Wisdom comes through the understanding of suffering
Is there a movement other than the movement of thought?
5th Public Talk, Saanen
July 23, 1974
We have been talking over together the nature and the structure of thought, its place and its limitations and all the processes and functions involved in the movement of thought. If I may this morning - rather lovely after all these days of rain and clouds to see the mountains, the shadows and the rivers, and the pleasant smell of the air - I would like to talk this morning about what is responsibility, which is, to be answerable to what? In observing objectively, without any opinion or judgement, what is going on in the world - the recent war, the appalling misery and confusion - who is responsible, or answerable for all this? To really find the right response, which is right answer, we must look at the whole phenomenon of existence. At the one end you have the extraordinary development of technology, which is almost destroying the earth; at the other end you have what may be called the hope, the demand, the entreatment of god, truth or what you will. There is this vast spectrum. And we seem to answer only to a very small part of it. There is this vast field of existence, of our daily living and we seem to be incapable of responding to the whole of it, not just part of it. And so we must find out for ourselves what is the right response, what is the right answer to all this. If we merely answer, are responsible, to a very small part of it, which is ourselves and our little circle, and our little desires, our petty little responsibilities, our selfish enclosed movement, if we only respond to that, neglecting the whole of it, then we are bound to create not only suffering for ourselves, but suffering for the whole of mankind. Because, as we said the other day, our consciousness is its content. And when there is the transformation in that consciousness you affect the whole of consciousness of human beings. This is a fact. It is not an imagination, it is not a theory, it is not a speculative hope. If you change radically the content of your consciousness you are affecting the consciousness of your neighbour, of your children, of your society, of all the consciousness of human beings. This is so. Like Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, our friend Mussolini, all of them, affected, because they in themselves created a change - whether it is good or bad we are not discussing that.
So is it possible to be responsible to the whole, the whole of mankind? And therefore responsible to nature, responsible, that is to answer adequately, totally to your children, to your neighbour, to all the movement that man has created in his endeavour to live rightly. And to feel that such immense responsibility, not only intellectually, verbally, but very deeply, to be able to answer to the whole of human struggle, pain, brutality, violence and despair, to respond totally to that, one must know what it means to love. And we are going to go into that. Right?
You know that word love has been so misused, so spoilt, so trodden upon, but we will have to use that word and give to it a totally different kind of meaning. To be able to answer to the whole there must be love. And to understand that quality, that compassion, that extraordinary sense of energy which is not created by thought, we must understand what is suffering. When we use the word 'understand', it is not a verbal or intellectual communication of words, but the communication or communion that lies behind the word. Now first we must understand, and be able to go beyond suffering, otherwise we cannot possibly understand the responsibility to the whole, which is real love. As we said the other day, and I will repeat it again if I may, if you are not bored by it, we are sharing this thing together, we are partaking, not only verbally, intellectually, but going far beyond that. And to share it is our responsibility. That means you must also hear the word, listen to the meaning of the word semantically, and also share in the movement of self-enquiry, and go beyond it. This whole movement, one must take part. Otherwise you will treat it merely verbally or intellectually or emotionally and then it is nothing.
