Krishnamurti with Donald Ingram Smith
This conversation between Krishnamurti and Donald Ingram Smith, entitled Awareness is a mirror in which the movement of thought is perceived, was recorded in Ojai, California in 1977. Krishnamurti asks whether all of consciousness is made up of its content. Can thought be aware of itself? Is whatever thought has created reality? Intelligence is not a product of thought. Thought has limited itself, made itself a fragment. Attention is the summation of all energy.
Donald Ingram Smith was a well-known Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) broadcaster from Sydney. For many years he was involved with the recording of Krishnamurti’s talks in Australia and India. He also hosted a radio programme on Krishnamurti. Ingram Smith first met Krishnamurti in 1949 and his memoirs of the times he spent with Krishnamurti through to his death are published in the book Creative Happiness: A Journey with J. Krishnamurti.
Donald Ingram Smith: I would like to talk over with you to probe into the essence of awareness, what the essence of consciousness actually is. And may I open up what I see so that we may come to the question that I’m attempting to ask? I am aware; I see that awareness is not mine; that every person, every animal for its safety is aware; that the physical organism is alert to any danger and responds instantly to any loud noise, to any approach of danger. And awareness of feelings, inward awareness of pleasure and pain, every animal has this too. So awareness is not different in me. It is a source of survival but it is also the source, it seems, of intelligence – to be aware. If I’m not aware of something I don’t act intelligently in relationship to it, and to the extent that I am aware outwardly and inwardly of my actions and my living when they match the situation. This is intelligence, it would seem. Awareness then is consciousness, but unlike thought, which is part of consciousness and sequential in time, being aware is whole is immediate, has no specifics, no borders and no limitation. My question is: can the mind, can consciousness, be thinking… – be aware of thinking, rather – can the mind in consciousness be aware of thinking without further thoughts arising, and why do they arise? In other words, awareness is a different kind of consciousness from thinking.
Krishnamurti: I’m not quite sure I understand that question.
DIS: Right. Can consciousness, the mind be aware of thinking, be aware of its thinking without other thoughts arising?
K: Ah, ah. Sir, if you agree or… we can think over this problem together. First of all, consciousness, is not all consciousness made up of its content? Without its content there is no consciousness. And the content is put together by thought…
K: …which makes up consciousness. And you can use the word mind to convey all that. But I think we’d better stick to the word consciousness instead of bringing in the mind for the moment.
DIS: Yes; yes.
K: So consciousness is its content and its content makes up consciousness: memories, experiences, as knowledge; all the structure and the nature of thought; the churches, the rituals, the bishops, the archbishops, and the popes and the Hindu temples and the Muslim temples – all that is put together by thought. I think that’s fairly clear.
DIS: Yes, it is.
K: Now, just a minute. And thought being limited, as we were saying this morning in that discussion earlier…
DIS: Yes, that’s right.
K: …thought being limited, whatever it does it’s still fragmentary…
K: …and you are asking whether awareness, which is not the product of thought, if it is not the product of thought, is that awareness a perception of the whole?
K: If we both of us see that consciousness and thought are fragmentary, and that everything that thought creates is fragmentary, thought then cannot possibly be aware of the whole, of the whole being, the whole of existence. It can be aware of itself as movement and time; it can be aware of itself as a movement in time.
K: That is, I think I am going tomorrow from here to there; and measurement is comparison, imitation, conformity, and all that is the movement of thought in time and measure. And part… the whole of the structure of consciousness is this movement. And when we say we are aware, as you pointed out earlier about animals and the rest of it, is thought aware of itself…?
DIS: Can thought be aware of itself?
K: Itself, that’s one point. Is thought or can thought be aware of itself, watch itself in movement, or is awareness is like a mirror in which the movement of thought is seen?
DIS: Right… (inaudible).
K: You see the point? There are two… either thought… thought is aware of itself as movement in time…
DIS: Can it be?
K: Can it be, is that possible, or is awareness a highly polished mirror in which the movement of thought is seen?
K: There are two points in this. Can thought be aware of itself?
DIS: It seems to me that when thought watches itself, thought stops.
K: We are asking: can thought be aware of itself? Because awareness implies…
DIS: But if thought is moving can it be aware of itself?
K: Yes, that’s what we said. Thought is always moving…
DIS: That’s right.
