J. Krishnamurti - Brockwood Park 1981 - Public Talk 3 - Knowledge, sorrow, death, and to be free...

Krishnamurti:
I suppose one must talk.

That’s why you are here.

We have been talking over together
the many problems of our daily life.

We have talked about fear,
pleasure, pain,

also the importance of relationship
and the conflict in relationship,

and whether it is at all possible
to be free of all conflict,

not only in our
personal relationship

but also in the world
in which we are living,

the world which is
so tragically disintegrating,

where there is terror,
misery, confusion, poverty,

and always the threat of war.

It may not be in this country

but there is always a war going on
somewhere or other in the world.

We all know this.

Also, we talked the other day
about right action,

what is a man to do
in a world, as it is.

Also, we talked about
the future of knowledge,

what place has knowledge
in our daily life?

What place has knowledge
in our relationship?

Whether knowledge is the cause
of conflict in relationship,

knowledge being
the whole structure of memory,

experience,
stored in the brain, recorded,

and acting according to that record,
like a computer.

But the computer is far more alert,

capable of out-thinking man,

being programmed properly,
it can outstrip man altogether.

Of course, it cannot perceive
the beauty of an evening,

it may compose

but the feeling of music,
the joy of it, the pleasure,

the intense beauty of it,
the computer cannot feel.

Also, in the last two talks
and question and answer meetings,

we talked about whether knowledge,
which is part of desire,

whether that knowledge
has any place in love,

whether knowledge
contributes to love,

whether desire,
with all its complications, is love.

And the pursuit of pleasure,

which has been most constant
in one’s life,

whether that pursuit of pleasure
is love.

Pleasure is based on knowledge,
as fear is based on knowledge.

And isn’t that knowledge,
also part of sorrow?

As we said the other day,
and if one may repeat it again,

this is not a weekend affair.

It’s a lovely day,

and you have a nice garden,
green lawn on a pleasant day,

but when we are
gathered here together,

it is not a weekend affair,

we are talking about our daily life,
and our relationship to society,

our relationship
to all the terrible things

that are going on in the world.

Also, we have been saying
that we are thinking together.

That is, each one of us is looking
at the problems that we have

and talking them over
together.

You are not thinking according to
what the speaker wants you to think,

we’re not doing
any kind of propaganda,

or any kind of sectarian
guru business,

but together we are examining,
thinking, feeling our way

into the very, very
complex existence

and our relationship to the whole
world, and the future of mankind,

what’s going to happen

to our children, to the future
of all those people who are coming.

So, we must go
into this problem over again,

considering what our life is,

what the future of our life is,

whether that future,
based on knowledge,

that is, experience,

from that experience knowledge,
from that knowledge memory,

reaction to that memory is thought,

and from thought there is action.

That is the cycle
in which we have been functioning,

from experience, knowledge,
memory, thought, action.

Whether such a cycle
has any future at all,

or it is merely repeating over
and over again the same routine,

facing the same problem
which thought has created,

and whether thought is capable of
ever solving these problems at all.

We went into that,
considerably.

Also, this morning,
we ought to talk over together

the very complex
problem of love,

compassion

and from that compassion
intelligence.

That intelligence is not yours
or that of the speaker.

It is intelligence,

totally objective,
impersonal, non-sectarian.

We ought to talk over that together.

It is difficult to talk over
together with such a large audience.

We can perhaps
talk over together

if we’re sitting quietly
under a tree or in a room,

you and I alone,

two people having a good dialogue,
that is very possible,

but to have a dialogue of this kind
with such a large number

requires that we all think together,
be attentive together,

face the problem together.

Because we have created
the problems together.

Our society which is so corrupt,
so disintegrating, so violent,

it is our responsibility,
we have contributed to it,

society is not different from us,
we are part of it.

Though the communist maintains
that society is us

we are talking about
psychologically,

totally differently.

They are materialistic,
dialectical people,

interpreting history according
to their own opinions and values,

but we are not communists,

we are not doing
any kind of propaganda,

but talking over together
the immense problem of existence.

I think it is important
to talk over this question,

what place has knowledge,

which is always
clothed in ignorance

because knowledge can never
be complete about anything,

even technologically,
astrophysically,

it cannot possibly
be complete at any time.

Any action born of that knowledge
must be incomplete.

From that incompleteness,
all our problems arise.

So, we have to talk over together,
what place has knowledge,

or what relationship has knowledge
with regard to love?

