Interview, Gstaad, 28 July 1983
Hanspeter Gschwend: You are not a guru and you are not a teacher and not a priest and not a prophet; as what do you consider yourself when you are talking to people?
Krishnamurti: I don’t consider myself anything; I just talk.
HG: But you want… do you want people to understand something?
K: Naturally; otherwise I wouldn’t talk.
HG: What is the most important thing you would like that people understand?
K: That’s rather a difficult question to answer briefly. Sir, it’s rather difficult to put it in a few words because we are dealing with a very, very complex society — economically, socially, technologically — and also, as human beings we are very complex. To understand this complexity — not only in ourselves but the world outside of us — I think we first have to understand our whole psyche, the psyche that has been built up through centuries of culture, of various countries, of various religions, socially, economically, politically — we are the result of all that, historically, as well as in our daily life, actually.
When you ask such a question, it’s difficult to answer because we have to deal with the whole structure of a human being: the society in which he lives — whether a European society or American or Indian or Russian — and those societies have been put together by human beings, historically, and those societies now are more or less in shambles — you understand, when I use the word *shambles*, in disorder — continuous wars, the threat of war always existing, after centuries of… million years of evolution. So what is a man to do? What’s a human being to do, confronted with all this? I don’t know if I’m making myself clear.
HG: I think, yes, it’s very difficult… that you say it is very difficult, it’s very complex. I think, as far as I understood, one thing you want is that people live in, you say, complete freedom.
K: Yes. Freedom has been misused — right? — in the western world and in the eastern world and all over the world; world has brought about such misery too, both in the communist world — where there is hardly any freedom — and in the so-called democratic world there is freedom, otherwise you and I couldn’t sit here and talk. It’s really freedom from conflict, basically: conflict in our relationship, conflict with our neighbours, conflict that exists between man and man, between man and nature — this eternal struggle. I think that is the principle thing that we should consider: whether that struggle can ever end, otherwise we are not free; though we are free to write a book, talk or take different jobs and travel, but that’s not real freedom — that’s only a superficial affair. But to be really free of conflict, to stop wars, that can only happen when nationalism ends — two ideologies fighting each other, communist ideology, democratic… you know, all the rest of it; this constant war.
HG: But to be free in this sense, for instance, free from every ideology, does this mean that you have to become an anarchist? Or are you anarchist?
K: No, not in the least; on the contrary. To be free from conflict requires a great deal of intelligence, not anarchist or a terrorist; it requires a great deal of inquiry, whether human beings can ever be free from conflict.
HG: But would you say someone who is free finds an order?
K: Yes. Sir, now again, there is order in disorder; I mean, there is a great deal of disorder in the world and yet that there is some kind of order in the disorder. That’s only a very small order, limited order. I don’t know if I’m making myself clear.
HG: I think, yes, I have to reflect to understand you (laughs), but it’s not your fault; it’s my fault.
K: But to have order in oneself, in one’s life, that requires a great deal of awareness, attention to what one is doing, thinking, feeling. You know, the whole reactions and all those things. We seem to pay so little attention to all that.
HG: When you are talking about conflicts, I sometimes think… No, I have to turn it another way. You say that conflicts cannot bring insight of the truth, for instance, or that conflicts create violence…
K: Conflict is violence.
HG: Well, for you it is violence, so maybe we have a different term of conflict, but when I think at my life, I only start to think and to act when I am in a situation I don’t feel well, and I would call this situation that there is a conflict.
K: Yes.
HG: And I am asking myself, and I would like to ask you: where do you take the motive from to start to act, if not from conflict?
K: Our action now is based on conflict. That is, this constant division between action and thought: say one thing, do another.
HG: Exactly.
K: Promise one thing and never keep that promise. Right?
HG: Yes.
K: And also, there is conflict between… in relationship: man, woman. Right? There is conflict between nations, between groups, between the followers of one religious group and the followers of another religious group, between one guru and another guru. Right? This is going on all the time. This is… So man lives in conflict. Right?
