Krishnamurti Subtitles home


ML70DSG7 - What is order?
Malibu, California - 28 March 1970
Discussion with Small Group 7



0:43 K:Shall we go on where we left off the other weekend? We were talking about, or rather, talking over together about fear, how it arises. Need I repeat all that or should we skip all that?
1:19 Q:Sir, could we hear it as a summary? [Laughter]
1:32 K:We said, if I remember rightly, but I can't repeat exactly what was said, that fear is not an abstraction but exists in relationship to something. That relationship is between two fixed entities and therefore there is a comparative evaluation in relationship. As long as there is a comparison taking place in the mind there must be fear. Right? That's what we said. And whether the mind which is so used to comparing, whether it can abandon that whole process of measurement - not only what it will be, what it has been, what is. That's what - sorry, I'm summing it up probably much too briefly but there it is. I'm sorry if you've come... Because we said too, that a mind that is crippled with fear cannot possibly have order, order within itself. It must always breed disorder, within and without, both psychosomatically as well as outwardly. This is clear again. Need we... We went into that. And order, we said, is not - when we say 'we said' that is in a dialogue together it arose naturally and easily - that order is not conformity to a pattern but rather the understanding of disorder. And the understanding of the disorder naturally brings about order. Understanding is not intellectual but a total comprehension of the structure and the nature of fear, both on the surface and in the deep-rooted recesses of one's mind. That's what we said. So we can bring about order only with the understanding of disorder. When the mind perceives what is disorder then out of that comes order. Can we discuss a little bit of that and go on to something further? Can we discuss that? I mean, we are continuing what we were talking about the other day. What do we mean by disorder? How do you look at it? What do we mean by disorder? Contradiction out of which arises conflict, contradiction between the various fragments which make up the 'me,' the 'I,' the ego, the contradictory and opposing desires - the good and the bad, 'what should be' and 'what is.' This dualistic existence is the source of disorder, with all its innumerable contradictions and oppositions, resistance. Does this convey anything or nothing at all? Wouldn't you say disorder must exist as long as there is conflict, struggle, resistance, conformity, imitation? Which all breed disorder. Right? It seems so... And whether the mind can ever be free, not what to be or not to be, but free from disorder which means conflict. I don't know what you... Let's talk it over together and then… We have accepted conflict as a way of life, both inwardly and outwardly, psychologically, socially, and in every way. The devil and - you know, all the rest of the division that goes on within us - the division between the conscious and the unconscious, this nationalistic division, racial, class, religious separation, division of ideas, ideals, principles, you know.
9:22 Q:If one is free of inner conflict, it seems to me one comes in conflict with society as it is.
9:30 K:I wonder. The question is, Dr Weininger is asking, if you may be free from inward disorder and have some kind of free order - if we can use it - would you not be in conflict with society still? Would you?
10:07 Q:Well, wouldn't it be that you'd still have comparison, conflict to deal with in the world at large, but if you had an inner order you'd be more at peace? You wouldn't really be caught up in the conflict, you'd deal with it without being a part of it, it would seem.
10:28 K:Sir, unless we experiment and test it, mere speculative thinking has very little importance. I mean, why does this division exist, first, which invariably, apparently, creates conflict? The nationalistic division, the racial division - division, separation. And one can see this separation exists because one wants security - my country, my God, my belief, my principle, my ideal and yours, and so on, so on - in those we take shelter, whether it is a neurotic belief or a rational belief are the same - in that we take shelter. And that very shelter destroys us. If you take shelter in nationalism, that - you know all the rest, I don't have to explain all this, it's too obvious. Right? So can the mind be free of this division and therefore order? Division is disorder. The moment one says one is a Hindu, or a German, or communist, it's separation, therefore disorder. And is there such division in us? And if there is that division, which is obvious one has, what is one to do? Because, sir, look, one can everlastingly bring about order, clean the room everlastingly, the house, you know, back and forth, back and forth, put the dirt under the carpet or outside the window, but keep on for the next forty years bringing about order. By then one is dead, or incapable, or one is gaga. But yet there must be certain order, like cleanliness, you know, all the rest - order, which brings about its own discipline. Right? I mean, this is... And what is the point of such order? You understand what I'm... What's the point of having first-class order within oneself? Not imposed, not through determination to have order, not through will, which is a form of resistance, not through condemnation or justification - having intelligently, sanely, rationally brought about order, which is absolutely essential otherwise I can't see clearly. The mind is blurred, how can it observe? If the mind thinks in terms of Hinduism, or Buddhism, or whatever it is, how can it observe, how can it look, how can it think straight? So obviously order is absolute, imperative necessity - which apparently the world is now denying. That