Knowledge is memory,
remembrance.

Is remembrance part of love?

We’re not talking
of the love of God,

the love of something abstract,

but love between people,
between human beings,

not only personal,
limited love,

but also love of mankind,
love of human beings,

because as we said
the other day,

our consciousness is the common
consciousness of all mankind.

All mankind suffers, all mankind,
every person, wherever they live,

they go through agony, uncertainty,
anxiety, guilt, loneliness,

the content of their consciousness,
the consciousness of each one of us

is similar to the rest of mankind,
psychologically.

And so, psychologically this
consciousness is common to humanity.

It is not my consciousness
or yours,

it’s the consciousness
of all human beings,

for everybody goes
through terrible times.

Perhaps, then one realises
if one goes into it deeply,

that one is not
an individual at all.

You may have a separate name,
a separate form,

different superficial culture,

you may admire some painting
which the Asiatics might not,

or you might not appreciate
Asiatic culture,

paintings, sculpture.

But psychologically, we are similar,
our consciousness is similar,

so individuality is,
may be, an illusion.

To understand this
problem of knowledge,

whether knowledge brings sorrow

and what relationship
has sorrow to love,

whether the mind, the brain,
a human being who is suffering

for various causes,
can ever know love.

Or love is entirely,
totally different

from knowledge and sorrow.

We ought to together
talk over this problem.

Please, we are not talking
theoretically,

abstractly, hypothetically,

but we are concerned,
not only with our own lives

but the lives
of human beings in the future.

What will man be
in 2,000 years time,

when the computer
takes over all our thinking?

Quicker, faster, correcting itself,
learning and creating new machines

– the ultra-intelligent machine.

What is the future of mankind then?

I hope we are following
all this together.

So, this is our problem.

A problem that must be practical,

a solution to the problem
must be applicable to daily life,

otherwise, it’s so futile.

So, one hopes that together

we can talk about this
sanely, rationally

without any emotion, romanticism
and all that kind of business.

So, let us talk this
over together.

We know what knowledge is,

not only semantically the word,

the word which creates the image,

the word which is part of thought.

What relationship has that word,
symbol, knowledge to love?

Will love exist
without remembrance?

I may be married,

I have a wife or a husband,

or a girlfriend,
or whatever you will,

and in that relationship

there is not only
the sensual responses, like sex,

but also,
all the psychological responses,

the pleasure,

the possessiveness,
the dominance,

the irritations, the quarrels

– all those are recorded.

If you observe –

please, I am not talking for myself,
we are talking over together –

all those are recorded in the brain.

Like a gramophone, those records
are repeated over and over again.

In that, there is security,

in knowledge, there is security,

psychologically
as well as physically.

And does that security

deny love?

If it does, then what is love?

Is it something so abstract,
so impossible,

that the human brain
cannot capture it,

possess it, have it?

When we talk about love and
compassion, with its intelligence,

we also should
discuss suffering,

the pain, the grief,
the anxiety,

the loss of someone one loves,

with whom you have been
living for many years,

or a son or a brother who was
your companion, whom you loved.

When there is that sorrow
of loss, of pain,

can that sorrow contain love?

Right?

So, we have to enquire into
not only knowledge and its place,

or it has no place
with regard to love

and is knowledge suffering,

and when there is suffering,
is it at all possible to have love?

Facing all these problems,
what’s the answer?

Can sorrow end?

Please, this is a very
important question

because for thousands and thousands
and thousands of years

man has been in wars,
facing death, shedding tears,

bearing the enormous
burden of sorrow

and has never been able
to resolve it.

In the Christian world, they have
passed the buck to somebody else.

You understand that?

They have given their sorrow
to somebody else,

call him by whatever name you like,

that symbol, that person
is the epitome of sorrow

and you hand yourself
over to him.

Religions throughout the world have
not been able to solve this problem,

they have escaped from it,
they have suppressed it,

they have rationalised it,

they have handed themselves
over to a symbol, to an idea,

hoping thereby sorrow can end.

Man has done every kind of thing
to escape from sorrow

– through drugs, drink, sex,
through every form of amusement –

football has become
the religion of the world, now.

Through that we are trying
to escape from our own pain,

anxiety and sorrow.

So, if one can put aside all that,
not escape,

not hand ourselves over to somebody
who will solve our sorrow,

if we can end every kind of escape,
even the verbal escape,

talking endlessly about it,

or living with sorrow,
not talking about it,

but that sorrow
eating one’s heart out.

