J. Krishnamurti - Brockwood Park 1981 - Public Talk 2 - Looking at the whole content of...

K: I think there are better things
to photograph than the speaker.

One has to go over a little bit

what we were talking about
yesterday.

Perhaps there are some new people

and if you don’t mind,

we’ll go over briefly

what we talked about
last time that we met here.

We are not doing
any kind of propaganda,

nor trying to persuade you
to think in a particular direction,

nor asking you
to join anything,

but seeing what the world is,

the terrible mess it is in,

we ought,
if we are at all serious,

to look at the actualities
objectively,

with clarity,
without any personal prejudice.

We were saying
thought has been responsible

for the great calamities
of the world,

and also thought
has been responsible

for the good things of life,

like surgery, communication
and so on.

Thought has done great harm,

both in the world of technology
and in the world of religion.

Thought has invented
the tank, the submarine,

thought also invented
the computer.

It is being programmed and
will outstrip man in his thought.

Also, it has created, invented
all the religions in the world,

and the content of those temples
right throughout the world.

And there is nothing sacred
about thought,

but yet thought assumes
that what it has invented is sacred

and then begins to worship

that which it has created
as being sacred.

So, thought is worshipping itself.

It is a form of self-illusion
and self-worship.

We were saying yesterday
that thought is not,

can never be complete, whole,

because thought is based
on knowledge, experience, memory.

Without memory, without knowledge
there could be no thought,

we would be in a state of amnesia.

And thought, being partial

and therefore never complete,
never whole,

whatever it creates
must be partial, limited,

and whatever it conceives

as the supreme, as the immortal,
as the timeless,

must also be limited.

Thought has created all our problems
both outwardly and inwardly.

Psychologically,
we have a great many problems,

problems of relationship,
problems of fear, pleasure

and the enormous burden of sorrow,
not only the personal

but also the global
sorrow of mankind.

And where there is sorrow,
there cannot be love

or compassion,

which has its own intelligence.

We were saying yesterday
that we must, if we can,

think together about
the whole problem of existence.

Not according to the speaker or
to your own particular point of view

but observing what the world is,
that we human beings have created it

and we together
have to totally transform it.

It’s not one person’s problem.

It’s the problem or the issue
for all of us.

We cannot possibly
escape from it.

And we were saying, too,
that our consciousness,

which is the very structure
and nature of our being,

is the common ground
on which all humanity stands.

We said yesterday
that wherever you go,

whatever climate,
whatever the environment,

totalitarian or democratic,

man suffers,

man has carried the burden of fear,

is everlastingly pursuing pleasure.

And there is a great deal
of uncertainty, anxiety, confusion.

This is common to all mankind

whether they are brown, white,
pink or yellow or black,

this is the common ground
on which we all stand.

This is logical, rational, sane,
it’s so obvious.

But we are unwilling to face
that which is obvious, true,

because we are all thinking
in terms of individuality,

separate entities,
separate human beings.

But when one observes
psychologically, closely,

one sees that the consciousness
of each one of us

is similar to the consciousness
of the rest of mankind.

Where mankind suffers,

mankind goes
through a great many travails,

anxieties, depressions,
loneliness, confusion, misery,

like each of us.

So, we are
the rest of humanity.

Either you reject that entirely,

say we are all individuals,
inseparable,

or that may be an illusion

in which we have been educated

both religiously, socially, morally.

Or you observe actually,

without any prejudice,
without any conclusion,

the actuality of the common ground
on which every human being stands.

When and if you perceive that
in its entirety,

not only intellectually
but deep down in one’s heart,

then our problem is
not individual salvation

or individual problems

but the problem of humanity,
which is you,

and so we move away
from particular little problems

to a much greater problem.

What is the future of mankind

when the computer
takes over all our thinking,

as it will,

learns much quicker than we can,
corrects itself

and creates better machines
than the first one

which was put together by man
and so on?

Of course, the computer cannot love,
cannot look at the stars,

the beauty of an evening,

but the computer can work out
human problems much quicker,

and so what happens to man?

This is not a question
put by the speaker only,

it’s also being put
by all the so-called specialists

who are involved
in the computer business.

So, our consciousness
with all its content,

the beliefs, the dogmas,
the experiences, the rituals,

the democratic
and the totalitarian,

the symbols which we worship,
which have been created by thought,

the fears, the pleasures, the pain,
the loneliness, the anxiety,

sorrow,

the content of our consciousness
is all that.