K: …from one thing to another and…
K: …endlessly moving – can that be aware of itself? Which implies that thought can see itself as movement; which means it can see itself as a movement after creating an image about it or having come to a conclusion that it must see itself, then it can imagine that it sees itself.
K: Surely that is not awareness of… thought being aware of itself. We are asking, awareness – we are saying, rather, not asking – that awareness is a mirror in which thought as a movement is perceived. I’ll show you what I mean. One is aware that one is conforming…
K: …to a certain pattern or a certain… according to certain belief, certain conclusion about action and acting – one can see that very clearly that conformity is taking place. We are not… that is not awareness. That is a reasoned conclusion that conformity… what is the implications of conformity and how thought conforms. First you create the image, then conform to that image. Whereas we are saying awareness is a mirror, a mirror in which there is no distortion. Distortion exists when there is a direction or when there is choice. So awareness is a mirror in which thought is seen like… or as in relationship with another you see your reactions, your attitudes, your responses to that person.
DIS: That’s right; mirrored.
K: So awareness, it seems to me, is something that is not cultivated, is not an end product, but rather, as you are aware of the world about you, the nature and the animals and so on, you are aware of the colour of your shirt, your trousers and so on, watching. That’s implied – to see, actually see the colour of the trousers which are blue; and to observe without calling it blue, without giving it a name and to merely watch it, without the observer who is put together by thought as the me, the perceiver.
K: So we are saying is there a possibility of observing without the name, without all the implications involved in the name, in the form, just to observe without any distortion.
K: That observation is awareness.
K: So to observe oneself without any distortion.
DIS: One of the difficulties seems to be that in this real world that I see around me, the people and the nature and the hills and valleys, the real world in which I live is for me what I think it is usually…
K: What you see.
DIS: Yes, what I see, but then… (inaudible)…
K: What you hear, what you…
DIS: Yes, sir, but the point I’m (inaudible) to clear, if I can, is: but I don’t need to realise this reality as I know it; I don’t seem to realise it that it is when I think about, that usually is that what I…
K: I understand what you’re trying to say. Is it what you think it is?
DIS: No, no; I mean, this is what I carry with me, though. I carry with me my sensing about all this.
K: Yes, sir, I know; I understand that. I’m saying… I’m asking you: is the world what you think it is?
DIS: No, no, no, but what I’m saying is that what I think becomes the reality for me.
K: Yes, yes, yes. What you think about the world…
K: …is your reality, or is what you imagine, what you think, what you feel, what you perceive as…
DIS: And we take that for reality is what I’m saying.
K: Ah, ah, ah; I understand.
DIS: We take that for reality because I don’t really know the other, therefore I take what I sense, what I feel about it…
K: So we have to really go into the question of what is reality.
K: Not what you think is reality, but what is reality.
DIS: Right; yes.
K: Would you say reality, which is, you know, it comes from reality – it comes from the word, res, thing, a thing; thing.
K: Would you say whatever thought has created is reality?
DIS: It is my reality.
K: No, not your… whatever thought has created.
DIS: This house?
K: This house.
DIS: It has a reality.
K: It is real, actual.
DIS: Yes, actual, I can… (inaudible).
K: There is the floor, there is the roof, there are the walls, windows, doors. The reality of a Christian belief with all the…
DIS: And it has tremendous effects.
K: Oh, yes; I mean, all that paraphernalia and all that superstitious business. And whatever thought has created in all the religions is a reality. You go to church, you see the mass, you participate in the rituals, you… the wafer, the… all that, including the image, the symbol, the Christ, all that is the product of thought.
DIS: Yes; plus the way I live in according to… (inaudible).
K: (Inaudible)… you live according to it or not according to it.
DIS: Right; yes.
K: So thought creates reality; whatever it creates is reality, including illusion…
DIS: Yes; of course.
K: …including all the neuroticisms, all the beliefs, and all… all that is still part of thought. So we can say all that is actual; which is reality.
DIS: Right; but it can all be wrong.
K: Of course; I said that. Illusion, and it can be right or… It’s all part of that structure called reality. But nature, that tree is not created by thought.
K: But that tree can be made into a chair, and the chair is a reality, created by thought.
DIS: Yes; yes.
K: Right? So either man lives with actuality, reality…
K: …which means no distortion of reality; which means I see… one sees actually the reality of a church, bishops, all the rest of it, rituals, all the dogmas… is product of thought. Thought is limited, therefore all religions become fragmented.