From that, all kinds of neurotic
habits, ideas, conclusions arise.

So, if we can stop all that,
rationally, sanely, not by will

because will is
the essence of desire,

and desire also
is part of sorrow.

If we can,
not only this morning,

which is fairly easy to forget
ourselves for the time being,

but when you go out
again it all starts,

so can we totally not escape
from the pain of sorrow?

What does that mean?

Does it mean that knowledge
of my son’s death,

of my wife
running away with somebody,

and so, facing my deep,
insoluble loneliness,

the remembrance of all that remains,
like a deep wound,

and that brings sorrow,

not being loved or loving,

that person not responding –

all those things
that go on in daily life.

We have become so utterly
selfish and thoughtless.

Can we together

stop the whole movement
of escape?

It is not an action of will
or determination

or verbally taking a vow
never to escape

but actually, deeply
not avoiding that thing.

So that memory of the past
pleasures, companionship, all that

no longer has a place

and so we can remain with that thing
called pain completely, wholly.

You understand? Are we meeting,
thinking together? I hope so.

That is, my son is dead.

I loved him

and I remember all the things
he used to say, play.

I’ve a photograph
on the mantelpiece,

there’s always the recording
going on,

the remembrances,

which is an escape
from the actual pain

– right?

Or that pain is sustained
by remembrances.

Everything, the furniture, the room,
the garden, reminds me of it.

So, I’m constantly being reminded,
sustained by past events.

Can I totally abandon
all that?

I may feel that it may be disloyal.

You follow?
So many tricks I play with myself.

And so I sustain, nourish
by remembrance, the event,

all the things that have gone
with that person

and so I nourish it,
keep going.

That’s a form of not understanding
or facing or going beyond sorrow.

We all know this.

Everyone of us knows
what sorrow means,

not only personal sorrow
but the sorrow of mankind,

the man who has nothing.

If you go to the East,
you will find enormous poverty,

no hope.

The same limited quantity
of nourishment.

We were walking once
along the highway in India.

A poor man had collected
a few dried leaves and branches,

and in a pot he had put rice,
two or three drops of oil

– one is describing accurately –
three drops of oil and an onion.

He was cooking it
on the little fire.

We were watching him.

As it was cooked, he explained that
it was his one meal for the day,

and he said, ‘Take some of it’.

He will never be able to have a full
meal for the rest of his life.

I’m not playing
on your sympathy, please,

we are just observing
what it is.

A man who’ll never
have clean clothes,

who’ll always live in poverty,

and the very knowing of it
is a sorrow.

Also, those
who are highly educated,

who only look through knowledge
as a means of advancement,

the ascent of man through knowledge,
and keep repeating that.

And we human beings, because
they are scholars, scientists,

well-known people,
we follow them.

In that, too, there is sorrow
because knowledge is limited.

There is this war,

which has been recorded
for 5,000 years

and practically every year
there has been a war.

How many people have shed tears
– been wounded, maimed –

and we are still going on with it.

We have left it to politicians
to decide our future.

The politicians are thinking along
particular, narrow, tribal lines.

So, there is all this
enormous sense of ignorance

which is not ignorance of books,
but ignorance of oneself.

When you are aware of all that,
there is sorrow.

You want to do something about it
and so you join a group,

form an organisation
or institutions,

give money and then you think
you have solved the problem.

No institution, or organisation
is ever going to solve our sorrow.

These are all escapes.

So, can we look at sorrow,

be with it completely,
without a movement of thought?

A movement of thought
is to escape from it.

The very word ‘sorrow’

colours the fact of sorrow,

the pain of it.

To observe it,
to live with it without the word,

without the remembrance,

without the idea
of going beyond it,

just to hold it completely,
wholly together.

If one does that,
what takes place?

I hope we are doing that
together, now.

What takes place
when you remain with a fact,

and not translate the fact
according to your prejudice,

to your want, your desire,

without any motive,

what happens when you remain
with a fact which is pain,

and not allow thought
to come into it?

That is, when you give
your total attention to the fact.

We do not give total attention
when there is an escape,

when there is interpretation,
when there is rationalisation,

when the word
becomes all important.

Are we meeting?
You are following all this?

Is that possible at all?

To so wholly remain with that
pain of tears – you follow? –

the great depth of it.

Because thought is very superficial,

pain is not.