HG: Yes.
K: Conflict breeds violence. Right?
HG: But does it not, in the same time, breed a search of coming out of the conflict?
K: Yes, but… Take, for example, we’ve had, for the last five thousand years and more, wars — right? — and we are still going on with wars, killing each other in the name of God, in the name of peace, in the name of my country opposed to your country, my religion and so on, against yours — right? — and we have not fundamentally changed that pattern. Right? Take in Europe, how many centuries of wars this country… — you know? — and if we used our intelligence, not our national pride and all that nonsense, you could have united Europe, which would be marvellous: no frontiers, no wars. But apparently, human beings want to live in violence — right?
HG: Why do you think…?
K: Want in the sense, they accept it as the norm.
HG: Is it easier to live in violence than…?
K: That’s right. Easier to live in violence than to find out how to live in peace. Because all my instinct, all one’s instincts and one’s culture is divisive, and one has lived in that pattern, in that norm, for thousands of years. One is British — right? — and so on, so on — divisive. So man has not been able to be free of violence. Now, is it possible to be free of it, totally? That is the real question, so that we can all live on this beautiful earth peacefully.
HG: You say that is the question and in one of your books you say that, for instance, people who are now in a peace movement and they say, ‘I am not violent,’ they are wrong, because everybody is violent. But how…?
K: In themselves.
HG: Yes, we are violent in ourselves.
K: Yes.
HG: How can we deal with violence without being aggressive, without being violent?
K: That’s it; that’s just it. What is violence? Is it throwing a bomb? Is it killing somebody? Right? Or is violence much more complex than that? You follow my question?
HG: Yes, I do.
K: After all, violence is conformity, imitation.
HG: Imitation of what? You see how other people live.
K: And I imitate. Say for instance, violence is comparison — right? — so violence is a tremendous movement in human existence. Right? Now, they have tried every method to be free of violence. They have… I mean, in India they have said, ‘Become non-violent’ — you know, all that business: politically, religiously and all that — but they are still violent, after talking about non-violence for thousand… (laughs) they are still violent, they kill each other.
HG: But when you say all this, my temptation is to resign and to say there will always be violence.
K: Historically that’s been like that, so I say something is wrong with the human mind that accepts such a state. They have used their intelligence along the technological world. Violence is on the increase — right? — it has not diminished. Why? Either we like violence, human beings like violence; it’s much easier to be angry rather than not to be angry.
HG: But from what you have experienced with your own insights how is it possible to deal with violence? You said there is violence, we ourselves are violent, and you said we are violent because we have… there is violence around us.
K: And also, aggression and violence has been part of our culture; we have grown from the cell, through the ape and so on, they have all have been violent — right? — so it’s part of our psyche.
HG: But is it a part of our psyche coming from the inside of us, or is it something we have learned from others?
K: Both. It comes from inside as well as… If I live in a country, isolated, I’m breeding violence: outside and also inwardly I’m violent. So the question really is whether that violence can end.
HG: Yes, exactly.
K: The politicians won’t end it — right? — the army won’t end it (laughs), the gurus, the religions won’t end it. They have never ended it; on the contrary, the Christian church has had tremendous wars — tortures and burning people and all the horrors of it. So what will help man not to be violent? Right? Not law — right? — they have passed laws but man is still violent. So for us, for most people, the ideal becomes more important than the fact. I don’t know if you follow. The fact is violence; the ideal is non-violence. The non-violence is non-fact. Right?
HG: Yes.
K: That’s just a projection of thought, which doesn’t like violence but says, ‘I must become that.’ But if we put aside all ideals and deal with facts. The fact is one is violent and the causes of violence are… we can see it, trace it out: comparison, comparing myself with… following a leader — political, religious — and having different convictions. You have conviction, I have conviction and we battle about it. So to wipe out all that and face the fact that you are violent. And if you want to live violently, that’s your affair. But if you don’t want to live violently, then you have to find the cause, eliminate the cause. That is intelligence.
