Give it a thumb 
subscribe BROCKWOOD PARK - 1ST PUBLIC DIALOGUE - 30TH AUGUST 1977
Q: The latter.
K: Which is, question and answer?
Q: No dialogue.
Q: A few people talking.
K: You want a few people talking? Now, who is going to choose the few people? If I choose, or if somebody else chooses, you will consider there are our favourites.
Q: Let those who wish come forward and be part of the dialogue.
Q: Questions and answers are the simplest.
K: Question and answer: would you like that?
So would you like a question and answer meeting? Or a dialogue between two or three people? And you choose those two or three people - not the speaker but somebody.
Q: Play it by ear.
K: How do you do that?
Can we start off, if I may suggest, with a question and answer meeting, and then see how that works out. And then out of the questions and answers we will find who can really have a dialogue, who can exchange, who can say, look, I don't understand, what do you mean by that? Let us talk about it much more so that there is a conversation between the speaker and yourself. Can we try that? Question and answer first, then a dialogue - that is, a conversation between two or three people. We will see how this works out.
Just a minute: before you put questions please, we are asking questions affecting our life, our daily life. How to bring about, or rather, is it possible to bring about a radical transformation in our daily existence, in our consciousness, a radical change in our whole way of thinking, looking, observing, acting? That is what we are concerned with. And if you ask questions, hypothetical questions, or theoretical questions I am afraid I won't answer. That is fairly simple and clear. Please ask questions directly concerning yourself because you are the rest of the humanity, and if you want to find out how to resolve your problems, how to look at life as a totally different thing, from that ask questions, then it is worthwhile. But if you discuss, ask questions which are not actual, factual but theoretical then I am afraid, at least I won't be able to answer them.
Q: I see that there is a common thing amongst us all the time. And I can't see it, I can't hear it, but I think there is something. Can you tell us what it is about?
K: What is the problem, sir?
Q: That there is something common amongst all human beings, what is that?
K: We have explained very carefully during these talks, and in the past, that wherever you go in the world human beings are caught in a trap of sorrow, misery, confusion, uncertainty, disorder and so on and so on. That is the common factor of all human beings living on this unfortunate earth.
Q: Do you see that the psychological fear, greed and violence in each one of us is a direct transformation of the physical violence through the other senses for profit and food? Or in other words, killing animals is a prime cause of our misery?
K: I haven't understood. Killing animals...
Q: ...for the food and profit.
K: What is the question sir.
Q: Do you think that the psychological fear, greed and violence in each one of us is a direct transformation of physical violence over the centuries?
K: Oh, I see. Biologists and others have said that in the process of evolution we are the result of the animal and so on. The animals are violent, therefore we have inherited that violence. Now what is the question? The question is, whether human beings can be free of that violence.
Q: That's right.
K: Are we really concerned about it? And that is a matter of daily occupation that you really deeply, profoundly seriously - there is an urge to be free of that? Just a minute sir. That is the question I am asking. If it is, then let's talk about it. Otherwise if you say, "Well theoretically I would like to be free but I am going to kill animals all the same", then it has no meaning.
So what is violence? How does violence arise? And there is not only physical violence, hitting each other, throwing bombs at each other, killing each other, but also there are various forms of violence. It is violence when human beings are in conflict psychologically. That is a form of violence, surely? It is another form of violence when we imitate, when we conform, when we follow - all those are indications, like being angry and so on, are a form of violence. Right? So when we talk about violence we are not only talking about psychological factors of violence but also the physical actions of violence - hitting each other, throwing bombs at each other and so on and so on. The terrorists, the totalitarian states which suppress people - all that is a form of violence. Right?
Now is it possible to be free of that violence, psychologically? Let's begin psychologically, not physically. We are saying is it possible? It is only possible, isn't it, when you can come face to face with it and deal with it - not have theories, ideals of non-violence and all the rest of it. Right? That is an escape from the fact. I want to be free from violence, therefore there must be an awareness of all the factors of violence, and observe them, not run away from them, not say, "I must change them", "I must become non-violent". In becoming non-violent you are in conflict. Right? Because you are violent and you want to become non-violent and therefore you make an effort and that very effort is a form of violence. Can we go on from there?