But when thought
colours that pain,

that very thought
becomes an abstraction,

and therefore
it destroys attention,

it wastes energy.

So, to remain with the fact
is to give total attention,

which is to give
all your energy to that.

When you give such attention,

with total energy,

that fact is transformed.

That is, the fact
is not different from you.

The fact is you.

The fact of sorrow, self-pity,
the loneliness, the despair,

the sense of being abandoned,

all that is you.
You are that.

But thought comes along and says,

‘You’re not that.
You are different’.

I don’t know
if you are following all this?

So, there is a division
between the ‘you’ and the object

the fear, the pain, the loneliness,

the despair, the depression
– all that

is something different from you,
for you to control it,

for you to overcome it.

There is a conflict
in this division,

which is false because
that which is taking place is you.

You understand?

We understand each other?
Are we getting along somewhere?

There is also that thing
to be understood,

the observer is not different
from the observed, sorrow.

The observer is the observed,
like the thinker is the thought,

the experiencer is
the experience.

But the experiencer says,
‘I am different from the experience,

therefore, I must have more
experience’ – you follow?

But when one realises
very deeply

that the observer of sorrow
is sorrow itself,

that’s a tremendous
revolution.

Because we have been
brought up

that the observer is
different from the observed.

To break that
whole cycle of tradition

is to live with that
sorrow, pain, completely

without a single movement
of thought.

That is the ending of sorrow,

which means the ending of knowledge
which you have acquired,

which has been slowly
built up.

So, the ending of knowledge
is the ending of sorrow.

Is knowledge love?

The picture, the image,
the name.

Where there is jealousy,
possessiveness,

ambition, competition,

how can there be love?

But our whole society,
our culture is based on,

‘You must succeed,
you must be ambitious,

you must compete’.

Yet I go home and say,
‘I love you, darling’.

It has very little meaning.

So, one discovers for oneself

– and no guru, no priest, no god,
nobody can help in this,

one discovers for oneself
that love has no memory,

no remembrance,
no picture, no image.

And that love,
which is not sentiment,

which has nothing to do
with devotion

that love when it is
sustained, looked at,

out of that, comes
compassion and intelligence.

Compassion is supreme intelligence,

it is not my intelligence
or your intelligence,

it is totally objective,

and yet you can love another.

That is the beauty of it.

Also, on a lovely morning like this,
we ought to talk about

something which one avoids
all the time – death.

Talking about death is not morbid,
it is part of one’s life,

whether one is young or old,
diseased,

it’s part of our daily existence,
which we try to avoid.

So, we ought
to talk that over together,

not say ‘Why do you talk
about a dreadful thing like death

on a lovely morning
like this,

green fields, blue skies
and lovely trees?’

Lovely trees, the blue sky
and the green lawn is part of life.

This is also part of life.

But we are frightened of it,

therefore we say
we’ll keep it at arm’s length,

as far away as possible,

don’t let’s talk about it.

But it is there.

Man, from the beginning of time,
has faced this problem,

this terrible thing
called death,

and has found many explanations,
including what happens after.

The whole Asiatic world believes
in being born again next life.

The Western world is collecting
a lot of evidence about it,

writing books about it.

In India,
it is as ancient as the hills.

But their belief

is to be born next life
to a better life,

always a better life.

If you are poor
and live rightly,

you’ll be born to money,
to a better house.

If you’ve got a better house,
it’ll be a better palace next life.

If you have a palace in this life,
next life you will be a king.

You know the game.

What you do now, what you sow now,
you will reap in next life.

They all believe this,
most earnestly.

It is in their blood.

But when one asks,
‘How do you live this life?’

they look the other way.

So that belief has no value at all

– like most beliefs.

Or, in the Western world,
you have another kind of belief

– resurrection, Gabriel blowing
the horn – you know, all that.

Man is seeking comfort, really.

I have collected
so much this life,

so many pictures,
so much furniture, so much land.

I have cultivated my brain

through education, through study,
through experience,

travelled a great deal.

If I die,
what’s the point of it all?

I’ve lived a moral life and I die,
so why should I live a moral life?

You follow?

These are all the various arguments

and explanations about death.

We won’t go
into all the details of it

but this is a problem
that we should talk over together.

What place has fear and death?

What’s the relationship of the two?

What is important,
the before or the after?

You understand?

Before death or after death?

For most of us,
after death is much more important.

But we should consider, seriously,
what is before death,

what is this thing called living,
and what is the thing called ending?