HG: But will this not be a constant conflict and maybe a positive conflict, the conflict between…?
K: What is right…
HG: No… yes, yes. Between saying, ‘I am violent,’ and you said to eliminate violence you have to accept that you are violent…
K: Yes. First see the…
HG: …but then not be violent.
K: Yes. First see… Sir, I first see I’m violent, and I see the consequences of that.
HG: Yes. Exactly. Yes.
K: And the consequences are… — you know what it is. And then I say, ‘What’s the cause of this? Why am I violent?’ Either because of some ideals or I want to upset a government, I want to kill somebody. I have some neurotic concept, so I kill… I’m violent for various reasons. So I search out the reasons and say these are all false. So if one wants to live peacefully — and to live peacefully implies… you know? It’s the greatest thing to live peacefully. And so one can, if one wants to. That means your way of living has to change.
HG: If I understand you well, this is a process of learning, and…
K: Either you can take a long time to learn — right? — or you can learn it in a day.
HG: I have read somewhere — I don’t remember exactly where — that you say, ‘Time is a cheat, don’t…
K: Rely on time.
HG: …rely on time.’
K: That’s right, sir.
HG: And I think, for learning, we need time. A child has to grow; he needs time and…
K: Now, just a minute. I need time to learn to drive a car. I need time, one needs time, to learn a language, to learn a skill, to learn how to put a machine together — right? — you need time to go from here to your house. But do we need time to change? *Vous avez compris?*
HG: You say, ‘No,’ and I think yes, we need…
K: No, let’s talk about it. Let’s talk about it.
HG: For instance, when I have to have a motive to change…
K: No. No, if you have a motive to change, the motive directs you according to what you desire. That’s not change.
HG: But if I…
K: Sir, I have a motive, say for instance, to be free of fear — let’s take… — I have a motive… If one has a motive to be free of fear, what does that motive do?
HG: I am searching a way to come out of the fear.
K: No. All that you want to do is to be free of various types of fear. What is the root of fear? That needs no motive. You understand what I mean? To find out what is the root of fear doesn’t need motive; but if I say, ‘I must be free of fear of my wife,’ (laughs) or my husband or my somebody or other, I have a motive. Then that motive directs what I should do, but not be free of fear. *Vous avez compris,* sir?
HG: I think, but maybe with my question I prove that I have not understood. (Laughs) When I think of myself: when I feel well I don’t do anything, I just stay as I am and think, ‘I feel well.’ As soon as there is a problem — maybe fear or maybe I have wishes I cannot fulfil or things like that — then I try to end this state of searching for something, and this is what I call the motive to try to change. So we started with the question: do we need time for change?
K: Yes.
HG: I think I have to…
K: Let’s stick to that; let’s stick to that.
HG: So I think I have to make experiences, bad experiences…
K: And good experiences.
HG: …and good experiences, and to try to continue in the good way, and this…
K: Yes. Now, wait a minute. All experiences are limited — right? — there is no complete experience. Right?
HG: Right.
K: Right sir? Are you clear on this?
HG: I think so, yes.
K: Right. And the experience gives you knowledge.
HG: Yes.
K: And that knowledge is limited. Right?
HG: Yes.
K: We have had — human beings, humanity has had — million years of experience, and during those million years of experience it has accumulated a great deal of memories, and those knowledge is limited. Even in the technological world knowledge is limited; from knowledge you have memory — right? — so memory is limited. Right?
HG: Yes.
K: And so thought is limited.
HG: But aren’t you…?
K: Ah?
HG: Do I interrupt you?
K: No, no. Go on, sir.
HG: Can’t you put the limits always a little bit more far away, making different experiences, during a certain time?
K: We said all experiences, any kind of experience, is limited.
HG: Yes.
