Public Talk 10, Saanen, 30 July 1967

I believe this is the last talk, and there will be discussions from Wednesday — isn’t it?

I wonder what each one of us is seeking in life; if we seriously put that question to ourselves, I wonder what we would reply. What is it, deeply, that we all want? Is the demand, the search based on one’s inclination or guided by our tendency, or shaped by circumstances? If it is shaped by circumstances then it’s merely a matter of making those conditions slightly better: more happier, more pleasant, more satisfactory. And if it is merely the dictates of tendency; that is, according to our conditioning, according to our culture, according to our background, then our demand will naturally be enforced by our limited comprehension, our limited attention. And if our deep demand, deep search is based on our inclination then it is the search for greater and wider pleasure. I wonder which of these three categories guides, shapes or urges our search, our longings, our gropings. Because apparently most of us are seeking something: greater pleasure, greater satisfaction, wider and deeper experiences, or, those of us who are somewhat more serious, we say we are seeking for truth — and that’s one of the most dangerous words. And this search for truth demands not merely a casual, intermittent drive, but rather a sustained, continuous looking — not in any particular direction, but a total comprehension of life. If we are seeking greater pleasure, which most of us are — and there is nothing wrong with it — because as we explained, greater pleasure brings with it greater pains and greater fears. And if it’s merely a conditioned response, that is, tendency or circumstances, then it brings its own bondage, its own pains, its own sorrows. But, as we said, if we are a little more cautiously, hesitantly serious — and one must be serious in life; not with regard to truth or pleasure or momentary satisfaction, but serious about everything that we touch: whether it is to cook a good, delicious lunch or serious with regard to our relationship with another man, with another human being, or serious when we assert to ourselves that we are seeking something which is called truth — I think one has to be extraordinarily, vitally serious about everything in life, not about fragmentary things of life. Because each individual, each human being, as we are, we are responsible; we are responsible for all the misery, for the wars, for the hunger, for the brutalities and so on, for this enormous violence that exists in the world.

Would those of you, please, who are really not very interested, merely came for curiosity, would they all get up and go now? It would be much simpler. If you are serious at all about anything then stay and pay as much or as little attention as you can.

I feel very strongly that each one of us, being responsible for the chaos, misery, sorrow in the world, that each one of us, as a human being, must bring about a radical revolution in himself. Because in himself he is both the society and the individual, he is both violence and peace, he is both this strange mixture of pleasure and hate and fear, aggressiveness, domination and gentleness — sometimes one predominates the other and there is a great deal of imbalance in all of us.

And as we are responsible not only to the world and also responsible for ourselves; what we do, what we think, how we act, how we feel — merely to seek truth or pleasure without understanding this strange mixture, this strange contradiction of violence and gentleness, of affection and brutality, of jealousy, of greed, envy, anxiety — this strange mixture which we are, each one of us — unless there is a radical transformation in the very foundation of ourselves, merely to seek great pleasure or to seek truth has very little meaning. To find that which we call truth, which man apparently throughout historical times and before has sought — this otherness, which we call God, which we call the timeless state, a thing which is not measurable, which is not nameable — man has always sought that because our life is very dull: there is always death, old age, there is so much pain, contradiction, conflict, a sense of utter boredom, a meaninglessness to life. We are caught in that, and to escape from it, or because we have slightly understood this complex existence, we want to find something more, something that won’t be destroyed by time, by thought, by any human corruption. And man has always sought that, and not finding it, he has cultivated faith — faith in a God, in a saviour, faith in an idea. And I do not know if you have not noticed that faith invariably breeds violence. Do consider this.

When I have faith in an idea, in a concept, I want to protect that idea, I want to protect that concept, that symbol. That symbol, that idea, that ideology is a projection of myself, identified with the state or with a symbol, and I want to protect it at any price. And when I defend something, I must be violent. And more and more, as one observes, faith has no place anymore; nobody believes in anything anymore! Thank God! Either one becomes cynical, bitter, or invents a philosophy which will be satisfactory intellectually, but the central problem is not resolved.