So is it possible to be free of violence and look at the whole issue, the complex problem of violence, psychologically? Which means, are we imitating, conforming, adjusting ourselves to a pattern which we or others have established for us? All those are symptoms of violence, like anger, hatred, jealousy. Now can we remain with that factor of violence and be aware choicelessly of the whole structure of violence? Will you do it? Are you doing it now? Are you doing it, sir, the questioner? Is the questioner, who put that question, is he doing it? Or is it just a theory about violence? Where there is division between man and man, woman and man, and so on there must be conflict, which is a form of violence. Nationalism and so on are a form of violence. Obviously. When there are two dogmatic beliefs, each trying to convert each other, oppose each other, it is a form of violence. So are we aware of this factor in our life? And when you become aware of it what are you going to do? Do you say, "Yes, I am aware of it" but carry on with violence? Therefore it becomes a very serious matter. If one is really to be free of violence, to look at it, to live with it, to understand it, to go into it and see all the multiple forms of violence, totally to be acquainted with it - and when you are acquainted with something it flowers and then it withers away, you don't have to fight it. Will you do it?
Q: Are you saying that we become violent to understand it?
K: We are not saying we become violent - we are violent!
Q: What do you mean by flowering?
K: Sir, look: I am violent. I observe it. Because I don't run away from it, I don't suppress it, I don't transform it into something else as non-violence, which is absurd - the transformation of violence in to non-violence is stupidity, it has no meaning. So as I am violent, I let it come out - not in action. Let it flower, let it grow, as you watch it, it grows and dies. Haven't you done all this? That is sir, when you are angry, at that moment of anger you are not aware, you are full out. Then a second later you say, "I have been angry". Right? So you have divided yourself as not being angry and that you have been angry. So there is a division between the observer who says, "I have been angry, and I must not be angry". Right? So the division brings about conflict, saying "I mustn't be angry, how am I to get rid of my anger" - and so on and so on. Whereas if you are aware of anger as it arises and let it come out non-verbally, non-actively, not say, "I am going to hit you" - let it flower, let it come out, and you will see it disappears very quickly and withers away. And if you do it properly you are never angry again, finished.
Q: Can you do the same thing with fear?
K: Same thing with fear.
Q: Sir, when you say you should observe the totality of yourself, I find that very hard to do because I can only see what is coming up in the present moment. Now is that the totality of myself? Or is it the whole feelings, the whole of the mental consciousness?
K: Sir, now let's go into that, shall we? Is it possible to be totally aware of the whole content of one's consciousness? That is the question, isn't it? Have I misunderstood the question?
Q: In one moment.
K: I am coming to that. First I am asking if I am telling you what the questioner is saying accurately? The questioner is asking whether it is possible to see the whole of the content of consciousness at one perception and to be totally aware of the whole thing? Is it possible when you have lived a partial life all the time? Right? You look at life partially, don't you? You are a business man, you are a doctor, you are a politician, you are a scientist, you are an artist, you are a writer, you are a labourer, a woman and so on. Those are all divided parts, aren't they? And our whole conditioning is to look at life in parts. Right? Are you following this? In parts. Therefore our conditioning is going to prevent seeing the totality, the whole of consciousness at one instant. So our concern then is not how to observe the totality of consciousness, but why does the mind, or the brain observe partially? Why is the brain not capable of observing the total affair? The brain has been conditioned through millenia to look at life partially. Right? That is clear, isn't it? You are all looking at life in fragments. Then my concern is - if I have a concern about it - our concern then is why does the mind or the brain observe in fragments? Right? Why?
Q: What do you mean by observing in fragments?