K: Therefore, depending on experience — which is limited — to make us intelligent, that intelligence creates… is divisive. *Divisive* — you understand? And whatever is divisive must breed conflict. Go into it, sir. Go slowly into it; you will see it. The brain seeks security. Right?
HG: Yes.
K: All human beings want security. Either it seeks security in illusions: ‘my nation’, ‘my God’ or, ‘Universal God I believe in,’ and you don’t believe in that, so there is conflict. So belief breeds conflict — right? — faith breeds conflict, and conclusions one comes to through experience breeds conflict. So thought breeds conflict.
HG: But would you say that it is possible to live without these conflicts? I agree completely with you that thought is limited and that the brain creates conflicts and all these things, but sometimes I think, ‘Well, I have to accept this as a condition of life.’
K: No. No sir, let’s see. If you accept, see the fact, that thought is limited and therefore must invariably breed conflict — right? — if you are clear on that… Right? Are you?
HG: Yes, I am.
K: That is, let’s examine it a little bit more. Thought created this society. Thought has created all the churches — whether the Hindu church… — thought has been responsible for all this. Thought has been responsible for wars: my nation, your nation, my ideology, your… Right? Thought has been responsible to create the Nagra, and also thought has been responsible creating wars, and all the destruction, instruments of war. So if once you acknowledge, see the truth, that thought is limited, then you want to find an instrument which is not limited. Right?
HG: And…
K: You understand?
HG: Yes, I do. But…
K: Is there such instrument?
HG: Yes, that’s the question.
K: That’s the question.
(Break in audio)
I only can see… I can only inquire… one can only inquire if there is an instrument which is not thought, then you must be very clear that thought is very destructive. Right?
HG: But all the people coming to you and listening to you and we come to you now, too — I am coming for the radio but this is only a… (laughs)
K: Yes, I understand.
HG: We come to you because we are in search of…
K: Something true.
HG: …something true. And then you say when you are in search of something true you will not find it.
K: No.
HG: You shall not be in search.
K: Sir…
HG: And when I hear this I…
K: Wait. To find something true you must put aside all that which is not true. To find that which is true, you must put aside that which is false. Now, how are you going to discover what is false? Right?
HG: Yes.
K: How do you find out?
HG: By suffering, for instance.
K: No, no. Man has suffered endlessly — he hasn’t found it. Right? So how do you find the false? Would you say all the illusions that thought has created are false?
HG: Yes.
K: When I consider I’m a Hindu, that’s a false supposition. I’m a human being, not a Hindu. Right? So put away your nationality, be free of that. If I say, ‘I’m a Buddhist,’ what does that mean? It’s just a word, or what the Buddha has said. You understand? Which means: don’t kill and so on, so on, so on; and all Christians have also said that: ‘Don’t kill.’ But they don’t… If you want to find out what is false, you have to examine the movement of thought — right? — because thought has created so many illusions, including that I am separate from you.
HG: And what is the other instrument than thought?
K: There, I am telling you. The other instrument can only come into being when I eradicate altogether everything that’s false in me.
HG: I haven’t understood this word. When you…?
K: Eradicate — put away, wipe away, everything that’s false. My belief is false — right? — my having a faith in some god is false, because I’m afraid. If I have no fear, I am God (laughs). You follow what I mean? Not *I*. There is… I don’t search for God, which means I don’t seek comfort, I don’t seek security. I am a human… Then you’re free. And all the various superstitions and so on, those are all the product of thought seeking security in things that have no security.
HG: But when you say all this and I agree with you, I am thinking on one thing else you said: you said, ‘Don’t trust in experiences,’ but is all what you say now, is this not the fruit of your own personal experience?
K: No, no. Are you talking… Are you asking: how have you come to this?
HG: Yes. This is my question, yes.
K: Not through experience. By watching, by listening — you understand? — by watching what is happening in each country — right? — by watching what people are. You understand?
HG: Yes, I understand.
K: How prejudiced they are. I have watched. I don’t read psychological books. I don’t read any of the philosophies and so on and so on, but I’ve watched a great deal all my life.