The central problem being — at the moment the fly! (laughter) The central problem really is: how to bring about in this complex, unhappy world, not only outside, but inside, a world of confusion, a world of contradiction, a world of such anxiety — how to bring about a fundamental mutation in that. Then when there is a mutation, then you can go further — if one wants. But without that radical, fundamental change every effort beyond that has no meaning. So, the search for truth, the question whether there is a God or not, whether there is a timeless dimension — all those questions will be answered, not by another, not by a priest, not by a saviour, not by anybody, except you will be able to answer that question yourself when there is this mutation that can and must take place in every human being. And that’s what we are interested in, and that’s what we are concerned with; in all these ten talks that have been, that’s what we are concerned with; not only how to bring about a change in this miserable world — objectively in the world outside of us — but also in ourselves, because most of us are so unbalanced, most of us are so violent, greedy, and are hurt so easily when anything goes against us. It seems to me that is the fundamental issue: what can a human being, as you and I, living is this world, do?

If you seriously put that question to yourself I wonder what you would answer. Is there anything to be done at all? You know, we are asking a very serious question: is there anything to be done? As a human being, I and you, what can we do? Not only to change the world, but in ourselves, what can I do, what can you do? Will somebody tell us? People have told us; the priests who are supposed to understand these things better than laymen like us, they have told us and that hasn’t led us very far. We are sophisticated human beings, educated, even that has not led us very far. So we cannot depend on anybody. There is no guide, there is no teacher, there is no authority. There is only you, your relationship with another and the world. There is nothing else! When one realises that, faces that, either it brings great despair from which comes cynicism, bitterness and all the rest of it, or in facing it, that you are totally responsible for yourself and for the world — and nobody else! — when you face that, all self-pity goes. You understand? Because most of us thrive on self-pity — blaming others — and this occupation with oneself, which is another form of self-pity, doesn’t bring clarity. So, what can you and I do — not only to live in this world sanely, healthily, logically, rationally, but also inwardly, to have great balance, and to live without any conflict, without any hate, without any violence. And that seems to me a question which each of us has to answer for himself.

And, this morning, if you will, take a journey, that is, if we can, you and I travel together; not along a verbal line, not along intellectual concepts, but putting aside all those things, to take a journey, which is to share together, and find out a state of mind which is never in conflict, and therefore which has no sense of domination or servility. And to find out such a mind one must journey together; and we are going to do it this morning. That means you’ll have to give a great deal of attention, not concentration; there is a difference, I think, between concentration and attention. When you concentrate what actually takes place? Watch it in yourself. When you concentrate on something, that is, focus your thought, force it to be, to concentrate on something then such concentration is a process of defence: building a wall in which the mind can concentrate upon something. Concentration is an exclusive process, whereas attention is not. To attend means to give complete attention, not a fragmentary, partial attention, which is concentration. But if one could give complete attention, that is, to listen to that aeroplane, to the trains going by, to listen to the talk, to see everything, feel and be completely without frontier. In that state of attention we can journey together very far and very deeply.

Because we are asking: what can I, as a human being, living in this world, in himself being both violent and gentle, both full of antagonism, hate and a burst of joy, what can I do in the world outside and how can I bring about a revolution in myself?

(Loudspeaker system was cut) Can you hear without the microphone?

Audience: Yes.

K: Yes? What shall we do? All right, let’s go on. What shall I do? Shall we go on? But can you all hear what I say? Yes?

Audience: Yes.

K: Now, this requires attention. There is a distraction going on here, and the whole tendency is to observe what is taking place, and to resist it because I want to talk, I want to tell something, so there is a contradiction. You’re following all this? And so there is a conflict. In that state of conflict the mind cannot function clearly. Right? And yet this has to be mended. The mechanical thing has gone wrong, it has to be put right, and yet at the same time I have to talk clearly, and to talk clearly, to think without any contradiction, mere concentration won’t bring that about. But whereas if there is attention, to attend what is going on, not to be distracted by it — please do this — and yet listen without any contradiction, in that state of attention we can then look at ourselves. Because the more we know about ourselves, the more deeply the mind can penetrate, not only within itself but go beyond all the intellectual, verbal structure, symbol, so that the mind is not caught in its own imagination, in its own illusions, in its own desires. And that’s what we are going to do.