K: Don't we live that way? In the office I am brutal, ambitious, I want success, I am ruthless. At home - I come home and say, "Darling, how are you?"
Q: Sir that seems almost optional. Whereas society seems to demand that we become more specialized.
K: Yes. Society demands that we become more specialized, which is fragmentation. Society demands it because they need more engineers and so on and so on. But psychologically we are asking why does the brain function in fragments? As we were saying, it has been conditioned that way for millenia. Now is it possible to be free of that conditioning? Not how to look at the totality, but to be free of the conditioning as a nationalist, Arab, Jew, specialist, doctor and so on? To take life as a whole. Because there is security in fragments - in fragmentation both physiologically as well as psychologically, that is obvious, isn't it? No? I specialize in becoming a guru - and I find in that specialization a great deal of security - both physical as well as psychologically. I specialize as a doctor, as an engineer, as a businessman, as a priest, as a salesman, whatever you like, in that fragmentation of life, in the fragments there is a great deal of security. And the brain and all the structure of the brain demands security. So it has found security in a fragment. Now is there security in a fragment? Follow it up please. Is there security in division - as a Hindu, as a Muslim, as a Christian, as an Arab, as a Jew, or in a specialized career? Is there security? That is for you to answer. I can't answer. If there is no security, and to find out that there is no security is the beginning of intelligence, isn't it? To say there is security in being a Communist or a Catholic - I am taking those two as an example - if I am a Catholic, in a Catholic country I feel very safe. Psychologically I believe and all the rest of it. In that belief, in that conditioning there is security. And in the same way if I am a Communist, theoretically I believe in certain concepts of society, in the power of the State and so on and so on, control, and in believing that there is a great deal of security.
So one has to find out if there is security in division. Right? However profitable, however pleasurable, however comforting, is there security in division, which is fragmentation? Obviously not. Now to find out that, to find out that there is no security in fragmentation is the beginning of intelligence. It is only the unintelligent who accept division and live in that division. Right?
Q: Sir, if we are serious people, can the skill you spoke of...
K: Ah, wait. We haven't finished this question? This is a very complex question, it is not just a couple of minutes. We live a fragmentary life. The essence of fragmentation is the 'me'. Right? The 'me' and the 'you', 'we' and 'they'. That is the essence of fragmentation. And we have lived that way, we are educated that way, we are conditioned to that, because in that there is tremendous idea or illusion that there is security. Now to be free of that requires a great deal of observation, living with the idea that I am really functioning in fragmentation and where there is fragmentation there must be conflict, and therefore the importance given to the 'me'. That is all.
So can you, can one be free of the fragmentary way of living daily?
Q: Sir, there seems to be no security in fragmentation, the fragmentation seems to continue as habit.
K: But it is habit. Now, all right sir. It doesn't matter if it is habit. All right if it is habit can you be free of that habit - habit being conditioning? Otherwise we live in constant battle with each other, however intimate we are with each other, husband and wife and so on, there must be constant conflict and that is why so many families break up - you know all the rest of it.
So we are asking: to observe the totality of consciousness is only possible when there is no fragmentary existence, then you see the whole thing at once. We are all so used to analysis, which is the continuation of fragmentation.
Q: Sir, doesn't that mean the whole of the consciousness is nothing?
K: The whole of consciousness first of all is its content, isn't it? Its content makes up consciousness - anger, jealousy, hatred, the innumerable hurts we have, nationalities, beliefs, conclusions, hopes, all that is our consciousness. Is it possible to be aware of all this, not bit by bit, but totally? And then to go beyond it, which means to be free of the content and see what happens. But nobody wants to try that!
Q: It seems impossible.
Q: Would you say to try that without compassion would have no real meaning in the transformation of mankind?
K: I don't quite follow.
Q: Well I will try and make it clearer if I can. You spoke on Saturday of three things: compassion, clarity and skill. You have shown us very clearly how skill comes into operation from clarity and compassion comes in from...
K: Yes, yes sir.