HG: But you just say me if this question is too direct, but I have read the book of your life. And I think… and in this, by Mary…. I don’t know…
K: That’s right.
HG: …how to pronounce her name.
K: Lutyens.
HG: Lutyens. And she said that…
K: It’s a Dutch name, anglicised and so on.
HG: Ah, yes. And she says that in your youth you have often suffered, and you have liberated yourself from many things.
K: Yes sir.
HG: Is this not…? Would you not call this an experience that has brought you to new insights?
K: No, no. No, I wouldn’t… Sir, I wouldn’t call those experiences. I… Now, first of all, what is an experience? To get drunk is an experience. Right? Right?
HG: Yes.
K: To hurt somebody is an experience, to hit somebody is an experience. There is sex experience, there is the experience of climbing those mountains. Right?
HG: Yes.
K: Experience of sailing a boat. But need you go through all that? Need you go through any experience? Think about it, sir. Then you depend on experience to teach you. Right? *Vous avez compris* *çela?*
HG: Yes, but one more question about this is to…
K: It’s very interesting, this.
HG: You were now talking about experiences I can choose to have or not to have, but…
K: No. I am asking: need you have experiences?
HG: But is it possible to live without experiences?
K: Yes. That’s possible only when you don’t ask anything of the world; when you don’t depend on anything outside. That’s one. Right?
HG: I agree, theoretically, but I cannot imagine that.
K: Sir, look at it: we are the result of thousands of experiences — not only mine but the collective experiences. Right? We are the result of various impressions, from outside as well as from inside. We are the result of vast programming. Right?
HG: Yes.
K: And, like a computer, we have been programmed — right? — and our memory is the program, so the program repeats, repeats, repeats, repeats: ‘I’m a Christian; I’m a Buddhist; I’m a Hindu; I’m a communist; I am…’ Right? Right? Now, the question is: can you be free of being programmed?
HG: And you say…
K: Yes.
HG: …it is possible.
K: Possible.
HG: By rejecting…
K: No. By understanding what program has done to our brain: repetition, mechanical. Programming has brought about conflict between you and me: you are a Catholic, I’m a Muslim. You follow?
HG: Yes.
K: So the programming has conditioned our brain — right? — and we live in that. We live in that small area. We may imagine the area to be immense but it’s still a small area. I don’t know if you follow?
HG: I do, I think.
K: So if… Is it possible to be free of this tremendous program of centuries? Which is: we are conditioned by fear, basically: by fear, by pleasure, by suffering. Those are the three factors of human burden — right? — those are the three things that dominate our life. The pursuit of pleasure. I’m not saying you… that’s not my point; I’m just saying these are the three fundamental burdens which man bears, whether he’s a European or an Indian, American or Russian. Right? This is the burden all humanity bears. So, at that level, there is no division. Right?
HG: Everybody has the same three…
K: Same thing. Which means our consciousness is shared by all human beings. Which means that you are the rest of mankind — you are the mankind, at that level.
HG: Yes.
K: Right?
HG: And this is probably why everybody asks you always the same questions.
K: Questions.
HG: Let me come back to the question: how to live without this program, you were saying.
K: No, don’t ask, ‘How?’ because the moment… when you ask how, you want a method, and the method is part of the program. You understand?
HG: Yes, I understand.
K: But if you say, ‘Let us inquire’… not you inquire, I listen, but both of us inquire whether we can be free of this being programmed.
HG: This is what you meant when you said the question is to ask the right questions. Okay, now…
K: Yes. C’est ça; c’est ça. To ask the right question.
Questioner: Suppose… (inaudible)
HG: (Inaudible) …oui.
K: You see, we have always asked, ‘Please tell me how to do something.’ Right? So the people are too willing to tell you what to do. But I reject that; I say don’t ask how, but let us together look at it.
HG: So in fact… Well, I’ll ask; maybe you’ll say I am wrong. There is a continuous process of asking…
K: Of watching, questioning. Right?