I don’t think
anybody can dispute that.

It stands any kind of argument.

Either, as we pointed out yesterday,

we pursue entertainment

for the rest of our lives
and future generations

– football, religious entertainments
and all that –

or move totally
in a different level.

That is, to know oneself
most profoundly.

Not according to any psychiatrist,

not according to any philosopher,

but to discover actually
what we are,

actually see all the complexities
of our nature,

and either go in that direction,
or in the other.

That is the problem
in front of humanity.

That’s the crisis.

Not the financial, or the political,
not the crisis of war,

but what man,
you and the rest of us,

in what direction shall we go,
what is the future for us?

Apart from the nuclear bomb
and all the rest of it,

are we serious enough
to face this challenge,

the crisis that is?

Either we turn into understanding
ourselves most profoundly,

or live a very, very
superficial life,

with entertainment
of various kinds.

To understand ourselves is
one of the most difficult problems.

It’s fairly easy to understand

the whole movement
of the entertainment industry.

But to understand ourselves

not according to anybody

– Freud, Jung
or the latest psychologist –

but putting aside all those
to look at ourselves.

Can we look at ourselves
actually as we are?

In all of us,
there is this urge to become,

to be somebody, both outwardly,
as well as inwardly.

Outwardly, it is obvious

– the worship of success.

Inwardly,
there’s always this movement

to be something more
than what one is,

because we don’t know
what one is, first,

but we’re always eager
to be more than we are.

The more or the better
is the enemy of the good.

So, to understand ourselves,
to look at ourselves,

that is, to be aware of all
the content of our consciousness,

is that possible?

I hope we are thinking together.

Please, the speaker is not giving
a talk, a lecture, a sermon,

which would be horrible,

but we are thinking together.

That may be one of the most
difficult things, too,

because we never…

we are so concerned
with our own thinking

that we cannot co-operate
in thinking together

about the same thing.

To look at it, not from
any particular point of view,

to look at it freely

– that seems to be one
of the most difficult things to do.

So, can we look at ourselves freely,

at what is actually going on,

without any motive,
distortion or direction?

Is that possible?

As we’ve said,
the content of our consciousness

is put there by thought

the gods we believe in,

the symbols invented by thought,

all the fears,
the enormous sense of loneliness,

the violence –

this whole content is you and I.

Can we look at that content
as a whole

or must we look at it
bit by bit – fear, pleasure,

pain, grief, loneliness, sorrow,

love, death, meditation, and so on?

That is,

our brain which is now
functioning partially,

that part is looking at the content
of all the consciousness.

Right?

That content can be perceived
through relationship.

That’s the mirror

in which the content of our
consciousness can be observed.

Relationship between one another,
intimate or otherwise,

in that mirror you can see
your reactions of fear,

possessiveness, domination,
violence, sexually and otherwise,

all the reactions and the responses
in that relationship are revealed,

if one observes it,
if one is aware of it.

Are those reactions
to be examined one by one?

That would take
an enormous time,

perhaps a whole life,

and that would be impossible.

Or can one perceive
the totality of it, at one glance?

You understand my question?
Are we thinking together?

Or are you merely
listening to the speaker?

Please don’t,
then it is worthless.

Then it has no meaning,

you’re merely hearing
a lot of words and ideas,

but if we are thinking together,
observing together,

the whole structure of a human being
– his existence, his reactions,

his pains, his suffering –

then we can together
walk the same path,

the same direction,
the same movement.

So, please,
we are thinking together.

You’re not merely
listening to the speaker,

though he may act as a mirror,
for the time being.

That mirror can be broken
at any time,

it’s not worth keeping.

The mirror is merely

that in which you can see
what is actually going on.

So the question is,

the content of our consciousness
makes up the consciousness.

In that consciousness
are all these things,

all the things
put together by thought,

even the ultimate principle,

all the gods, all the saviours,

is all put there by thought,

conditioned by 2,000 years
of propaganda of Christianity

or perhaps 4 or 5,000 years

of the propaganda
and tradition of India.

Can we look together

at the question,
say for example, of fear?

Or look directly, simply,
at our relationship with each other.

Let’s begin with that,
because that’s much closer.

Wherever one lives one is related,
it doesn’t matter to what

– to nature, to another person.

What is that relationship?

Not the problems
that are inherent in relationship,

not the problems,

but what is relationship?

We’re enquiring

not into the resolution
of problems in relationship

but rather, enquiring together

into the question of what is
the truth about relationship.