So as we said, to understand this responsibility to the whole, and therefore that strange quality of love, one must go beyond suffering. What is suffering? Why do human beings suffer? And this has been one of the great problems of life for millions of years. And apparently very, very, very few have gone beyond suffering, and they either become heroes or saviours, or some kind of neurotic leaders, or religious leaders, and there they remain. But as ordinary human beings like you and me and others, we never seem to go beyond it. We seem to be caught in it. And we are asking now, this morning, whether it is possible for you to be really free of suffering? There are various kinds of suffering - the physical, and the various psychological movements of suffering, the ordinary organic pains through disease, old age, ill health, bad diet and so on, and also there is the enormous field of psychological suffering. Can you be aware of that field? Can you know intimately the structure and the nature, and the function of suffering? How it operates, what are its results, how it cripples the mind, how it encloses this self-centred activity more and more and more? Is one aware of all that? That is, are you aware of it? That is, one can deal fairly adequately, without that pain affecting the mind, fairly adequately with the pain of the physical organism. Right? Are we communicating? We are going along with each other? One can have really a great deal of pain through a disease and not allow it to interfere with the activity of the mind, to disassociate from the physical pain. I do not know if you have ever done it. It is quite possible, so that that pain does not create neurotic activity. And that requires a very considerable attention to the intelligence of the body. When the body is not dictated to by taste, by the tongue, by the various forms of artificial stimulations, then the organism has its own intelligence. Do listen to all this. Probably you won't pay the least attention to all this afterwards but at least during this hour do give a little attention and care, because there is a lot to learn, a lot that you should know, though you may not act upon it, because most of us are rather lazy, indolent, easy going, accepting things as they are and carrying enormous burdens throughout our life. But at least you should know about these things, what the speaker has to say, as you are good enough to be here.
So we are now considering psychological suffering, which apparently man has not been able to resolve. He has been able to escape from it, through various channels - religious, economic, social activity, political activity, business, various forms of escapes, drugs - you know every form of escape but confronting the actual fact of suffering. What is suffering? And is it possible for the mind to be completely free of it, that is, completely free of the psychological activity that brings about suffering? You are following this?
First of all one of the major reasons for this suffering is this sense of isolation, which is called the feeling of total loneliness - right? Which is to feel that you have nothing to depend upon; this sense of loneliness that you have no relationship with anyone, that you are totally isolated. You have had this feeling I am quite sure. You may be with your family, in a bus, or at a party, or what you will, you have moments of extraordinary sense of isolation, extraordinary sense of lack, of total nothingness. You must have had it, haven't you? That is one of the reasons. We will go into it step by step. And also suffering, psychologically, comes through attachment - attachment to an idea, or ideals, to opinions, to beliefs, to persons, to concepts. Right? Please observe it in yourself. The word is the mirror in which you are looking, which shows your own operations of your own mind. Right? So look there.
And another reason is, a cause of this sense of suffering, a great sense of loss, loss of prestige, loss of power, loss of so many things, and the loss of somebody whom you think you love, which is death - that is the ultimate suffering. Now can the mind be free of all this? Otherwise it cannot possibly know, do what it will, this sense of love for the whole. If there is no love for the whole of existence, which is not only yours but of total man, then there is no compassion, then you will never understand - do what you will - what love is. In the love of the whole the particular comes in. But when there is the particular love of the one then there is the absence of the other. You are following all this?
So it is absolutely imperative that we understand and go beyond suffering, and is that possible? That is, is it possible for the mind to understand this sense of deep inward loneliness, which is different from aloneness? Please don't let's mix the two - there is a difference between loneliness, and being deeply alone. We will understand what it means to be alone when we understand what is the significance of loneliness. You see when we feel lonely and it is rather frightening, and rather depressing, and you have various kinds of moods from that, without escaping, without rationalising, can you observe it without any movement of escape? You understand? Suppose I feel lonely - I have never felt it but I am saying - if I now feel lonely, with all the implications involved in it, the escapes, the attachments, can I look at it without any movement of escape? Can I be aware of it without rationalising it, without trying to find the cause of it, just to observe? And in that observation I discover the escape for me is through the attachment to an idea. You are following? - to a concept, to a belief. Now can I be aware of that belief and how it is an escape? And when I observe it quietly the escape and the belief disappear without any effort. Are you following all this? Because the moment you introduce effort then there is the observer and the observed, and therefore the conflict. But when you are aware of all the implications of loneliness then there is no observer, there is only the fact of this feeling of being utterly isolated. This isolation takes place also through our daily activity - my ambition, my greed, my envy, concern with my own desire to fulfil, to become somebody, to improve myself, I am so concerned with my beastly little self, and that is part of my loneliness. You are following? During the day, during the sleep, in all the activities I do, I am so concerned about myself: me and you, we and they. You follow? I am concerned, I am committed to myself. I want to do things for myself in the name of my nation, in the name of my god, in the name of my family, in the name of my wife and all that nonsense that goes on.