DIS: Right; yes.
K: Therefore it’s not truth.
DIS: Right. And thought being sequential, it’s…
K: Yes, it’s continuous.
DIS: …it’s continuous.
K: It continues. So thought… I mean, reality has nothing whatsoever with truth.
K: Truth, you can say, is that which is.
DIS: Yes, that which is. Right.
K: That is, this is… the chair made out of a tree, which is not… the tree is not the product of thought, but the chair is, and to see that the chair is actual; it is there.
K: And to see all religions, all beliefs, all nationalities, all this division that’s going on in the world is the product of thought; to see that and act upon it – act upon in the sense not to belong to any of that – the freedom of that is truth. Freedom from the false; freedom from the false in the sense the false ideas about it, the false beliefs, because all beliefs are false; all beliefs are neurotic.
DIS: Right. And the feelings about it too are included in that.
K: All that. Feelings, aspirations involved in all that; but when the mind, when the whole structure of the mind, including the intellect and all the rest of it, the brain, when it’s free, free from the false attributes we have given to thought, false attributes which thought has brought about – my envies, greeds, fears, ambitions, all the rest of it – when there is freedom from all that, completely, then there is truth.
DIS: Sir, having seen the revelation of this, let’s… that one sees the fact of this, the fact of it, but this insight, can one stay with this insight rather than attempting to go beyond it?
K: No, no…
DIS: Because there’s a tendency…
K: No; moment… Sir, look, we said all the attributes which we have given to reality, all the attributes of oneself, that is, I am jealous, I must be this, I must not be that, and I am a great man, I’m a little man, I am anxious, fearful, I want pleasure, I hope there is security, I want God – all that is a reality. Thought has created it.
DIS: Right; yes; but when I perceive this, there seems…
K: Not you…
K: When there is a perception of it.
DIS: (Inaudible)… when it is seen to be true as fact.
K: Yes; and therefore the insight into it brings freedom. One realises one has lived in illusion; if there is a perception of the fact that you are living in an illusion, which is dangerous because it destroys the world, destroys me, destroys you, destroys the world, when there is a perception of that danger, there is freedom from it.
K: And that freedom brings… that freedom is insight, which brings about freedom. Ah, no, no, we haven’t… I have not made it clear. One sees the irrationality of living a life that is so utterly meaningless, stupid, confused; when one sees that is brought about through movement of thought as time and measure, and sees the illusory nature of it, actually, there is freedom. The seeing is the insight. And if you say can one… can the mind remain with that insight…
DIS: That’s what I’m asking.
K: I know. Can the mind remain with that insight – when you ask that question, you are saying remain means time.
DIS: Yes, sir. I meant the state… the movement of mind that sees that, why that state of mind, the freedom of mind….
K: No, sir, no; what you’re really asking is, if I may interpret it, what you’re really asking is: is insight timeless.
DIS: That’s that I’m asking.
DIS: Not what I’m seeing.
K: Not is it a continuous movement; not can the mind remain with it…
DIS: Quite right; nothing to do with it.
K: No. So is insight, which is not thought, and thought is time and measure, movement, so insight is… there’s no time. It doesn’t say… I mean, that insight doesn’t tell you, ‘I must continue.’
DIS: Right. This raises a crucial point in the normal living of a normal person.
K: Daily life.
DIS: Daily life; is that I don’t know how I will live in the future, then. I don’t know how I will live in the future, then… (inaudible).
K: What do you mean ‘future’?
DIS: Oh, tomorrow or…
K: Yes, what do you mean…?
DIS: I mean, I don’t know how my livelihood or what my future will be…
K: Yes; yes.
DIS: …but can I avoid sort of taking any action or giving any thought to secure a future for myself…
K: To tomorrow?
DIS: …because somehow or other… when once the insight, the living essence of perception but one also… thought comes back about the future, even the future of the school here, about the future movements. Can one live in this state of…
K: Is that what’s you’re asking?
DIS: I think that’s what I’m asking.
K: Are you sure?
DIS: Yes, sir. I’ve come to it; I wasn’t asking that earlier but I am now.
K: Are you asking: in daily life, married or unmarried, girl or boy, having a job and so on, in relationship with each other, can one live with this intelligence which is timeless?
DIS: That’s what I’m asking. That is the question.