Q: Now how do we bring in compassion if we haven't got compassion? If compassion has not brought us to this tent today then what is the point of being here? My question to you was this: if we get this consciousness that you have talked about, if there is no compassion what is the point?
K: If there is no compassion?
Q: If man has no compassion.
K: Quite right sir. There is no point.
Q: It is fundamental that man hasn't got compassion.
K: Quite right. Man has not got compassion. Why?
Q: That is the question.
K: No, go into it sir. Why as a human being, you or I or another, who is the essence of all humanity - right sir? - psychologically he is the essence of all humanity, therefore when you are aware of yourself you are representing the whole of mankind. And you or another has no compassion - why?
Q: One of the problems is the feeling that our problems are our personal problems.
K: Our problems are not personal, it is universal.
Q: One of the factors that prevents compassion is this feeling that it is my problem.
K: No, we are trying to find out sir why have human beings who are so evolved technologically to such enormous extent, why have they not got this simple factor which is so intelligent, why have they not got compassion - why?
Q: Perhaps they are too busy.
K: No, don't answer it. Find out why you as a human being, living on this earth, which is meant for all human beings to live happily, why haven't you compassion? You - not somebody else.
Q: Sir I am too frightened.
K: Madam, that is too quick an answer, you haven't gone into it.
Q: Because I am greedy, because I want too much.
Q: You will have compassion when you see yourself...
K: You haven't even investigated, you haven't even looked for a couple of seconds at yourself and asked yourself why you haven't got compassion. You are already answering, throwing out words. That may be your defence. Why have you, with all your experiences, with all your knowledge, with all the civilization that you have behind you of which you are the result, why doesn't this thing exist in your daily life?
Q: Because of self preservation?
K: Is it a question of self preservation? To find out why you haven't got it, why it doesn't exist in the human heart and mind and outlook, don't you ask also the question: do you love anybody?
Q: That is a mean question, I mean for me. I wonder sir what love is all about.
K: I am asking you sir, please sir. I am asking you most respectfully, whether you love anybody at all? You may love your dog but the dog is your slave. Apart from animals and buildings and books and poetry and the love of the land, do you love anybody - which means not asking anything in return? Right?
Q: (Inaudible)
K: Just listen sir. Find out! Not asking anything from that person you love, not dependent on that person at all. Because if you are dependent then fear begins, jealousy, anxiety, hatred, anger. And if you are attached to somebody is that love? Find out! And if all that is not love - I am just asking, I don't say it is, or it is not - if all that is not love then how can you have compassion? We are asking for something much more than love. And even love we haven't got - just the ordinary love for another human being.
So what shall we do? We can go on discussing, answering this question, umpteen times, but if you, the listener, don't listen, take it in, find out, then it becomes utterly meaningless to have a dialogue, or a discussion, or a question and answer meeting when you are not actively participating in the enquiry.
Q: How do you find that love?
K: I don't want to find that love. All that I want to do is to remove that which is not love, to be free of jealousy, attachment.
Q: That means we should have no fragmentation.
K: Sir that is just theory. You see you are going back again to theory. Find out if you love somebody.
Q: (Inaudible)
K: You haven't listened madam, you haven't listened to what the speaker has been saying. How can you love when you are concerned about yourself? Right? Your problems, your ambitions, your desire for success, your desire for all the rest of it. You first and the other second; or the other first and you second. It is the same thing.
Q: I would like to know whether it is possible to look at a feeling without bringing in thought.
K: We haven't finished this question madam.
Now you see we have asked so many questions, now how can we have a dialogue about this, two people - you understand? Two or three people, sitting round here, all of you can sit on this platform with me, if you want to discuss, have a dialogue. Can we do that now? Two of you, or half a dozen of you sit here together and say, "Look, let's go into this. Why am I, I understand this verbally, that love cannot exist when there is jealousy, love cannot exist when there is attachment, now is it possible for me to be free of attachment?" That is a dialogue - then I will have a dialogue with myself, shall I, and you listen?