So this loneliness comes into being through daily activities of self-concern. Right? And when I become aware of all the implications of loneliness I see all this. Right? I see it, not theorise about it. You understand? When I look at something the details come out. When you look closely at a tree, at a river, or the mountain, or a person, then in that observation you see everything, it tells you, you don't tell it. So when you so observe, or when you are so greatly, without any choice, aware of this loneliness then the thing disappears altogether.
Then one of the causes of suffering is attachment. I am attached to you. I am attached to you as an audience. You understand? Because you feed me psychologically, and I feel tremendously excited, elevated - you know - so I am attached. Or I am attached to a person, attached to an idea, attached to an opinion, to tradition and so on and so on. Why is the mind attached? Have you ever gone into this? Attached to furniture, attached to a house, attached to your wife, attached to god knows what - why? Come on sirs, it is your problem, not mine. And that is one of the reasons for great suffering. And being attached, and finding it is painful we try to cultivate detachment, which is another horror.
So why is the mind attached? An attachment is a form of occupation for the mind. If I am attached to you I am thinking about you, I am worrying about you, I am concerned about you, in my self-centred way because I don't want to lose you, I don't want you to be free, I don't want you to do something which disturbs my attachment, in that attachment I feel somewhat at least temporarily secure. So in attachment there is fear, jealousy, anxiety, suffering. Now just look at it. Don't say, 'What am I to do?' - you can't do anything. If you try to do something about your attachment then you are trying to create another form of attachment. Right? Do you follow this? So just observe it. When you are attached to a person or to an idea you dominate that person, you want to control that person, you deny freedom to that person. And when you are attached you are denying freedom altogether. If I am attached to a communist ideal then I bring destruction to others, which is what is happening.
So seeing loneliness, attachment, is one of the causes - or let's say one of the causes of sorrow, is it possible for the mind to be free of attachment? Which doesn't mean that the mind becomes indifferent. Because we are concerned with the whole of existence, not just my existence. You follow? Therefore I must respond, answer to the whole, and not my particular little desire to be attached to you and I want to get over that little anxiety of pain, jealousy and all the rest of it. Because our concern is to find out this quality of love which can only cone into being when the mind is concerned with the whole and not with the particular. When it is concerned with the whole there is love, and then from the whole, the particular has a place. Right? You are following this?
And there is the suffering of loss, of losing somebody whom you love - 'love', you understand, I am using that word in quotation marks. Why do you suffer? I lose my son, my mother, my wife, or god knows whoever, I lose somebody. Why do I suffer? Go on sirs. Is it that I am suddenly left, hurt very deeply through the death of another? Because through the death of another, through that other, I have identified myself with that person - right, you are following all this? It is my son, I want him, I am myself projected in that son, identified myself with that person, and when that person is no longer there I feel a tremendous sense of hurt because I have nobody to continue me in another. Right? So I am deeply hurt. From that hurt arises self-pity. Please do examine all this. I am not so much concerned about the other. I am really concerned about myself through the other. And therefore I am hurt when the other is not. And in that hurt, which is very deep, from that hurt arises self-pity and the desire to find somebody else through whom I can survive. You are following all this? So there is that suffering.
And there is the suffering of not only the personal, but this vast suffering of man. You are following? The suffering which wars have brought about to innocent people, to people who have been killed, to the killer and the killed - you understand? - the mother, the wife, the children, whether they are in the Far East, the Middle East or in the West, this vast human suffering, both physically and psychologically. Unless this mind understands this whole problem, I can play with the word love, I can do social work and talk about the love of god, the love of man, the love of all this, but in my heart I will never know what it is. Right? So is my mind, your mind, your consciousness capable of looking at this fact? Looking at it, seeing what extraordinary misery it causes, not only to another but to oneself. Seeing how you deprive another of his freedom when you are attached. And when you are attached you are depriving your own freedom. And so the battle begins between you and me. So can the mind observe this? Because it is only with the ending of suffering that wisdom comes into being. You understand? Wisdom is not a thing that you buy in books, or that you learn from another. Wisdom comes in the understanding of suffering and all the implications of suffering, not only the personal but also the human suffering, which man has created. It is only when you go beyond it that wisdom comes into being.