So, first I must know myself. You and I must know ourselves completely, so that there is no hidden corner, no secret, untrodden recesses of the mind. Either you do this step by step — please, follow this very carefully — step by step through analysis, through examination, through opening every layer of one’s consciousness; which means time. That is, I’m angry, I am jealous, I am envious, and to understand why, the motive of it — and that will take time to uncover, unroll the vast, complex me — that will take time. Either one does that or there is a different way altogether. Please understand this very clearly. Either I analyse myself — not that I go to an analyst, because I’m as good as an analyst. I can look at myself very clearly — if I want to — without any illusion, without any perversion. I can look at myself very clearly as I look at myself in the mirror, and by looking at myself I begin to analyse, go into the cause of every movement of thought, every feeling, enquire into every motive. That will take an allotted time. You understand? That’s simple. It’ll take days, months, years, and in this process there is always a distortion going on because there are other influences, other pressures, other strains. So when I admit time in this process of understanding myself, I must allow for every form of distortion. Right? And myself is such a complex, deep entity: moving, living, struggling, wanting, denying, and I have to watch every movement to understand this whole thing. Either I do that, or, what has generally been done is to identify myself with something greater; with the nation, with the state, with the family, or with an idea, as the saviour, as a Buddha — you follow all this? Identify myself with that, and that is a projection of myself — of what I want to be or what I should be — therefore in that also there is a conformity to that pattern and hence more struggle. Right? That’s what we have done, man has done throughout ages — either go inwardly, introspectively, analytically, or identify himself with something, or live in a state of total negation hoping something will happen. Right? You’re following all this?

We have done all this and more complex things; taken drugs. It is not the modern world that is taking drugs, taking drugs has existed in China three, four thousand years ago. It has existed in India. All to escape from the monotony of life, this terrible boredom, a meaningless existence: to go to the office every day, to breed children, to have sex, to be in this constant battle with oneself, one needs an escape of some kind, whether it is the escape of the football-field or the escape of a church — they are exactly the same.

So, if all that is not the way — you understand? — because all that implies time, all that implies sowing more seeds of violence, antagonism. If you really understand that, and therefore when you understand it, put it away completely: that is not the way! It’s like a man who wants to go south has been going north, and has taken a path that leads north and suddenly when he realises that is not the way, then he turns his back to the north. In the same way, when one realises all those attempts that human beings have made throughout time is not the way — it doesn’t matter who says it — then you can look at yourself in quite a different way. I wonder if you are following this, if you’re taking the journey with me. Then you can look at yourself without time. You understand? Eh? I see, right, I’m not making it clear.

You see, there is this total complex thing called me; the antagonisms, the fears, the hopes, the aspirations, ambitions, greed — you know, the whole thing that is me. And can I look at it so completely and instantly that I understand the whole thing? You follow? After all what is truth? Do listen to this. What is truth? The seeing of truth, the feeling of what is truth with its beauty, with its love — how does one see that? You can only see it when the mind is not fragmentary, is not fragmented, when you can see the totality of something: when you can see the totality of the tree, and what you see in totality is the truth. When you see the totality of yourself, all of it, not just the fragments here and there, but the totality of your being, then, when you see that, that is the truth, and therefore you have understood the whole complex thing. Now, can one do that? Can you look at yourself so completely, so attentively, that the whole of yourself is revealed in an instant? Most of us cannot do this, because most of us have never approached the problem so seriously at all, because we have never looked at ourselves — never! We blame others, we explain things away, or we are frightened to look at ourselves, and so on, so on and so on. We never look at ourselves as we are so totally.

Now, we are saying that the analysis, the identification, the acceptance is not the way. There is only one way. ‘Way’ does not mean a path, a system, a method; there is only one way of looking, that is, to look totally. And you can look only totally when you give your whole attention. In attention there is no fear. When you’re giving your mind, your body, your nerves, your eyes, your ears — everything to look — there is no room for fear, there is no room for contradiction, and therefore no conflict. And that means to be enormously serious. And then, when you have looked at yourselves so deeply, then you can go much deeper. When we are using the word ‘deeper’, we are not being comparative. We think in comparison; depth and shallow, happiness and unhappiness — we are always measuring. Right? When I say, ‘I must go deeply, or deeper in myself’ the word ‘deeper’ is a comparative word. Right? Now, is there such a state — please follow this — is there such a state of the shallow and the deep in oneself ? Please follow this carefully. When I say, ‘my mind is shallow, petty, narrow, limited’, how do I know it’s limited, narrow, petty? Because I’ve compared my mind with your mind which is much more bright, has capacity, is more intelligent, aware, and so on. Then I say in comparison, that my mind is shallow, my mind is petty, but do I know my pettiness without comparison? Please do look at this. That is, do I know that I am hungry because I was hungry yesterday or, I am hungry — not because I knew what hunger was yesterday? Therefore, there is no comparison. I don’t know if you have followed all this? It doesn’t matter.