K: The intelligence being insight.
K: I understand your question.
DIS: Yes… (inaudible) perception the same as insight?
K: I perceive suddenly something clearly.
K: That is, my daily life, one’s daily life, is very confused, miserable, sorrowful, boring.
K: Fragmented, all the rest of it; and at the same time have this intelligence operating. Impossible. Of course. Because this daily life is remembrances, memories, experiences, knowledge, technically and so on and so on, is the movement of thought…
DIS: Quite right.
K: …out of memory’s response; and we are saying intelligence is not a product of thought.
K: So the movement of thought is totally unrelated to the other, but when in daily life I’m not… there is no jealousy, there is no anger, there is no hatred, there is no ‘I am this and you are that; I am British…’ all the rest of that ugly business, then the intelligence uses thought in action.
DIS: Yes. This is intelligence, this awareness; it seems to take place when the mind is empty; but is there something more than just this emptiness? The emptiness, the void seems not to be a space with nothing in it, but it seems to be rather void of qualities of attributes rather than of nothingness.
K: No, I wouldn’t use the word nothingness. But sir, listen. We said reality… the meaning of reality comes from the Latin res, ‘things; thing’.
DIS: Yes; yes.
K: When you say ‘nothing’, not a thing, which means thought is not functioning…
DIS: Right; right.
K: …and therefore a different state altogether. It’s not nothingness; it is not…
DIS: It’s not anything that I recognise either.
K: As being nothing or everything.
DIS: Right; quite right.
K: So what is the question you’re asking?
DIS: Where no knowledge is…
DIS: Where no knowledge is or no thinking is…
K: Ah, no, no. You are mixing… Go ahead, sir.
DIS: Is the state of the mind that is utterly unknown to me, the state of mind which is unknown with sort of no time, no space?
K: No, sir. May I put it different? May I…?
DIS: Please do.
K: The actual – let’s start with the fact, not…
DIS: Of the illusion.
K: Which is, our minds, most people’s minds are a jungle of words, contradictory thoughts, say one thing, do another and so on and so on, anxious, fearful, sorrow, all that, that’s the fact. Now, can a mind which is so confused, seeking… can the mind… can such a human being have a mind that’s empty? It can’t.
DIS: When I’m listening to you, when I’m actually…
K: Paying attention.
DIS: …attention to you, there doesn’t seem to be anything in the mind.
K: No, because the speaker makes things very clear.
K: He acts as a mirror in which you are seeing yourself.
DIS: Quite right.
K: When you are seeing yourself, obviously there is nothing in your mind.
DIS: Sir, if I was listening, say, to Beethoven’s fifth symphony, isn’t the state of mind a similar state?
K: Not quite. There, music, Beethoven or Mozart or whoever you like, by his music he is pushing away from you all the turmoil. You are for the moment… it’s like, sir, may I say…
DIS: Swimming in sound.
K: Yes. May I say, it’s like a child who is naughty and give him an excellent toy, complicated toy, for about an hour he’ll be very quiet because the toy has absorbed him.
DIS: And the music absorbs me.
K: Here, on the contrary, he says, ‘Don’t be absorbed by the speaker.’
DIS: You are really absorbed in the sense by your going with what is being…
K: You are listening attentively. See, in that state you are not being absorbed by anything; you are listening.
DIS: Thank you.
K: Ah, wait a minute, sir. In the same way you can say, ‘I’m listening to music.’
DIS: No, but I’m absorbed in that; I see the difference.
K: And there is pleasure in it.
DIS: Yes; oh, yes.
K: There is a remembrance.
DIS: Yes, that’s right.
K: There is a sense of association of the various notes, various… the silence between notes and so on and so on; there’s a very… But I think here, when you are listening to the speaker, to K, K says, ‘Listen.’ Don’t… there is no authority here; this is not a toy are you playing with; this is not something acting as a drug or a stimulant. You are participating, sharing in a very deep problem; therefore you are observing, you are looking, you are listening; you are involved totally in what you are doing.
DIS: Is this state, this…
DIS: …attentive state, which is open too, because it’s not closed on anything; it has no border, no periphery.
K: No, no; because attention implies, as we said earlier, there is no centre from which you attend.
K: Moment you have a centre from which you attend, there is a periphery, there is a circumference.
DIS: Of course… (inaudible); yes.