Then to understand, or come upon this thing that we call love, we must understand I think also what is beauty. All right, may I go into it? Beauty. You know it is one of the most difficult things to put into words but we will try. You know what it means to be sensitive? Not sensitive to your desires, to your ambitions, to your hurts and to your failures, and to your successes, that is fairly easy, most of us are sensitive to our own little demands, to our own little pursuits of pleasure, fear and anxiety and delights. But we are talking of being sensitive, not to something but being sensitive, both psychologically and physically. Physically to be sensitive is to have a very good subtle body - you understand? - healthy, sane, not overeating, indulging, a sensitive body. That you can try, good diet and all the rest of it, if you are interested. And psychologically to be sensitive. We are not dividing the psyche from the body, it is all interrelated. You cannot be sensitive if in that area there is any kind of hurt. Right? You are following all this? Do please. There is a lot to talk about this.
As we are saying, in that area psychologically we human beings are hurt greatly. We have deep wounds, unconscious and conscious wounds, either self-inflicted or caused by others, at school, at home, in the bus, in the office, in the factory, we are hurt. And that deep hurt, conscious or unconscious, makes us psychologically insensitive, dull. Watch your own hurt, if you can. A gesture, a word, a look, is enough to hurt. And you are hurt when you are compared with somebody else, when you are trying to imitate somebody else, when you are conforming to the pattern you are hurt, whether that pattern is set by another or by yourself. So we human beings are deeply wounded. And those wounds bring about neurotic activity. All beliefs are neurotic anyhow, ideals are neurotic. And is it again possible to understand these hurts and to be free of them, and never to be hurt again under any circumstances? You understand my question? I am hurt from childhood, for various incidents or accidents, a word, a gesture, a look, a slighting, gnawed, there are these wounds - can these wounds be wiped away without leaving a mark? Watch it please. Don't look somewhere else, look at yourself. You have got these wounds, can they be wiped away not leaving a mark? That is one problem.
And the other problem is: never to be hurt. If there is a hurt, you are not sensitive, you will never know what beauty is. You can go to all the museums in the world, compare Michelangelo, Picasso and whatever you like, be experts in the explanation, in the study of these people and their paintings, structure and all the rest of it, but as long as a human mind is hurt and therefore insensitive, it will never know what is beauty. Without knowing that quality of beauty, which is not in the thing, in the product which man has made, only, but in the line of an architect in a building, in the mountain, the beautiful tree and all the rest of it, if there is any kind of inward hurt you will never know what beauty is, and therefore without beauty there is no love.
So can your mind know it has been hurt and not react to those hurts at the conscious level and also at the unconscious level, know these hurts, be aware of them? It is fairly easy to be aware of conscious hurts. Right? Can you know your unconscious hurts? Or must you go through all the idiotic process of analysis? You are following all this? Because analysis - I'll go into it very quickly and get rid of analysis - analysis implies the analyser and the analysed. Who is the analyser? Is he different from the analysed? If he is different why is he different? Who created the analyser to be different from the analysed? If he is different how can he know what the thing is? You are following all this? So the analyser is the analysed. That is so obvious. And to analyse each analysis must be totally complete. That means if there is any slight misunderstanding, the next analysis you cannot analyse completely because of previous misunderstandings. You are following all this? Analysis implies time. You can go on endlessly for the rest of your life analysing and you will be still analysing as you are dying. Right?