Q: From the moment of conception up to the moment of being brought up, trained, people are selfish and they never learn to give. From the mother's womb up to being thrown into the world...
K: We are saying that sir. I will have a conversation with myself, a dialogue with myself.
I realize by listening to this that I don't love. That is a fact. I am not going to deceive myself. I am not going to pretend to my wife that I love her, or to the woman or the girl, or boy. Now first of all I don't know what love is. But I do know that I am jealous, I do know that I am terribly attached to her. And in that attachment there is fear, there is jealousy, there is anxiety, there is a sense of dependency, I don't like to depend but I depend because I am lonely and I'm shoved around by society, in the office, in the factory and I come home and I want to feel comfort, companionship, escape from myself. So I am dependent, attached to that person. Now how am I - I am asking myself - how am I to be free of this attachment, not knowing what love is, I won't pretend - love of god, love of Jesus, love of Krishna, all that nonsense, throw it all out - if I have thrown it all out. So I am saying: how am I to be free of this attachment? I am taking that just as an example.
First of all I won't run away from it. Right? I don't know how it is going to end up with my wife. You understand? When I am really detached from her my relationship may change to her. She might be attached to me and I might not be attached to her or to any other woman. Please, you understand? It isn't that I want to be detached from her and join another woman. That is silly. I am having a dialogue with myself. So what shall I do? I won't run away from the consequence of being totally free of all attachment. I am going to investigate. I don't know what love is, but I see very clearly, definitely, without any doubt, that attachment to that person means fear, anxiety, jealousy, possession, all the rest of it. So I ask myself, how am I to be free of attachment? Not the method, I want the freedom from it. I don't know. I really don't know.
So I begin to enquire. Then I get caught in a system. You understand? You are following this? I get caught in some guru who says, "I will help you to be detached, do this, this, this. Practise this, this". And I want to be free from it and I accept what the silly man says because I see the importance of being free, and he promises me that if I do this I will have a reward. So I want to be free in order to have a reward. You understand? I am looking for a reward. So I say, how silly I am. I want to be free and I get attached to the reward. You are following all this? Good! At last! I think I had better have a dialogue all the time with myself!
So I represent the rest of humanity - and I really mean it - therefore if I am having a dialogue with myself I am in tears - you understand? Not like you, smiling. It is a passion for me.
So I don't want to be attached and yet I find myself getting attached to an idea. You understand? That is, I must be free and somebody, or some book, or some idea, something says "Do this and you will have that." So the reward becomes my attachment - you follow? So I say, "Look what I have done. Be careful, don't get caught in that trap." Whether it is a woman or an idea it is still attachment. So I am very watchful now. I have learned something. That is, exchange for something else is still attachment - right? So I am very watchful. Then I say to myself, is there a way, or what am I to do to be free of attachment? What is my motive? Why do I want to be free from attachment? Because it is painful? Because I want to achieve a state where there is no attachment, no fear, no etc.etc? What is my motive? Please follow me because I am representing you. What is my motive in wanting to be free? And I suddenly realize a motive gives a direction. Right? And that direction will dictate my freedom. Are you following this? So why do I have a motive? What is motive? A motive is a movement, a hope, or to achieve something. So the motive is my attachment. I wonder if you are following all this. Do it sir as we are talking. The motive has become my attachment, not only the woman, the idea of a goal, but my motive; I must have that. So I am all the time functioning within the field of attachment. Right? The woman, the future and the motive - to all this I am attached. So I say "Oh, my god, it is a tremendously complex thing. I didn't realize that to be free of attachment implies all this." Right?