So when we are using the word ‘deeper’, we are not thinking in comparative terms, we are not comparing. Therefore what happens? A mind that is always comparing, which is always measuring, such a mind will always engender illusion. Right? If I am measuring myself against you, who are clever, who is more intelligent, and all the rest of it, I am struggling to be like you and I am denying myself, what I am. Therefore I am creating an illusion. Right? So, when I have understood all that; that all comparison, in any form, only leads to greater illusion, greater misery, that when I analyse myself, study myself, learn about myself, everyday adding to my knowledge about myself — or identify myself with something greater whether it be the state, a saviour, an ideology — all such forms lead to greater conformity, and therefore greater conflict. And when I see all that, I put it completely away. Then my mind is no longer seeking. Right? Please, it’s very important to understand this. Then my mind is no longer groping, searching, asking, questioning, demanding, waiting. Which doesn’t mean that my mind is satisfied with things as they are. Therefore, such a mind has no illusion or imagination. Right? Such a mind then can go, move, in a totally different dimension. Because the dimension in which we live, the life of everyday, which is pain, pleasure, fear — that has conditioned the mind, that has limited the nature of the mind, and when that pleasure, fear, anxiety — all that is completely gone — not that you don’t enjoy; enjoyment is something entirely different from pleasure. Pleasure is something brought into being by thought, as thought brings into being fear. But enjoyment, the real joy, the feeling of great bliss is not of thought. Then the mind functions on a different dimension in which there is no conflict, there is no sense of ‘otherness’ — you understand? — the duality.

So, verbally one can go only so far; what lies beyond cannot be put into words because words are not the thing. You understand? The door, the tree is not the word ‘tree’. The word is different from the fact. Up to now we can describe, explain, but the words or the explanations cannot open the door. What will open the door is the daily awareness and attention. Awareness without any choice of what is going on within: how you speak, what you say, how you walk, what you think. To be daily aware of it. It’s like cleaning a room, to keep it in order, but keeping the room in order is of no importance. But it is important in one sense, and totally unimportant in another! But there must be order in the room. But the order will not open the window. What will open the window, the door, is not your volition, is not your desire. You cannot possibly invite the other. All that you can do is to keep the room in order, which is to be virtuous. Not the virtuousness or morality of any society; to be virtuous for itself, not for what it will bring. To be sane, rational, orderly. Then perhaps, if you’re lucky, the window will open and the breezes will come in. And they may not. It depends on the state of your mind. And that state of mind can only be understood by yourself, watching it and never trying to shape it — which means to watch it without any choice. And out of this choiceless awareness perhaps that door will open and you will know that dimension, in which there is no conflict, no time, and something which can never be put into words.

Do you want to ask any questions of what we have been talking about this morning?

Questioner: Sir, imagination — what is that?

K: The question is, what is imagination? Don’t you know? Do you want an explanation of that? You all know what imagination is. The fairy stories, the imaginative paintings, the invention of heaven and hell, the invention of gods, the imagination of that beauty which you saw yesterday evening in the clouds, and imagining, living with that today, and so on and on and on. Because we live on myths, fantasy. And a mind that is capable of inventing, imagining, projecting itself into various forms of visions and all that, such a mind is such a silly mind.

Q: Sir, how is it possible to make any kind of art? And if we didn’t have any imagination that would be impossible.

K: I wonder — the question is: if there was no imagination there would be no art. Right? If there is no imagination there would be no art, no poems. I wonder — please follow this — I wonder what place has art for a mind which is a religious mind. Not the phoney religious mind of belonging to churches, or believing in some doctrine, or in some philosophy — such a mind is not a religious mind at all; but a mind that is living in a totally different dimension, to that mind has art any meaning at all? Art being music, literature, painting, poem — has it any place? Which means: why is it that we so much depend on music, art, poems — why? Is it a form of escape, stimulation? You paint a picture and I look at it. I criticise it and say, ‘how beautiful’ or ‘how ugly’. Or, if you become famous it fetches a great price.

Look sir, if you are directly in contact with nature: the hills, the clouds, the rivers, the trees, the birds, watch or be with the movement of a bird on the wing, see the beauty of every movement in the sky, in the hills, in the shadows, or the beauty in the face of another, do you think you would want to go to any museum to look at any picture? Perhaps because you do not know how to look at all the things about you, then you go to the museum to look. Then you take mescaline, marijuana, drugs to stimulate you so that you can see better.