So how is the mind to uncover the unconscious deep wounds, the wounds which the race has collected. You understand? When the conqueror subjugates the victim he has hurt him. That is a racial hurt. You understand? When the Imperialists - I am using it in the ordinary sense, not the Communists' sense, they are the Imperialists anyhow - when the Imperialist, the maker of Empires, to him everybody is beneath him, and he leaves a deep unconscious hurt on those whom he has conquered. You understand all this? It is there. How is the mind to uncover all these hidden hurts, deep in the recesses of one's consciousness? I see the fallacy of analysis - right? So there is no analysis. Please watch this carefully. There is no analysis and our tradition is to analyse. Right? So I have put aside the tradition of analysis. Right? Are you doing this? So what has happened to the mind when it has denied, or put aside, seen the falseness of something, the falseness of analysis, it is free of that burden - right? - therefore it has become sensitive, it is lighter, clearer, it can observe more sharply. So by putting aside a tradition which man has accepted - analysis, introspection and all the rest of it - the mind has become free. Right? And by denying the tradition you have denied the content of the unconscious. You are following? Yes, you have got it? The unconscious is the tradition - tradition of religion, tradition of marriage, tradition of - oh, a dozen things. And one of the traditions is to accept hurt, and having accepted hurt analyse it to get rid of it. Now when you deny that, because I have been false - you are following this? - you have denied the content of the unconscious. Therefore you are free of hurt, of the unconscious hurts. You don't have to analyse or go through dreams and all the rest of it. I haven't time to go into all this.
So the mind by observing the hurt and not using the traditional instrument to wipe away that hurt, which is analysis, which is talking it over together, you know all that business that goes on, group therapy and individual therapy and collective therapy and you wipe away by being aware - aware of the tradition. And therefore when you deny that tradition you deny the hurt which accepts that tradition. Got it? So the mind then becomes extraordinarily sensitive - the mind being the body, the heart, the brain, the nerves, the total thing becomes sensitive.
Now, we are asking what is beauty. We said it is not in the museum, it is not in the picture, it is not in the face, it is not a response to the background of your tradition. You are following? So when you put all that aside the mind, because it is sensitive, and because suffering has been understood, you have passion, there is passion. You understand? Passion is different from lust, obviously. Lust is the continuation of pleasure, and the demand for pleasure in different forms - sexually, religious entertainment that goes on in churches and temples and all the rest of it. So when there is no hurt, when there is the understanding and going beyond suffering, then there is that quality of passion which is totally necessary to understand the extraordinary sense of beauty. That beauty cannot possibly exist when the 'me' is constantly asserting. You understand? You may be a marvellous painter, accepted by the world as the greatest painter, but if you are concerned with your beastly little self you are no longer an artist. You understand what I am talking about? You are only furthering through art your own selfish continuation.
So, now we have got this: a mind that is free, that has gone beyond this sense of suffering, a mind that is free from all hurt and therefore never capable of being hurt again under any circumstances, whether it is flattered or insulted, nothing can touch it - which doesn't mean it has built a resistance. On the contrary it is excellently vulnerable.
Then you will begin to find out what love is. Obviously love is not pleasure. Right? Now we can say that it is not pleasure, not before, because you have now been through all that and put aside all that - not that you cannot enjoy the mountains, the trees, and the rivers and the nice faces and the beauty of the land, but when that beauty of the land becomes the pursuit of pleasure it ceases to be beauty. So love is not pleasure. Love is not the pursuit or the avoidance of fear. Love is not attachment. Love has no suffering. Obviously. And that love means the love of the whole, which is compassion. And that love has its own order, order both within and without, and that order cannot be brought about through legislation. You understand all this? Now when you understand this and live it daily - otherwise it has no value at all, then they are just a lot of words without any meaning, they are just ashes - then life has quite a different significance.
We will talk about something else next time which is related to life, which is part of this whole field of existence which we call life - which is death. Life includes death, it is not outside, therefore it is necessary to understand that too, but we have no time this morning, we will go into it another day.
Any questions sirs?