revolt is merely another form of reaction which will bring about its own conformity - long hair, short hair, or no hair, or whatever it is. Now, if one has such order - and that is absolutely necessary - then what? Will the mind stop seeking? Please, sir, do let's go on with this, don't just... Because the very search for truth, God or transcendental something, the very search is a projection of one's own desire - no? - and a contradiction to 'what is.' Seeking is to find. To seek is to find. No? No, sir? And what you find, how will you know that it is the truth? What you find must be in the pattern of the known, therefore it is nothing new, nothing fresh, nothing, you know, living, but it's only a projection of the past. I don't know if you see all this. So having brought about order, if you have done it - I mean, do it, sirs, and you'll see the fun of it - if you have done it and you proceed, having established order, therefore a living quality in it, not a determined quality within a certain pattern, a designed order, therefore breakable. I don't know if you're following all this. And then the mind is no longer seeking, saying, 'I must find,' or, 'I must give significance to order' - right? - which again becomes an intellectual feat, trick. Before, we gave meaning to life because we were seeking God, truth. And if we understand the whole nature of seeking and do not seek - which doesn't mean go to sleep - then what is the meaning of order? All right, I have order, then what? I don't know if you're following all this. There are thousands of people all over the world who say nationalism is absurd, have wiped it away. Believing in some peculiar God of my own or your own is too absurd and also wiped away. And they have no racial prejudices, and all that. But they still have fear deep down, fear - fear of death, fear of destruction - fear. And even if one goes beyond it - and one can and one must - then what? I don't know if you're following all this. Is order the whole substance of life? Order in which there is no jealousy, no hate, kindliness, gentleness, consideration, politeness, you know, tenderness, understanding of pleasure and pain and therefore the meaning of love in which there is... Pleasure is not love, desire is not love. And the mind stops seeking because it has understood the trick it has played upon itself when it is seeking. All religions have maintained: seek, search out, inquire, experience, realise. And we are saying completely… something contradictory to all that. Because when there is a seeking there is always a seeker, obviously. No? So there is a duality which breeds conflict. So, one realises all this, not intellectually but actually in daily life, within oneself, a serious realisation of order, and the imperative necessity of it. That has come about and one is intelligent, sensitive, aware - and then what? Are you meeting my... I know how to read and write - then what? I don't hate my neighbour, I don't hate anybody, I am kind, gentle, I am polite - you know, ordinary, decent, cultural existence, plus orderliness which I have brought about because I have understood division. Division being between the observer and the observed - that is the very nature of division. As long as there is an observer, a censor, a thinker, apart, there must be division therefore there must be conflict. I've understood and I've seen the truth of it, therefore no longer caught in it. Then is that all?
24:15 Q:The rest is unknown, how would I know?
24:17 K:No, madame. If one has come as far as that one inevitably asks this question. No more gurus, all that business finished - following, obedience and authority, except the authority of law - you know, keep to the right side of the road or other side of the road, pay tax, unless you don't want to pay tax, go to prison - but keep law, keep the authority of law, respect - but the authority inwardly in something or for something. So when all that is gone, and one must empty the mind of all disorder, not only outwardly but deep down in one's consciousness, and whether that's possible at all. I'm talking all the time, am I not? Please, sirs, join me, won't you? Out of that arises a very serious question which is: how can the mind, without dividing itself from the unconscious, dividing itself as the observer analysing the deep layers of oneself in which there are all kinds of motives, contradictions, racial prejudices, inherited, all the rest of it, how can all that be examined and thrown out? how can all that be examined and thrown out? Otherwise there'll always be fear because that will breed contradiction. I don't know if you're meeting all this.
26:46 Q:Sir, won't the understanding of all these other things that you talked about, the complete understanding, do away with that fear? The understanding itself.
27:00 K:How do you understand something, sir? What do you mean by that word 'understand'? Is it an intellectual, verbal understanding? Is it an emotional apprehension, emotional feeling, 'Yes, I've got it, I've understood'? Or is it a state of mind, a quality of mind that observes without any distortion? Which means no opinion, no judgement, no condemnation, no justification.
28:18 Q:What's that understanding, that final understanding?
28:21 K:Sir, you try. How extraordinarily shocked the mind has to be to have no opinion at all.
28:35 Q:You ask about the subconscious, sir. How can one summon the accumulation of a lifetime of subconscious in order to look at it? Supposing one were capable of looking without opinion, without an observer. You speak about seeing all the recesses of the subconscious. How can one summon in an instant a lifetime of accumulation which is what it has taken to make the subconscious?
29:02 K:Yes, sir.
29:03 Q:Do you need another forty-two years to...
29:05 K:Sir, then I'm dead by then - I have no time, I'm not... that doesn't interest me.