Is it merely sensory, sexual?

Is it merely a companionship,

depending on each other,
exploiting each other,

trying to dominate each other,
possess each other?

Or is it much deeper?

Please,
you’re asking these questions,

I’m not the only one asking.

So, we have to enquire,
very closely and deeply,

into what is relationship.

Because human relationship
has created this society,

the social order or disorder.

Our relationship to each other

is the outcome,
is giving birth to society.

Society, as it is now, is based on
aggression, violence, competition,

hierarchical structure.

Is our relationship similar to that?

– greed, envy, jealousy
and so on.

So, first one has to enquire, very
deeply, into what is relationship.

Is it merely a pursuit of pleasure
or the expression of one’s desire,

or is there basically,
deeply love?

Can love exist with desire?

Or with pleasure?

Or if they exist, love is not.

So, one has to go into this
very carefully,

to discover for ourselves,

if we are at all aware,
serious and all that,

whether it’s possible
to live a life

in which relationship
doesn’t become a conflict.

We talked about it,
partially, yesterday.

We said our relationship is now
based on two separate individuals,

two parallel lines, like a railway,
that never meet.

Perhaps they meet sexually

but otherwise,
each pursues his own direction.

And that relationship
becomes distorted.

In that relationship there is an
enormous amount of conflict, misery,

confusion,
escaping from that relationship

to another kind of relationship.

In the new relationship,
the same thing exists

and so we carry on.

So, the deep cause of this division

is thinking
that each one is separate.

Obviously.

I am separate from my wife.

I must fulfil in my way,
and she must fulfil in her way.

She must climb the ladder
of success socially,

and I may not want
to climb the social ladder,

I may want to climb
the ladder of spirituality.

So, there is conflict
between us

because each person
wants his way.

Each one is so consumed
with his own selfish point of view.

Is that the deep root cause
of conflict in our relationship?

If it is, is it possible

to totally wipe away
this separate feeling?

You are following all this?
Is that possible?

It may be possible

if we begin to understand
the nature of ourselves,

the structure of myself.

What is myself? You understand?
We are going into it.

What am I?

A name, a form

– a certain physical structure –

apart from that,

I am the result
of thousands of years.

Right?

My brain has evolved
through time,

accumulating a great deal
of experience and knowledge,

both inherited and acquired

genetically, which involves time,

and the conditioning
in which I have been born

– Christian, Hindu, Buddhist,
hot climate, hot food, cold climate,

not tasty food and so on, so on.

Sorry!

Also, the religious conditioning –

superstition,
the worship of symbols,

not the actual,
but the worship of symbols,

the image created by thought,

by thought or by hand,

the beliefs, the dogmas,
the rituals,

you know – all that I am.

My education, my ambition,

the whole structure of me

is not only the influence
of the environment,

the cultural,

but also the so-called spiritual,
religious.

And the religious conditioning
is merely carrying on old tradition

of belief, dogma, rituals, repeating
certain meaningless words,

so I’m all that.

That is what I am.

That’s what each one of us is,

in a different environment,
but basically the same.

My brain is operating
only partially.

Please, this is really
important to understand

if you want to go into it, deeply.

My brain is functioning partially,

because knowledge is partial.

Knowledge can never be complete
about anything,

even about the most complex
technology, it’s not complete,

there’s always
something new taking place.

And the accumulated knowledge
of experience is very limited.

So, knowledge always goes
with ignorance.

So, the brain is trained
in knowledge

and continues to live in ignorance

– they are both functioning.

The brain is functioning partially
because it’s based on knowledge,

and so whatever it does
must be partial,

and therefore its action
must be partial,

and when the action is partial,
there must be regrets,

pain, anxiety, worry, loneliness
– all that follows.

The partial activity of the brain
has broken up life

– business life, religious life,
family life, spiritual life,

technological life – you follow?

It has broken it up,

because the brain itself is partial,

it’s not operating as a whole.

Right? Is this somewhat clear
between us? Right.

So, relationship
when based on thought,

which it is now,

because it is partial, there is
division and therefore, conflict.

The next question is,
can the brain function as a whole?

Right?

Is that possible?

Because we have been trained
for thousands of years

to only function partially.

And we must understand together
the partial effects in our life

– fear as separate from pleasure,

pleasure separate from pain,

pain separate from sorrow,
and so on.

Or can we look at the whole movement
of existence as a whole?