Now, I see this as clearly as I see on a map the roads, the villages, the side roads, the main roads, very clearly. Then I say to myself: "Now, is it possible for me to be free of my motive, to which I am attached, to be free of the woman for whom I have great attachment, and also the reward which I am going to get when I am free?" To all this I am attached. Why? Is it that I am insufficient in myself? Is it that I am very, very lonely, therefore escape from that feeling of that extraordinary sense of isolation and therefore cling to something, man, woman, idea, motive? Hold on to something. Now is it I am lonely? I am taking that. Is it I am lonely? Therefore I am escaping from that feeling of extraordinary isolation, through attachment of another. Right? So I am not interested in attachment at all. I am interested in understanding why I am lonely, which makes me attached. You have understood? You are following me - my dialogue with myself? Which is: I am lonely, and that loneliness has forced me to escape through attachment to this or to that. Now I say as long as I am lonely, all the sequence is this. So I must investigate why I am lonely. What does it mean? Right? What does it mean to be lonely? How does it come about? Is it instinctual, inbred, heredity, or is it my daily activity that is bringing about this loneliness? You understand? I am going into it. I am having a dialogue with myself.
If it is inherited, if it is an instinct, which I question because I accept nothing - you understand? - I accept nothing because I don't accept it is instinct and say "I can't help it". If it is heredity, I am not to blame. As I don't accept any of these things I say, "Why is there this loneliness?" Now I question it and remain with the question, not try to find an answer. I wonder if you understand this? Is somebody following all this? I have asked myself what is the root of this loneliness; and I am watching, I am not trying to find an intellectual answer; I am not trying to tell the loneliness what it should do, or what it is. I am watching it for it to tell me. I wonder if you understand this? Are we going along together somewhat?
So there is a watchfulness for the loneliness to reveal itself. It won't reveal if I run away, if I am frightened, if I resist it. So I watch it. I watch it so that no thought interferes because this is much more important than thought coming in, because my whole energy is concerned with the observation of that loneliness therefore thought doesn't come in at all. Are you following this? Because the mind is being challenged and it must answer. And when you are challenged it is a crisis. And in a crisis you have got all the energy, and that energy remains without being interfered with. I wonder if you follow all this? Because this is a challenge which must be answered.
Q: How can we hang on to that energy? How can we do something about this energy?
K: It has come. You have lost the whole thing.
Look: I have started out having a dialogue with myself. I said what is this strange thing called love. Everybody talks about it, writes about it: romantic poems, pictures and all the rest of it, sex and whole areas of it. And I say have I got this thing called love? Is there such a thing as love? I see love doesn't exist when there is jealousy, hatred, fear. So I am not concerned with love any more; I am concerned with 'what is', which is: my fear, attachment. And why am I attached? I say maybe one of the reasons is - one of the reason, I don't say that is the whole reason - one of the reasons is that I am lonely, desperately isolated. The older I grow the more isolation. So I watch it. This is a challenge to find out, because it is a challenge all energy is there to respond. That is simple, isn't it? When there is death in the family, it is a challenge. If there is some catastrophe, an accident or whatever it is, it is a challenge and you have the energy to meet it. You don't say, "Where do you get this energy?" When your house is on fire you have the energy to move. You have extraordinary energy. You don't sit back and say, "Well I must get this energy" and then wait. And the whole house will be burnt then.
So there is this tremendous energy to answer this question: why is there this loneliness? Because I have rejected other ideas - you follow? - suppositions, theories, that I have inherited it, it is instinct. All that means nothing to me. It is 'what is'. So why am I lonely - not I - why is there this loneliness which every human being, if he is at all aware, goes through, superficially or most profoundly? And why? Why does this come into being? Is it the mind is doing something which is bringing it? You understand? If I have rejected theories, instinct, inheritance, I have rejected all that; therefore I am asking does the mind bring this about? You understand my question sir, or are you getting tired?
Is the mind doing this? Loneliness means total isolation. Right? So I say, is the mind, the brain doing this? The mind which is partly the movement of thought, is thought doing this? You are following all this? Thought in daily life, is it creating, bringing about this sense of isolation? You understand? Which is, in the office I am isolating myself because I want to become bigger, become the executive, or the pope or the bishop - you know. Therefore it is working all the time isolating itself. Are you watching this? You understand sir?