K: That periphery, that circumference may be hundred miles or little space, but there is always a centre.
DIS: The measuring point from here to that to meet with; sure.
K: From here to there; yes.
DIS: But now, all this attention, this… it takes… it’s a kind of… it almost seems to me like it might be the source of energy, attention.
K: Attention is the summation of all energy.
DIS: So the still mind, the mind that is attentive, the mind that is listening to itself or to you or to the world…
K: An attentive mind which has gathered all its energy – right? – when it has gathered all energy there is no fragmentation then.
K: It’s only when there is fragmentation there is the dissipation of energy.
DIS: Would you then call this the source of creation? Is this the source of creativity?
K: Oh… that word creative, that’s another… (inaudible).
DIS: I don’t mean in the ordinary sense of… Is this stillness, the gathering of energy, but therefore it must be the source of… of action, then.
K: No, sir, don’t… again…
K: You see, difficult word like action, creation. Most people act according to a pattern…
DIS: Of course.
K: …or according to an ideal, or according to a motive which they have, and the motive is put together by thought, therefore their action is fragmentary. Now, it all… what do you mean by silent? You can cultivate silence by saying, ‘I’ll be silent for an hour’, forcing yourself, making an effort not allow thought to wander all over the place, which is concentration. That is… all that is not silence, because that silence is the product of thought.
DIS: The silence we’re talking about then is the silence that comes with the being when there is real attentive interest in whatever is occurring.
K: Yes; or would you say: when the mind is not occupied?
DIS: Yes, I would.
K: When the mind is not occupied with anything.
DIS: But it is very concerned about being not occupied with anything.
K: Ah, no; then if you are concerned not being occupied, then it is off again.
K: But see that only an unoccupied mind can see things clearly.
DIS: Absolutely clear; yes.
K: So an unoccupied mind is really a silent mind, but that silence has tremendous significance. It is not… because in that silence there is no measure; it isn’t a continuous silence or a superficial silence because thought has not brought it. Right? So it is has tremendous meaning to it.
DIS: Could this state be called one in which is not the outcome of a reaction to anything, nor does it create a reaction?
K: Oh, no; no, no. Moment I have a reaction, it’s the other form of conditioning…
DIS: Of course.
K: …another form of conditioning. I react to capitalism, suppose; then I fall into the trap of another conditioning. So to observe without reaction, which we went into at the beginning…
DIS: (Inaudible). To observe without reaction then implies…
K: To observe without the me, without the centre.
DIS: Without the past.
K: Without all the… you know, all that. So to observe oneself; and that observation is only possible in the mirror of relationship.
DIS: Then, sir, this brings us to the crucial aspect. Could we then say that awareness, the measureless state of attention, is that love? I’m not changing your word to…
K: No, I… Don’t… Sir, would you say love…?
DIS: It’s a form of energy.
K: No, no. What is love now in the present-day world, actual?
DIS: How I feel.
K: How you feel, pleasure, sex, sensation; I love champagne; I love God; I love this; all the rest of it; jealousy, anxiety, fear is involved in what we call love. Surely pleasure and desire and pursuit of desire and a mind that’s frightened is not love. So can the mind… can a human being, living daily, free himself from all that? If he can’t, there is no love. He may talk about it; he may write endlessly novels about love, boy meeting the girl, and marvellous scenes and conversations and dialogues, but that’s not love.
DIS: This (inaudible) when I’m attending, when I’m listening, when I’m watching…
K: In that there is care.
DIS: Tremendous care.
K: Tremendous care. Care implies tenderness; sense of, I’m caring, I care… there is a sense of… I care for the plant; that means I’ll protect it – put… give it enough water, enough sunshine – I protect it. In the same way, if I care for one’s daughter or son, I have to care not just when they are little babies, but for the rest of one’s life; which means how they behave, how they talk, how they are educated, what education means – all that’s implied. Now they care for the babies very much and then throw them to the wolves afterwards. If you have an insight into all this and being… insight implies freedom from all this…
K: …then naturally you have love, you have compassion. Compassion…
DIS: Are you saying one follows the other or are they the… is the insight…?
K: No, not a sequential…
K: I mean, if you see it instantly the whole thing drops away, which very few people can do, because they cling to their own little pleasures and all the rest of it, attachments to all that. But if you see the whole structure of thought and what it does, the inwardness as well as the outwardness of thought and then… drops, you have an insight; it’s gone.