I hope we are understanding.

May we continue along these lines?

We are saying it is possible.

It is not a trick,

nothing to be learnt
from the speaker,

not a new school to be started
– a guru and all that nonsense –

but one can discover
this thing for oneself.

Therefore,
you are then free from everybody

and don’t depend on anybody.

And we are going to go into that.

That is, to find out for ourselves
whether it’s possible,

though, for thousands of years,

the brain has only
been active partially,

whether it is possible

for the brain
to function as a whole.

Then it’ll have
tremendous energy.

Right?

Not to do mischief

but to live a life
which is whole, unbroken

and therefore,
a life that is good.

Let’s find out if it’s possible.

First, let’s take out of the content
of our consciousness, fear.

We talked about relationship,

let’s talk together about fear.

You may not have fear
sitting there, now.

I hope not.

But our background,
in our daily life,

either one is conscious
of the various factors of fear

or one neglects it,
accepts it, and carries on.

That is, one has become
accustomed to fear

and therefore,
the brain naturally becomes dull.

When one becomes accustomed
to anything, it becomes a routine.

It’s not active.

Any specialised career,
though it is partially active,

the rest of it is inactive.

So, one of the factors of our life
is fear

– so many forms of fear –

fear of tremendous loneliness,
fear of death,

fear of darkness,
fear of a dozen things.

But can we look at fear
as a whole?

Not my particular form of fear,

my loneliness,

but both the hidden
and obvious fear,

can one find out,

discover or observe
the whole movement of fear?

Right?

Is that possible,
first of all?

Can one observe holistically,
if I can use that word

which science is accepting,
holistically,

can we look at ourselves
as a whole?

Which is, take fear
and look at it as a whole.

That is, the cause of fear.

When you discover the cause,
there is an end to a cause, surely?

If I discover that I have cancer,
which is causing pain,

then it can either be eliminated
or I die.

So, one has to discover for oneself,
not be taught,

not learn from somebody,

the root of fear.

What is the root of fear?

Is it time?

Time being the past
meeting the present,

and modifying itself
in the future.

The movement from yesterday
to today and tomorrow

– that is time.

Is time the root cause of fear?

The fear that tomorrow
I may not exist.

Fear of not being successful.

Fear of being this
and wanting that,

and the wanting that
and not being able to achieve that,

and so on.

So, we are asking
is fear a matter of time?

Just wait, find out.

Fear is also
a movement of thought.

Right?

I have had pain last week

and I might have pain
again next week

– there is the element of time.

Thought which says,
‘I’ve had pain’, the memory of it,

that memory
continues to next week

and says, ‘Be careful, don’t have
pain again’ – there is fear.

So, is the root of fear
time and thought?

Or time is thought?

They are not two separate movements,
time is thought.

Are you getting bored
with all this?

It is a nice day,
you can go out.

So, time is movement

from last week,
today and tomorrow.

Thought is also a movement

born of the knowledge
of last week’s pain

and not wanting it again
next week.

So, time is thought.

And so time-thought
is the root of fear.

Not how to stop time
or thought,

but we are observing
the cause of fear,

not what to do
about the cause.

If you act to eliminate the cause

– please follow this carefully –
if you wish to eliminate the cause,

then you are still caught in time.

You may not be able to do it,

then you search or ask
somebody to help you

and you are caught back again.
You follow all this?

Right?

That is, sir,
let me explain again.

I want to find out the root of fear,

not trim the branches of fear

but the very root of fear,

the cause of all my fear
of loneliness, despair,

fear of another,
fear of being hurt.

And I’m hurt from childhood,

from the other boys, parents,
school, college.

I’m being hurt all the time.

The cause of the hurt is
that I have an image about myself.

The image which my parents
have given me,

society has given me,

and the image which I have
built myself, about myself.

When I say I am hurt,

the image which I’ve created
for myself, which is me,

the image is trampled upon
and it gets hurt.

The consequences of that hurt

is to resist,
build a wall round oneself,

becoming more and more lonely,

avoiding –
you know all that business.

So, gradually, I withdraw
with all the neurotic symptoms.

So, I want to find out if it is
possible to eliminate the root of…

to first find out the root
and what to do about the cause.

Right?

Is my motive to be free of the cause
because it brings fear?

Therefore, I say my motive is
to be free of it.

When there is a motive,
that very motive becomes the fear.

I wonder if you understand this.

Are you following?

All right.
You look all puzzled, I’ll explain.