Q: I think it isolates itself in relation to how crowded it is.
K: Yes.
Q: As a reaction.
K: Yes, that is right, sir, that is right. I want to go into this. So I see thought, the mind, is all the time operating to make itself superior, more, working itself to this isolation, towards this isolation. Right? Clear?
So the problem then is: why does thought do this? Is it the nature of thought to work for itself? You understand what I mean? Is it the nature of thought to create this isolation? Does society create this isolation? Does education create this isolation? Right? Education does bring about this isolation - it gives me a certain career, a certain specialization, so it is isolation. You follow? So thought, being fragmentary, because I have found that - I have found that thought, which is the response of the past as knowledge, experience and memory, so thought is limited. Right? Thought is time-binding. So thought is doing this. So my concern then is why does thought do it? Is it in its very nature to do this?
I came here for a discussion - wait sir - I came here for a discussion, dialogue. Now I am having a dialogue by myself. Too bad! I'll go on because look what it is leading me up to - leading.
Q: This is the fourth time I have stood up to say something and you are saying that you are having a dialogue by yourself. This is silly!
K: But sir are you telling me - please sir, are you having a dialogue with me?
Q: Well I have something to say which I thought related to what you were saying.
K: Are you having a dialogue with me?
Q: I don't know.
K: We said sir, please, we said that a dialogue implies conversation between two people. Are you and I conversing together about the same thing?
Q: Well we can't be because every time I have something to say...
K: I am asking you sir, not the others, I am asking you are we having a dialogue between you and me about this thing? Which is: why does thought create this isolation, if it does?
Q: I want to do that. Because I thought that it came back to the beginning when you were talking about what is love. If there is a moral obligation to love a person at all costs, as there is in my family, it is an affectation. And affectation as love is nobody showing their true feelings, people are masking their violence by politeness which they call love. Therefore what is really inside is being hidden all the time and therefore thought must be deceptive, must lead to isolation because nobody knows what anybody else is feeling because of all the pretence.
K: We have been through that sir. We are coming to the point when we are not pretending. I don't know what love is. We said in the dialogue that we don't know what love is. I know when we use that word 'love' there is a certain pretence, a certain hypocrisy, putting on a certain type of mask. We have been through all that. At the beginning of this dialogue we went into all that. So we come to the point now: why does thought, being a fragment, why does it bring about this isolation, if it does? I have found it does in my conversation with myself because thought is limited, thought is time-binding, therefore whatever it does must be limited. And in that limitation it has found security. It has found security in saying, "I have a special career in my life". It has found security in saying, "I am a professor. There I am perfectly safe. After seven years." - and there you are stuck for the rest of your life. And there is great security both psychologically as well as factual.
So thought is doing this. Now the problem then is: can thought realize - please listen to this - can thought realize that it is limited and therefore the moment it understands that whatever it does is limited and therefore fragmentary and therefore isolating, whatever it does will be this. Therefore can thought - please I am having a dialogue, this is a very important point - can thought realize its own limitations? Or does thought say to itself, I am limited. You understand the difference? Are you all asleep? Thought being me - do I say, thought is limited and therefore it says, "I am limited". Or thought itself realizes I am limited. The two things are entirely different. One is an imposition, and therefore conflict, whereas when thought itself says "I am limited" it won't move away from that limitation. Please this is very important to understand because this is the real essence of this thing. We are imposing on thought what it should do. Thought has created the 'we', the 'me', and thought and the 'me' have separated itself from thought and says, I will dictate, tell what thought should do. But if thought realizes itself that it is limited then there is no resistance, no conflict, it says "I am that. I am blue".
So does thought - in my dialogue with myself, I am asking - does thought realize this itself? Or am I telling it that it is limited? If I am telling it that it is limited then I become separate from the limitations. Then I struggle to overcome the limitation, therefore there is conflict, which is violence, which is not love. Are you following?