The living and the ending.

What is this living,
to which all human beings cling,

always avoiding the ending?

You may not want to end,

through writing a book
and therefore becoming immortal

– or a poem, or a painting,

do something that will give you
a name, a position,

well-established,

therefore you become an immortal
of the Academy Francaise.

You understand?
Sorry!

So, should we consider,
if we’re at all serious,

which is an urgency
to be considered,

the living or the dying, ending?

Both have importance

because that which ends,
has a new beginning

– not incarnation.

You understand?

Is it possible
to incarnate now?

To reincarnate now,
not after,

that may be merely idealistic,
romantic, sentimental nonsense,

but the ending is a new beginning
– everything is.

I don’t know
if you follow this.

If I totally, completely
end all attachment,

not at some future date,
now, today,

completely end my attachment
with all its corruption,

there is a new beginning.

Right?

But one is so frightened to end,
not knowing what will happen.

If what will happen is certain,
then there is no ending.

You follow?
I wonder if you understand all this.

So, is it possible
to end while living?

Not suicide, I’m not talking
about taking a pill and – exit.

I’m talking about this life,

the routine, the boredom,
self-centred activity,

the constant demand,

constant wanting something,
wanting, wanting.

The attachment to somebody,

attachment to a belief, an ideal,
to a conclusion, to a concept.

To end attachment – let’s take
that for a moment, if you will –

attachment to your religion,
your gods, church – attachment,

to your husband,
to your wife, to your son

– not to belief,
that’s fairly simple,

to some image, some picture,
some utopian concept,

or even one’s own personal
experience which one clings to,

those are fairly easy.

But to be free
of attachment to a person

on whom you depend,

what is this attachment,
why is one attached?

Let’s go into it, together.

Why am I attached
to my son, to my wife?

She has given me her body,
she has given me comfort,

she has encouraged me
when I was depressed

– all that goes on,

and the picture
I have built about her,

the image I have built,
I am attached to that,

not to her as a person,

but I’m attached
to all the memories,

the remembrance
she has cultivated

– that relationship
in which we have grown together.

I do not know if one has realised
that when one is tied to anything

there is corruption.

If I’m tied to my nationality,
it is corruption.

If I am tied to an ideal,
it is corruption.

Or a dialectical opinion

and finding out the truth
of that opinion,

if I’m attached to that

as a Socialist, Communist,
Left, Right, Centre, all the rest,

in that there is corruption.

So, I discover that

wherever there is attachment,
there must be corruption.

It is inevitable,
it is a law.

All that I recognise
logically, intellectually,

but inwardly,
I still have a battle

with the intellectual conclusion
and the fact, I am attached.

Intellectual conclusions
I can let go of,

that’s fairly easy.

But though I have examined the cause
of attachment, I am still attached

because I’m frightened
to be alone, stand alone.

In attachment,
there is some form of security,

and I have no security
if I am by myself.

I am frightened to be by myself,
stand on my own feet.

Therefore, I lean on gurus
– all that business begins.

Now, I realise the fact that

in that attachment
there is really no security

because she might die or run away,
she might look at somebody else,

she’s a free person,

but I don’t want her to be free,
I’m attached.

Can I look at that attachment,

have an insight
into that attachment,

because insight
is the liberating factor.

Not arguments, not explanations,
not the causes,

not any amount of pressure

but the liberating fact
of insight into attachment,

then there is a freedom from it,
completely.

Which doesn’t mean you become
cynical and all the rest of it.

Out of that freedom,
there is love.

Can we look at our present life,
the daily living,

not the death –

we’ll talk about it,
if there is time, afterwards,

but this thing called existence,

and voluntarily end, easily,
all the psychological factors?

Not physical factors
– I don’t mean that.

You can’t end having a house
– that would be absurd,

not the end of food, clothes

but the psychological factors
of attachment, of fear

– all those things
to which we cling.

Can all those end?

Not when one dies,
but while living,

living with all the energy,
vitality, intelligence, energy,

not when you are gaga
or when you are senile,

but when there is
tremendous activity going on,

to end these psychological factors.
That is death.

Not the physical organism
coming to an end,

either through misuse,
through accident, old age and so on,

but death is the ending of all
that one holds, psychologically.

Must one take, one by one,
all the various factors

– please follow this, a minute –

all the various, separate factors
like fear, pleasure, pain, sorrow,

loneliness, anxiety and so on,
uncertainty,

one by one and end them?

