to man? It hasn't helped him. It has given him romantic illusory comfort. Actually look what - we're killing each other - I won't go into that
So sir, let's begin. What is a healthy mind?
JH: It's a mind that's not caught so in this...
K: A mind that's whole, healthy, sane, holy - H-O-L-Y - holy. All that means a healthy mind. That's what we started discussing. What is a healthy mind? The world is so neurotic. How are we going to tell you, as an analyst, as a psychologist, how are you going to tell people what is a healthy mind, nobody's going to pay attention to it. They'll listen to the tape, to television, they'll agree, but they'll go on their own way. So what do we do? How do we First of all, do I have a healthy mind? Or is it just a lot of pictures, words, images? A mind that's totally unattached - to my country, to my ideas - all totally dispassionately unattached
JH: Are you are suggesting that only then am I in a position to talk to anybody?
K: Obviously! Obviously. I may be married. I may, but why should I be attached to my wife?
JH: Then it's an idea of marriage, it's not a marriage.
K: But love is not attachment. So have I realised that in my life? A healthy mind that says, I love, therefore there is no attachment. Is that possible?
RS: Sir, you make it sound so easy and so difficult at the same time because...
K: I don't see why it's difficult.
RS: Because you see, I hear what you say, I think this is absolutely wonderful stuff. I want to have a healthy mind, I want to be in a state of being, and then you see I realise that it's back into this, that I can't become in a state of having a healthy mind and I can't move by an act of will or desire into this state. It has to happen. And it can't happen through any act of my will.
K: No. So
RS: So I have to let it happen in some sense.
K: So we begin to enquire. You begin to say, now, why? Why am I not healthy? Am I attached to my house? I need a house, why should I be attached to it? A wife, relationship, I can't exist without relationship, life is relationship. But why should I be attached to a person? Or to an idea, to a faith, to a symbol - you follow? - the whole cycle of it - to a nation, to my guru to my god. You follow? Attached means attached right through. A mind can be free of all that. Of course it can
RS: But not just by wanting to be free of it.
K: No. But seeing the consequences of it, seeing what is involved in it: the pain, the pleasure, the agony, the fear - you follow? - all of that is involved in it. Such a mind is an unhealthy mind.
RS: Yes, but one can even agree with that, one can even see it, one can even see the movements of one's attachments, one can even see the destructive consequences of all this. But that doesn't in itself seem automatically to dissolve it.
K: No of course not. So, it brings in quite a different question. Which is, sir, do you hear it, merely with your sensory ears or do you really hear it? You understand my question
K: Is it just casual verbal sensory hearing, or hearing at depth? If you hear it at the greatest depth, then it's part of you. I don't know if
DB: Well, I think that generally one doesn't hear at the greatest depth and something is stopping it, you see. All the conditioning.
K: And also probably we don't want to hear it.
DB: But the conditioning makes us not want to hear it.
K: Of course, of course.
DB: We're unwilling to do so.
K: How can I say to my wife, I love you but I am not attached? She'll say, what the hell are you talking about? (Laughter)
But if one sees the absolute necessity to have a healthy mind, and the demand for it, not only in myself, but in my children, my society.
JH: But you don't mean by that going around demanding of myself and other people that they become healthy.
K: No, no, no. I demand in myself. I ask why is not my mind healthy? Why is it neurotic? Then I begin to enquire. I watch, I attend, I am diligent in what I am doing
DB: It seems to me that you said that we must have to see the absolute necessity of a healthy mind, but I think we've been conditioned to the absolute necessity of maintaining attachment. (Laughter) And that's what we hear, right?
RS: Well we haven't necessarily, you see, there are many people who've seen that there's all these problems, there's something wrong with the mind, they feel that something to be done about it and all that, and then take up some kind of spiritual practice, meditation, whatnot. Now you're saying that all these kinds of meditation, concentrating on chakras and whatnot are all just the same kind of thing.
K: I have played that trick long ago.
K: And I see the absurdity of all that. That is not going to stop thought.
RS: Well, some of these methods are supposed to. I don't know if they do or not, you see. They've never done it for me, or... but I don't know if that's because I haven't done them enough.
K: So instead of going through all that business why don't you find out, let's find out what is thought, whether it can end, what is implied. You follow? Dig!
Sir, at the end of these four discussions, have you got healthy minds? Have you got a mind that is not confused, groping, floundering, demanding, asking? You follow, sir? What a business! It's like seeing a rattler and say, yes, that's a rattler, I won't go near it. Finished!
JH: It looks from the inside like this is a tremendous deep problem that's very difficult to solve, and you're saying from the outside that it's just like seeing a rattler and you don't go near it, there's nothing to it.
K: It is like that with me.
K: Because I don't want to achieve nirvana or heaven or anything. I say, look - you follow?
JH: Well, I think it's interesting why it looks so deep when in fact it isn't.
K: No, sir, we are all so very superficial. Right? And that seems to satisfy us. That's our - good house, good wife, good job, good relationship, don't disturb anything. I'll go to church, you go to the mosque, I'll go to the temple, keep things as they are
JH: Well then you're saying we don't even want to look at it.
K: Of course not.
JH: But say we come with a problem...
K: If Mrs Thatcher and the gentleman in Argentina looked at it - how tribalistic they are - they would stop it. But they don't because the public doesn't want it. British - you follow? We are educated to be cruel to each other. I won't go into all that
So, a healthy mind is that, sir. A healthy mind is without any conflict. And then it is a holistic mind. And then there's a possibility of that which is sacred to be. Otherwise all this is so childish