DIS: The whole real movement then is actually to see what is, whether it’s false or true or made up by the mind or made up by…
K: Surely; surely; but… surely; that’s very simple. Everything that thought has created is reality. The chair, but not nature. The chair made out of the tree; the tree is not put together by thought.
DIS: You’re making a distinction then between reality and fact or truth…
K: No, no…
DIS: …reality and truth.
K: That’s right; that’s right. Truth is… exists only when there is freedom of insight… insight brings freedom from all the turmoil which thought has created. It’s only then there is truth. Not I’m angry, jealous, furious, ambitious and all the rest of it, and I search for truth. It’s sheer nonsense.
DIS: Yes… (inaudible). So the source of the energy of this…
K: Sir, there is the energy of thought.
DIS: Right. There are two energies, aren’t there?
K: We’ll go into it. Energy of thought.
DIS: Yes, there is the energy… thinking stirs you up to all sorts of… (inaudible).
K: Look, all the dynamos in the world and the going up to the moon.
K: Tremendous energy.
DIS: Yes, that’s right. That’s… (inaudible).
K: Behind that energy there is a motive of profit, the motive of patriotism and Americanism or Japanese or British or whatever it is. Surely, sir, there is only energy, not two types of energy. Energy, which thought creates. Thought is part of that energy, but thought says, ‘I’m going to capture the world. I’m going to understand the universe. I am going to find truth.’
DIS: Then you’d say the energy of stillness is actually greater than the energy of action in the ordinary sense of activity?
K: No, no; the energy of… there is energy.
K: Thought, which is also a part of this energy, thought has, if one can put it, has limited itself. That’s right; has made itself a fragment.
DIS: And then acts on the fragment.
K: Acts according to the fragment – as a British, as a Catholic, Protestant, all the rest of that nonsense. But it’s still part of that energy. So when thought has its right place, there is no conflict in thought; therefore there is an energy which is entirely different than the energy of… which thought has limited for itself. Is this clear? (Inaudible).
DIS: Could one say then that awareness, being aware is the source, the gathering of energy, therefore in a sense the source of energy?
K: No, sir; no, no, no. Look, sir, there is energy.
K: That tree is part of this energy. The whole universe is part of this energy. Thought, through memory, experience… No. Experience, knowledge, memory, which is stored in the brain has… which becomes the thought, has fragmented itself.
DIS: Kind of stored energy in a way.
K: No, fragmented, broken away…
DIS: Yes, of course broken away.
K: …limited itself, and that limited energy says, ‘I am going to conquer the world’…
K: …but it’s limited. When that limitation ends, it is energy. When there is no longer a fragmentation and therefore there is the whole energy, there is no… from that holistic or… the whole energy operates in daily life, if we can allow it.
DIS: Yes. So it’s really just the observing, seeing, being…
K: Ah, no, no… Observing; observing the movement of thought, and observing how terribly limited it is…
DIS: That’s it.
K: …and how thought has fragmented the world – ‘You and me, we and they.’ You follow? The whole… God and devil and the archangels and the Christs and the bishops and the… it’s all a movement of thought, therefore it’s all a matter… all… thought is matter…
DIS: Of course.
K: …because it’s stored up in the brain cells…
DIS: (Inaudible)… of the brain.
K: (Inaudible)… so it’s all matter.
K: So whatever thought creates is nothing but fragmentary matter.
DIS: False; just false.
K: So there is nothing spiritual about it, if I can use that word spiritual in the sense…
DIS: Pure energy.
K: The things thought has created are not sacred, but thought has created the cross or the symbol of Hindus or Buddhists and say that is sacred.
DIS: Yes. Why is it assumed, why has thought assumed that there is another state? Why does it dream…?
K: Another state because it knows very well this thought is very, very fluid, flexible, and there is no security in it.
K: So thought invents security as God, as Christ or whatever it likes…
DIS: The state.
K: …the state, the ideal, and in that it hopes to find security. And that security as neurotic as the other.
K: Right, sir.
DIS: Then the movement of energy has no security.
K: Of course… there is energy. There is no question of seeking security. Therefore love and compassion is… in that there is no security. It’s a summation of all energy. I think we’d better stop there. It’s a good ending, so we’ll stop there.
Krishnamurti in Ojai, 14 April 1977