Or have an insight
into the whole thing

– you understand? –

because they’re all interrelated,
they are not separate.

So, to have
a total insight into that,

is to liberate the whole of it.

That is, to remain totally
with the whole structure of ‘me’,

because the ‘me’ is
the knowledge,

the knowledge
of a thousand years

which has made my life
into a routine, into what it is now,

and to have
a total insight into it

– that’s real freedom.

Then there is a new beginning,
totally.

Also, there is the question,

what happens if I don’t end

all the content
of my consciousness?

I agree with you, you have
pointed out to me all the things,

but I haven’t been able to succeed,

to have this deep insight
into the whole nature of my being.

I have partial insight,

I’ve got rid of half a dozen
little absurdities

but I have still got
very deep absurdities.

So, what happens when I die?
You follow my question?

You’re all interested in this?
Of course!

This is the tragedy.

I have got rid of a few things

but I still hold on to something
which I want,

which is dear to me,
which is next to my heart.

I won’t let go.

So, please, tell me
what happens afterwards.

Are you interested
in all this?

I’m still attached –

it might not be
to my wife or to ideal,

I’m still attached to the money
which I have collected,

I can’t take it with me,
but I want it till the last moment.

I’m attached to that

– what happens?

To understand this question,
one must go very deeply

into the whole
consciousness of man

– if you are not too tired,
are you?

We must question
the content of consciousness.

That content is
put there by thought.

I hope this is clear.
Probably, it’s not.

We said the root cause of fear
is time-thought.

Some of you have heard this,
probably, for the first time,

we have talked about it
in the previous talks.

Fear is the product
of time-thought.

Time is thought,
they are not two separate things.

Time and thought have put all the
contents of consciousness together

– my belief, my experience,
my fears, my pleasures,

my specialties, surgeon, carpenter
– you follow?

All that is the content
of my consciousness,

my attachment.

That content makes consciousness.

Without that content, consciousness
as we know it, cannot exist.

Right?

The content makes up
consciousness.

If the content is not,
which is fear, pleasure,

anxiety, loneliness, all that,

then what is my consciousness?

The content of my consciousness
is ‘me’ – please follow this.

The content is ‘me’,

I am the whole
of that consciousness.

I’ve let part of that content
of that consciousness go.

Right? The things that
don’t matter very much.

The things that matter very deeply,
I hold.

Right?

I discover that this consciousness
is the consciousness of all mankind.

That is the real thing,
which we won’t face.

The content of my consciousness
– belief, culture, the pain,

the books I have read,
the fears and so on,

is the common ground
on which all mankind stands.

Go to Asia,
they have the same problems

– sorrow, pain, lack of work,
oh gosh, so many things.

This consciousness is
common to all of us.

Please, follow this carefully,
if you will.

It’s not mine or yours, it’s common
ground on which humanity stands.

Part of that common consciousness,
I have let a few things go.

A few people in India let go,

but they hold on to something.

So, the common thread is there.

I wonder if you understand this.

If you let the whole content
be wiped away by insight,

you have contributed to that
consciousness an enormous amount.

You understand?

You have brought a totally new
dimension into that consciousness.

What you have brought
is so colossally important

because you have brought
real freedom for man,

from sorrow
– real freedom.

It is of the utmost importance
that you empty that content,

not just one piece,
here and there.

This is logical,
this is what is happening.

We’re all influenced
by the killers of the world

– Hitler included.

We are all influenced
by literature,

by various teachers
that have been before,

all those are part
of our consciousness.

When we live within that
consciousness, there’s nothing new.

It is like a man
who has read a great deal.

I used to know somebody

who could talk
about any subject on earth,

Eastern philosophy, Western,
anything you want.

One day, we were talking
and he said,

‘With all this knowledge,

I can never experience
anything original’.

There is the tragedy.
You understand?

So, what happens to
the content of that consciousness,

which is not mine,

if I let go of a few things,

but hold on to other things
very strongly?

I help to continue
that consciousness.

You understand?

Therefore, I’m utterly responsible.

If I am violent,
I’m sustaining that consciousness.

If I feel anxiety, pain, grief,
all that,

I help to hold it.

But if, through insight,
you liberate the content,

you add something
incalculably valuable.

That is the greatest morality,

to be free of that content,
to give a new meaning to life,

which is love and compassion,
with its intelligence.

Right, sirs.