I have discovered for myself
the root of fear – time-thought.

That’s the basic cause,
irrefutable.

And my natural instinct
is to be free of the cause

so that I’ll be free from fear.

A marvellous thing
to be free from fear.

So, the motive colours the cause.

Or the motive directs in what
direction the cause will dissolve.

I wonder if you are following.
Right? No?

Gosh, we need to explain
every darn thing, isn’t it?

What is a motive?

The meaning of that word
is movement.

The movement is
my desire to be free of the cause.

My desire which says,
‘I must be free of that

in order to be free
from all pain of fear’.

What is my desire?

What is desire?
You follow?

I started out with fear,

by examining
what is the root of fear,

I’ve discovered the root of fear,
which is thought-time

and my motive
is to be free of it,

which is my desire, my will,
to be free of it.

So, I have to enquire
into what is desire,

which says,
‘I must be free of it’.

The desire itself may be fear,
desire itself may be the cause.

So, I have to examine very closely
what is desire.

We’re doing it together, I’m not
examining and you just listening

– together we are examining,
exploring, investigating,

looking into the nature
and the movement of desire.

What is desire?

Is it a sensation?

Is it a sensation
transformed by thought,

with the image
of being free from the cause?

You are following this?

Is this too much of a thing for you,
in the morning?

That is, I have a sensation,
the sensation is fear.

Right?
It is a sensation

– unpleasant, narrowing,
ugly thing –

and I have found the cause of it,

and desire says
get rid of the cause,

because the cause is
a part of sensation,

and desire is also
part of sensation.

Right?

And that sensation

manifests itself by thought

with the image
of being free from the cause.

Right? Is this too much?

All right,
let’s make it much simpler.

First, I have a sensation

that I must be free
of the cause of fear.

That’s a sensation.

The sensation
which awakens the thought

to be free of the cause.

That is,
I see something pleasant,

the perception,
the seeing causing sensation,

then contact,

then thought creating the image
me having that blue shirt,

or blue dress or whatever it is

– you follow? –
that’s the movement.

First perception, sensation,
contact, touch,

then thought says, ‘How nice
I would look with that blue shirt’

or with that pink dress.

So, desire is a movement
of sensation,

then thought creating
the image.

From that moment desire is born.
Is that clear?

Then desire itself
becomes the cause of fear.

Right?
Are you seeing this?

I have traced the cause of fear
to the basic cause.

Then desire says,
‘I must be free of it’.

That desire is
the image of me being free.

That image is going to be hurt.

Right? So, I’m back to fear.
I wonder if you see it?

Right?
Can I go on?

So, this is the whole
movement of fear.

Any action the partial brain
takes with regard to it

is still within
the framework of fear.

I wonder if you realise this.

That is, to have an insight
into the nature of fear.

That very insight dissolves fear.

Then you might ask what is insight?

Shall I go on with all this?

You are very patient,
on a hot day.

You see, what we are
trying to find out is

whether the whole of the brain
can operate,

not the partial brain.

Because if the whole brain
can operate,

the things which the limited brain
has created, disappear.

The part disappears in the whole.
You understand?

So, I have to discover,
we have to find out

whether it is at all possible
for the whole brain to operate.

Then, whatever the part has created
is dissolved.

The part doesn’t exist
because it’s whole. Right?

And insight is
the action of the whole

because it’s not based
on time,

it’s not based on knowledge,
on remembrance,

but instant perception
of the truth of fear.

That is to open up
the whole brain to act.

Am I conveying something
about this?

That is, sir, look,
we are operating now,

our whole action
is based on knowledge

– experience, knowledge,
memory, thought, action –

that’s how we operate
– experience, knowledge,

memory stored in the brain,
thought, action,

and from that action, we learn more
and repeat the pattern.

That is simple enough.

This is what is actually
taking place, all the time.

Learning more,
slowly or quickly,

acting,
and from that action learn more.

This is the cycle
in which thought is operating.

In this operation,
we have all the problems,

linguistic, social, religious
and so on.

Right?

Insight is not an action
based on memory,

on experience, knowledge,
memory, thought, action.

It is free of all that.

Surely, you must have had occasions
when you see something immediately,

instantly understand something,

and from that deep understanding
you act.

It has happened to all of us,

either partially, as in the case
of poets, artists, scientists,

or with the really religious people,
the deep, profound religious people,

not the orthodox religion,

they have a tremendous insight

and the clarity of the whole thing
is made clear.