So does thought realize itself that it is limited? I have to find out. I am being challenged. I have got energy now, because I am challenged I have got all energy. Does consciousness - put it differently - does consciousness realize its content? Does consciousness realize its content is itself? Or I have heard another say, "Consciousness is its content, its content makes up consciousness"? Therefore you say, "Yes it is so" - you follow? Or does consciousness, my consciousness, this consciousness realize its content and therefore its very content is the totality of my consciousness? Right? Do you see the difference in the two? The one imposed by me, the 'me' created by thought, then if I impose something on thought then there is conflict. Right? It is like a tyrannical government imposing on someone, but the government is what I have created.
So we are asking: has thought realized its own littleness, its own pettiness, its own limitations; or is it pretending to be something extraordinary, noble? - you know, all the rest of it - divine? - which is nonsense because thought is memory, experience, remembrance. So I must, in my dialogue there must be clarity about this point: that there is no outside influence imposing on thought saying it is limited. So thought then because there is no imposition - you understand - there is no conflict, therefore it realizes it is limited. Therefore whatever it does - its worship of god, its worship of Jesus, its worship is limited, shoddy, petty, though it has created marvellous cathedrals throughout Europe.
So there has been in my conversation with myself a discovery that loneliness is created by thought. And thought has now realized itself that it is limited, so it cannot solve the problem of loneliness. You understand? As it cannot solve the problem of loneliness does loneliness exist? You understand my question? Thought has made this sense of loneliness. Right? And thought realizes that it is limited and because it is limited, fragmentary, divided, it has created this, this emptiness, loneliness, therefore when it realizes this, loneliness is not. I wonder if you see this? Right?
So therefore there is freedom from attachment. I have done nothing. You understand? I have watched it, the attachment, what is implied in attachment, greed, fear, loneliness, all that, and by tracing it, looking at it, observing it, not analysing it, examining, but just looking, looking, looking, and there is a discovery that thought has done all this. Right? Thought because it is fragmentary it has created this attachment. So when it realizes, attachment ceases. I wonder if you see this? There is no effort made at all, because the moment there is effort it is back again. You understand?
So we have said if there is love there is no attachment; if there is attachment there is no love. So there has been the removal of the major factor through negation of what it is not, which is, love is not attachment. You know what it means in your daily life - no remembrance of anything, my wife, my girl-friend, or my neighbour told me, no remembrance of any hurt, no image about her because I am attached to the image, not to her. I am attached to the image thought has created about her. She has hurt me, she has bullied me, she has given me comfort - I have had a pleasant time sexually, ten different things which are all the movement of thought, which has created the image, and it is the image I am attached to. So attachment has gone.
But there are other factors: fear, pleasure, comfort in that person, or in that idea. Now must I get through all these step by step, one by one, or all over? You understand my question? Must I go through, must I investigate as I have investigated attachment, fear? Must I investigate the desire for comfort? Must I observe why I seek comfort? Is it because I am insufficient, I want comfort, I want a comfortable chair therefore I want a comfortable woman - or a man, or whatever it is, a comfortable idea? I think most of us do. To have a comfortable, secure idea which can never be shaken, and to which I am deadly attached, and so anybody who says, nonsense to that I get angry, I get jealous, I get upset because he is shaking my house. So I say I don't have to go through all the investigation of all these various factors: I see it at one glance, I have captured it. You understand now?
So through negation of what is not love the other thing is. I don't have to ask what is love. I don't have to run after it. If I run after it, it is not love, it is a reward. So I have ended in that enquiry, slowly, carefully, without distortion, without illusion, I have negated everything that it is not - the other is.
Now, I have had a good dialogue with myself.
Q: May I ask a question? Maybe I didn't get it. Would you say that loneliness is created by experiencing loneliness?
K: I have explained all this Madam. Not that I have explained, I have had a dialogue with myself. If you have listened to it then you have got it.