HG: And would you say no-one…
(Break in audio)
K: …we will find definite answers. To find definite answers you must begin without any definition. If you start with certainty, you end up with uncertainty. Right? If you’re intelligent, questioning. So one must start with uncertainty: questioning, doubting. Doubting this whole human society, doubting the religions, doubting the… — you follow? — and from that doubt, you begin to question: ‘What is the way to live properly? What…?’ You follow?
HG: So it would also be wrong to say, since many of our conflicts are caused by our society, by traditions, by ideologies and so on, is it still wrong to say, ‘I have to go out of this society, to…’?
K: No, no. I live in the society, but I’m not of it. Sir, society is created by all of us, by all human beings. That society is in disorder, all over the world it’s in disorder, it’s immoral and so on. And as I have contributed to it, I must live in order. As human beings have created this society, which is so corrupt, so… — all the rest of it — we human beings have to live in order first, to bring order there. If we are fighting, you and I, society is structured to fight. If I cling to my convictions and you cling to your convictions: that there is God, there is no God, or communism is the best and… — you follow? — any conviction must breed conflict. Right? So I discard all that.
HG: And when you do the big work you still do, to travel around and to talk to everybody and not to become…
K: Leader.
HG: No, I don’t mean this. Not to say, ‘Oh, I have always to repeat the same things…
K: No, no, no…
HG: …because everybody makes the same false…’
K: No, no. I somehow… I don’t repeat; it’s something new each time. The words may be the same — you understand? — the language one uses, the structure, may be the same but the feeling is different each time. I don’t know if you understand. Of course.
HG: I think I understand.
K: Like a painter.
HG: But if you do this, do you do it in the hope that people…?
K: Not in the hope… Sir, you put in front of me a good meal, a healthy meal, balanced food; either take it or you don’t take it. If you don’t take it, I’m not disappointed. If you take it, it’s your affair. You understand? If you want the good food, take it; if you don’t, it’s all right. I’m not one way or the other concerned; it is good food.
HG: But when I listen to you and I hear how you talk about conflicts, violence and all these things in the world I feel — maybe I’m wrong — but I feel that you are concerned by this.
K: Of course; I’m terribly concerned.
HG: And don’t you think that what you do is trying to help other people to find a way to come out of this?
K: I don’t like the word *help,* because everybody is trying to help. Right? I don’t like that word *help*. Sir, I think the simile is good.
HG: Excuse me? You think the…?
K: The simile, the example, say I put something in front of you — right? — either it is good, true or false. If it is false, disregard it; but if it is true, find out, live it, live it. Don’t bother about who tells it. You don’t bother who cooked the food, as long as it’s good food. Therefore, I’m entirely impersonal about it.
HG: So could I say that…? You say truth is a pathless land.
K: Yes sir.
HG: And I think I understood that. You don’t say, ‘This is the path,’ but maybe you try to offer a choice of how to find the path.
K: Yes sir. Not *choice*. Sir, truth isn’t a fixed thing — right? — then you can have a path to it. Truth may be under this carpet (laughs), under a stone — right? — so you have to have eyes to see and ears to listen to some… But if you have neither eyes nor ears to listen, well, you can put the best food in front of you — you follow? — but you won’t pay any attention to it.
HG: May I ask you some more questions or are you tired?
K: Yes sir.
HG: I would like to come back in from another point; I think, in fact, to the question of experience. You say that one shall not have prejudices — and I agree — and you say not have images of something.
K: Images about yourself or somebody else.
HG: Or something, yes. When I read what you write about pleasure, I think that you have a bad image of pleasure.
K: No, no. What is pleasure, sir? You see those mountains. It’s beautiful; you have a delight… a kind… Now, that becomes a memory after you’ve left it, and on that memory you live. Right? Right? The actuality has gone but the memory of it remains. The memory of it is pleasure; and you are therefore… living on a memory is living on a dead thing.