We will go into it,
as we go along.

One of the factors of this
content of consciousness

is the pursuit of pleasure,

different from fear.

We avoid fear, run away from fear,

cover it up and pursue pleasure,

sexually,
in ten different ways

– pleasure of reputation,
pleasure of talking to you –

which I haven’t got, thank God!

And so on, so on, so on.

So, what is pleasure?

Why does man cling to pleasure,
pursue pleasure?

From time immemorial,

pleasure has been
one of the principles

that man has pursued

– in the name of God,
in the name of peace –

– ten different ways.

What is pleasure?
Why this insistence on pleasure,

both externally and inwardly?

Is pleasure a memory?

A remembrance of something
in the past

which gave you a delight,

at the moment of perception,
the delight,

then the remembrance of it,

and pursuing the remembrance
not the fact.

Right?

That is, is pleasure a remembrance?

Pleasure as a future.
Is there pleasure in the future,

which is hope, and so on?

So, please examine,
let’s look at it together,

this factor that human beings

have been pursuing
for thousands of years,

in the name of God,
in the name of nations,

every form of pleasure,

why have we pursued pleasure?

Always avoiding fear
and pursuing this.

Or are they both
related to each other?

What is pleasure?

You look at a sunset,

with all the glory of a sunset,
the beauty of it, the radiance,

the extraordinary light
on the clouds,

at that moment,
you have forgotten yourself

and you are looking
at this sunset.

It is recorded,

that delight,

and you pursue the record,
not the actuality of the sunset.

Right?
This is what happens.

You may have had sexual pleasure,

then the remembrance of it
and the pursuit of it

– or different forms of pleasure,
I won’t go into all that.

It’s fairly simple.

So, is pleasure a remembrance?
Is pleasure a thought?

Is pleasure time?

Of course, it is.

So, thought-time is the movement
of fear as well as pleasure.

I wish you would see this.

Not from me,
see it for yourself,

you’ll see the extraordinary
reality of it,

that thought and time have
been the factors of pleasure,

pain and fear.

Is love thought and time?

Now we have associated love
with pleasure,

with all the problems
involved in it

– jealousy, anxiety, possessiveness,
dependency, all that.

So, one has to understand, go into
this whole question of what is love.

One can go into it verbally
but the word is not the fact,

the feeling, the depth of it,

the beauty of it,
the vitality of it.

So, if love is not desire

and is not pleasure,

then what is it?

Does it come into being
only when the self is not?

The self is time and thought.

I wonder
if you’re following all this.

‘Me’ is time and thought,

and as long as that exists
the other cannot possibly exist.

Love cannot exist
with selfishness.

Selfishness may take
different forms,

cover it all up with kid gloves
and roseate colour,

but it is still selfishness.

That is, the ‘me’ and the ‘you’.

As long as that element
exists in one’s heart,

obviously, the other cannot exist.

You may talk about the love of God,
the love of Jesus, love of Buddha,

but that’s just empty words.

So, is love the awakening
of the whole of the brain?

You understand?

We have been
carefully going into this.

We started out with relationship,
the various forms of hurts,

the image about oneself.

That image gets hurt, flattered

and so relationship
always remains separate,

two railway lines never meeting.

And fear is time-thought,
as pleasure.

Is love time-thought,
a remembrance?

Time-thought has put together
the whole structure of myself,

psychologically,
as well as genetically.

Where that structure as the self
exists,

love cannot possibly exist,
obviously.

Then one might ask,
what am I to do?

I see this fact.
I logically agree.

I see the sanity
of what you’re saying

but I’m still terribly self-centred

and I still love my wife.

So, what am I to do?
Right?

That’s the obvious,
rather limited question.

When you put that question,
what am I to do,

what is the reason of that question,

the cause of it?

Either you’re asking somebody else
to tell you what to do,

of course, there are thousands of
people who will help you what to do,

or you are asking that question

to find out what not to do.

You understand?

If you ask what to do,
it’s simple enough, they’ll tell you

– meditate, sit like this, breathe
like that, levitate, pay so much –

and all the rest of it.

But you see,
if you ask, ‘What am I…?’

One realises that whatever you do,
is still selfish.

Right?
You understand?

If I say,
‘I must get rid of myself’,

it’s still the movement of the self.

If you realise that,
then you don’t do a thing.

That is total negation of action.

What is total negation of action,
is action. You understand?

I wonder if you see that.
Right.