So one has to question everything that man has accepted as valuable, as necessary. You know, you have questioned politically, the tyrants, the dictators but you have never questioned the tyrants, the dictators of religion, the priests, and you have never questioned any authority, either the authority of a Picasso or of a great musician. We accept, and with that acceptance we grow weary and we want more pictures, more non-objective art and painting, and so on and so on. But if we knew how to look at the face of a passer-by, to look at a flower on the roadside, to see a cloud of an evening, and to look at it with complete attention, and therefore with complete joy and love, then all the external things have very little meaning.

Q: I have a fundamental question. (Inaudible)

K: Sir, may I request you sir, one minute, make it brief because I have to repeat that question, because all of them can’t hear what you say. So make it brief sir.

Q: OK.

Q: Louder.

Q: Now this state of complete attention is, in other words, a state without conflict, so you have presupposed to understand the state without conflict, that would be in a state without conflict.

Naude: (repeating the question) In order to be in a state without conflict you have to listen without concentration. To listen without concentration, you have to be…

K: It’s a vicious circle. The gentleman says, the questioner says: to be attentive in which there is no conflict, and to have a mind which has never known what conflict is, to live in this viscious circle is impossible. How do you get out of it. Right?

Q: You’ve short-circuited it.

K: It’s a vicious circle, isn’t it?

Q: Right.

K: I live in conflict. My mind is in constant conflict, whatever it does is a strain and a pain and a misery, and it’s caught in that, and the speaker says: in that state you will never understand anything. Only when you are attentive then you will understand this whole process. Now, to be attentive is not possible because our whole mind is in a state of conflict, so it becomes a vicious circle. Right? So what is one to do? Or, are you aware — the questioner says — for yourself, are you aware that you have created this vicious circle and you have left us with the circle and nothing else. Right?

Q: It doesn’t solve the problem.

K: Yes, sir, I’ve understood. It doesn’t solve the problem. That is, being caught in a vicious circle and the speaker doesn’t tell us what to do, doesn’t solve the problem. Now if you will kindly follow what I’m saying I am sure we’ll understand each other. First of all, I realise my mind is in conflict. Whatever it does, any movement it does is still within the limits of that conflict. Right? Is that right? Whatever it does! Whether it aspires, whether it desires, whether it imitates, whether it is conforming, suppressing, sublimating, taking drugs to expand it, whatever it does is in a state of conflict, will produce conflict. Right? If I have understood that — understood in the sense not merely verbally but actually see that, as clearly as I see this microphone, without any distortion. That is, whatever thought does will produce conflict, because thought is time, thought is sorrow, thought is fear. Whatever thought does, being old, must act within that vicious circle. I see that very clearly. Then what takes place? If I see something very clearly, as when I see something very dangerous, like a precipice or a dangerous animal — what happens? All movement for a moment stops, doesn’t it? There is no thought. All movement stops. In the same way, if I see whatever thought does, thought comes to an end. Whatever thought does breeds misery, sorrow, conflict. When thought realises that it will come to an end by itself. And therefore the vicious circle is broken, because thought is no longer breeding any form of conflict, which means thought, which means time has come to an end.

Q: Is this stillness, this attention, synonymous with meditation?

K: Is this silence, attention, synonymous with meditation? You know that word ‘meditation’ is a very loaded word, because the whole of Asia gives it a particular meaning. There are different schools of meditation, different methods, systems of meditation, various systems of attention which will produce attention. There are systems who say ‘watch your movement of your front toe, pay attention to it, work and watch it, watch it, watch it’, and so on and on and on. Meditation, control, follow an idea, look on an image and live with that image endlessly, take a phrase and go into it, listen to the word Om or Amen or some other word and listen to the sound of it, follow the sound, and so on and on and on. In all that, in all those forms of meditation there is implied an activity of thought, an activity of imitation, a movement of conformity, that is, an established order. You know the repetition of various Sanskrit phrases and so on — I won’t go into all that. All that is called meditation, including Zen. And to the speaker, that is not meditation at all. Meditation is something entirely different. Meditation is to be aware of thought, of feelings, never to correct it, never to say, it is right or wrong, justify it; just to watch it, and move with it. In that watching, moving with that thought, with that feeling, you begin to understand the whole movement of thought and feeling. And out of this awareness comes silence. Not stimulated, not controlled, not put together by thought. Such silence put together by thought is stagnation, is dead. Whereas the silence that comes when thought has understood its own beginning, the nature of itself, how all thought is never free, but always old, when it has understood, then out of this understanding comes silence. To understand, to see all this — so-called meditation — and to see how thought works, to see the movement of every conscious or unconscious thought and in the understanding of it, which is to be aware of it, out of that comes silence. And this whole process is meditation in which the observer never is.