HG: Is a memory necessarily a dead thing? Maybe when I come home tonight and I remember our talk…
K: Yes. Ah…!
HG: …and I feel… and I have a good feeling because it was impressionating for me.
K: Yes, no. Wait a minute.
HG: This is not a dead thing.
K: No. You and I have talked. When I go to my room I say, ‘What a nice…’ So what am I doing? Have I understood what you said to me, or just a memory of what you said to me? You understand what I mean? Have I understood the truth of what you said, which is not a memory? Sir, look: you show me what violence is, all the intricacies of it, and I see the truth of it. It’s not a memory; it’s a perception of what is.
HG: Yes.
K: That’s not memory.
HG: But I am sure when I am at home, I will have a memory of your face in front of me.
K: Yes. Why?
HG: And I think I will have a good feeling when I remember…
K: Yes, why?
HG: Why? Because you’ve talked to me…
K: What is important? That you and I see that thing as true; the rest is just… all right, have memory. No, you are missing my point. You are missing my point.
HG: But… (inaudible) a different question of words.
K: Sir, look, I see that out of my window. It’s a beautiful thing: the shadows, the sunlight, the house, and the blue sky and all; it’s a very beautiful thing. Now, that has left a memory. Right?
HG: Yes.
K: I live on that memory. Right? My son is dead but I live on memory of my son; what does that do? I’m living, holding on to something that is just words, that’s not actuality; he’s gone. So memory, in that sense, is very destructive.
HG: But memory can be… If really it happens in me, if this image grows, it’s new in a certain way…
K: Yes.
HG: …so you would not call it a memory any more?
K: But it is not memory. Sir, just listen. I need to have memory to put together a computer. Right?
HG: Yes.
K: I need to have memory in the technological world — right? — I need memory to write a letter and so on. Now, what is memory about myself? You understand what I…? What is myself? It’s a vast structure of memories. Right? Right? We are memories; memories of the past — right? — so we live in the past — right? — so we live with something that is gone, which is dead. So our minds become what?
HG: And is this what you mean when you say, ‘The memory is the enemy of the new’?
K: Yes; that’s right. If I live in tradition, I can find nothing new.
HG: Now, I have asked you many questions or we both have asked questions together and, in a certain way, you were still in the role of the one who gives an answer, in a certain way, in your way. May I ask you, is there a question you now are always asking you again and not finding an answer?
K: I don’t understand.
HG: Is there a question that you are asking yourself…
K: No, I don’t ask questions.
HG: …always now and not finding…
K: No, I don’t ask questions; I just watch. Sir, look: if you begin with doubt — right? — doubt, what does that do to your brain?
HG: I start searching…
K: No, it cleanses it, first.
HG: It…?
K: It cleanses it, wipes out all the old things. I doubt the government, I doubt what all the priests say, I doubt — you follow? — my convictions. So if you begin with doubt, it helps the brain to look objectively. Right? And as well as subjectively. You understand what I’m saying? If you begin with doubt: say, ‘All this…’ — you follow? — then you begin to… by doubting you begin to clear the field to look. But we never doubt; we hold onto things… You follow? If you begin to doubt, have scepticism, question, then you begin to open the doors — right? — and when you open the door you’re watching. You don’t question, you’re just watching what is happening inside and out there. And by watching, you altogether wipe out the self, the *me*, the ego, which is nothing but a bundle of memories: communal memories, personal memories — right? — memories of what you have read. So we are a series, a movement of memories; nothing actual. You understand?
So when you realise that, there is nothingness. Not annihilation; nothingness. I don’t know if you want to go into all that… Which doesn’t mean nihilism or any of that kind of rubbish; it means really an intelligence born of compassion. You understand, sir? Love has its own intelligence. Right? And love doesn’t need experience. Right?
HG: I am tempted to say, ‘I will think about it,’ but you say you shall not think about it. (Laughs)
K: Yes, you think about it.