Q: (In French)
K: If I am aware - please correct me if I am wrong in my translation - if I am aware during the day of all my thoughts and activities, really aware clearly, limpidly, with a certain quality of lightness, what takes place during sleep, what is the movement in sleep. Is that your question?
Right? You understand the question? During the day I am aware, not condemning, not judging, but just aware: of the movement of my thoughts, my emotions, the feelings that I have, the pleasures, the pains, the anxieties, just aware. Then what goes on during sleep? Dreams, pleasant and unpleasant, dreams which indicate something that may happen in the future, dreams that warn me of certain actions and so on and so on, dreams. Or can the mind during so-called sleep renew itself totally? You have understood my question? I think this is what the lady is asking, if I am correct.
K: Sir, please I am answering that question. Please listen to the lady's question and not to your own question. I know your own question may be important to you, but also in listening to the other question perhaps your own question will be answered; but if you are occupied with your own question then you will not answer or find what the other person is saying.
One is aware during the day. Is one aware during the day? One says one is aware, or one thinks one is aware, which is worse! But actually is one aware of the fact, not as the word and the fact. You understand? The word is never the thing, the description is never the described. So I am aware not of the word, not of the description, but of the actual fact that I am angry, I am jealous, that I am conceited, vain, stupid, full of vanity, hurt, pride, anxiety - am I aware of that actually, not through the word, which is entirely different? Somebody can tell me I am hungry but that is not hunger. So in the same way am I aware actually? Or I think I am aware? If I am so aware during the day, the unconscious brings its intimations. You understand? If I am aware during the conscious waking hours, the unconscious brings out its intimations, it wants to tell you something, its prejudices, its fears, its anxieties, its hurts, its extraordinary hidden demands. You follow? Being consciously aware implies also be aware totally, therefore one begins to discover what the unconscious is saying. Right? Now if you do that during the day what takes place at night? Does the same process go on? You follow? If it does, then it is a continuation in dreams of what you have done during the day. I wonder if you understand all this.
Look sirs: I am aware, or rather not fully aware, partially aware. I want to be aware because I think what you are talking about seems fairly rational, I want to be aware. So I try to be aware, but it is an awfully difficult thing to be aware. So I play with it for some time, drop it, pick it up, drop it, pick it up, and go on during the day that way. Then during the night the same game is going on as dreams. So the mind has never a rest - you follow? - never complete relaxation, complete quietness, but it has been working, working, working during the day, it keeps on working, working at night. If during the day it doesn't put order, then at night it tries to put order. You have watched all this I am sure.
So what takes place when during the day you are really, non-verbally, completely conscious, aware of everything happening inside you as much as possible around you, what takes place? Then in that awareness during the day you have established order, haven't you? Right? Please see the importance of this. You have established order, haven't you? Order being no contradiction, no conflict, no sense of me dominating you, which is disorder. Do you understand all this? So during the day by becoming totally aware, if that is possible, and it is possible obviously, then in that awareness there is order, there is no disorder. Disorder implies contradiction, conflict, 'me' and the not 'me', the observer and all that. Now when there is order during the day the mind then hasn't got to put order during sleep. You follow all this? Because during sleep, unless you have order during the day, the mind tries to put order, because a brain must have order, otherwise it cannot function happily, freely, effectively. Obviously. It is like a child, it must have security. Security exists only when there is order. Right? So the brain then hasn't got to struggle to create order for itself. Therefore - please see the sequence - therefore there is no neurotic action during the day, or it doesn't invent a neurotic action which will give it security. Right?
So when there is complete order during the day the brain then hasn't got to struggle to create order neurotically or order according to circumstances and so on, it is orderly. Therefore in that order there is complete security for itself and dreams then become merely a physical reaction - you have eaten wrongly or this or that, then dreams have very little meaning. You understand all this? So can your mind be totally aware during the day and bring order out of disorder? Right, sir?
Your question sir? Your question was: why is it that sometimes one understands and at other times one doesn't. Why is it one thinks one sees very clearly without any conflict and at other times everything is dark. Right, sir? Aren't you rather fed up with somebody else answering your questions?
What is understanding? When you say, I understand, I understand the problem, I understand my relationship with another, I understand it, I understand the meaning of love, when you use that word what do you mean by that word? Is it an intellectual understanding, a verbal understanding, which is the words are a means of communication and by using certain words you say, 'Yes, I have understood through the words what you mean' - therefore it is still verbal. Right? Or you understand the logic of certain things, intellectually say that you accept that, and say you understand. Now we are asking something entirely different: is understanding verbal, intellectual, or something totally other?
Now wait a minute. We have described what suffering is, and you say, 'Yes, I have understood' - have you understood the words, or seen the whole picture the word conveys and the implications of what it has conveyed and you say, 'Yes, I see it, I understand the meaning, the verbal meaning, the content of what I have seen, and I have gone beyond it' - that is understanding. To understand verbally, intellectually or to grasp the whole thing instantly, which is non-verbal. And when you grasp it totally you have understood completely and there is nothing more. Therefore you are outside that field. That is what I call understanding, then it has significance, it brings action. But when you merely understand intellectually, verbally or romantically or emotionally, that is just nothing at all. And when you so understand something so completely and are beyond it, the mind then doesn't go back, there is nothing to go back to. You understand? It isn't one moment all understanding, the next moment all dull. When you understand suffering you are out of that, and therefore the mind becomes extraordinarily clear.
Q: You talk about transcendence of all our problems and so going beyond them. What is to stop us becoming maniacs?
K: What stops one becoming a maniac when you have gone beyond all this? Sir, when you have gone beyond suffering you won't ask that question. To go beyond suffering means intelligence. And when there is that extraordinary quality of excellent intelligence, which is not personal or collective, it is just intelligence, then that intelligence operates in every field, there is no insanity then; it is only when we have not that intelligence we are insane.
Q: I would like to ask if there is any direction for the evolution of man?
K: He would like to ask a question, which is: is there any direction for the evolution of man on this planet. So far, as one has observed historically and from what one knows, the direction of man has been in the destruction of the earth, in the destruction of nature, in the destruction of all the living things around him. Right? This is obvious, sir. Oh, no come on! They are destroying whales, they are destroying animals, beavers, destruction is going on. Right? You use up energy, petrol, they are exhausting it, the mineral oils. Wait sir, take all that. There is the physical destruction first, then what is man doing psychologically? Progressing?
Q: Greater systems in the world.
K: Psychologically he is creating order in the world?
Q: Society is a living system.
K: Society is a living system and that is such a lovely order, is it?
Q: It is not lovely but it is order that did not exist before man came.
K: It is disorder this society we live in. Sir, what are we talking about? Isn't it a disorder? Injustice, violence, throwing bombs. Are we any different from the previous generations? Have we progressed? Do you know what that word progress means? Originally I believe it meant to enter into the enemy's country fully armed! And we are doing that very beautifully. Are we psychologically progressing? Do look at it sir! Overpopulation, millions are starving, millions are being destroyed and also millions are being cured medically, there is division between races, classes, division between religions and millions of people being destroyed for ideologies. You understand sir? Do we call all this progress? Is all this order? Or one realises this thing that man has created, man has brought about - apart from the technological world which is an extraordinary world by itself, and using that technological world to destroy each other, instruments of war - and one is concerned when seeing all this, really concerned, really committed in the transformation of the mind of man, that is what we are talking about. In the transformation, in the change, in the revolution of the mind of man, not in any particular direction - if you have a particular direction then that direction is set by thought which is old, and therefore it is part of the same machinery going on. We are concerned with human beings, human beings that have created this disorder, human beings that are populating the earth incredibly, human beings which have destroyed species of animals, human beings which breed wars, hatred, antagonism. And we are saying there can be no change out there unless there is a change in here. Right, sir.