Q:Sir, do you mean to see it one head at a time or the whole head of heads?
29:15 K:We're going to find out, sir. First of all, why do we accumulate at all? Approach it that way, not...

Q:But we have.
29:29 K:Wait, wait, wait, wait. Un momento, un momento. Wait. We will see... I know we have accumulated - that's obvious. Why do we accumulate? And what is the machinery or the energy that accumulates? Wait, sir, go slow, go slow. Accumulation becomes dependence. I depend on knowledge - go slowly, sir - I depend on the image which I have built. All right.

Q:I don't even know this.
30:17 K:I am doing it, I am doing it now.

Q:I have accumulated for forty years and you say now, sir: how can you look at all the recesses of those forty years? I don't know why I've accumulated, it's there.
30:29 K:No, but it is there by... If you don't understand why you are accumulating, the very saying, 'I must understand' - you follow? - 'all that has accumulated,' is a way of... another form of accumulating. I don't know if I'm conveying to you, if I am making myself clear. One has accumulated during these forty, fifty, sixty years, tremendous lot of things, not only in the sixty years but also all the past. Now I say I must look at them, I must observe them, I must understand them. And when I look, I am looking with the eyes of accumulation, with the eyes that are accustomed to accumulate.
31:42 Q:I look at what, sir?

K:At the accumulation.
31:45 Q:I can't see it all.
31:48 K:Therefore I want to find a different way, different approach.
31:54 Q:I don't feel the need strongly enough to see the accumulation. It hurts sometimes when I look at the conflict that it's pushing me through, but then I see maybe what's involved in it, going away from what I thought is right and what is going on, what's the nature of me - to see it means moving away from that, and I don't feel the need to really see the accumulation, whatever it might be.
32:29 K:Sir, you may not see the need of understanding the accumulation.
32:33 Q:I don't have a feeling.
32:34 K:I know you don't feel - most of us don't.
32:36 Q:I do a bit, but it's overpowered by not wanting to plunge on. I might get hurt.

K:After all, sir, the whole accumulation is the 'me,' is the ego, the observer, the censor - all that. Now, one asks, he is asking a question, which is: how can I, how can the mind observe all the accumulation, not analytically, bit by bit by bit, that would take - but to observe it completely?

Q:Simultaneously.
33:27 K:Wholly, so that there is... it is understood.
33:33 Q:But, sir, to me accumulation means a quantitative measurement. But I'm thinking in terms of a qualitative thing, imprinting. I know that my mind has been imprinted with certain ideas, certain thoughts, certain habits, certain patterns, certain ways of life. How does one change that?
33:59 K:That's what we're - it's the same. That is the accumulation.
34:03 Q:But I'm speaking not in terms of quantity.
34:06 K:Quality.

Q:Quality.
34:08 K:Yes, sir, the same thing. Now, wait a minute, that's the point. How is the total nature of accumulation, the quality of it, to change so that it is a totally different quality? Right? What do you say, sirs?
34:39 Q:Doesn't fear cause the accumulation?
34:44 K:Fear. Yes, sir, as he points out, we have accumulated.
34:48 Q:Going to the market place makes accumulation. We haven't the time to ask why we've accumulated.
34:54 K:Yes. Wait, sir.

Q:Nor have we the time to speak about quality and factual remembrance. The fact is that accumulation makes this thing, this package, which you call the subconscious. And you say that part of the disorder is the action of the subconscious. How do we see this thing called the subconscious in order that there may be order? This question again: how to see it in less than forty years or forty seconds?
35:29 Q:If you see one thing thoroughly and completely all the way through to the end, could this not be the seeing of the entire accumulation?
35:40 K:I don't know, sir, find out.
35:44 Q:Sir, if I am looking at any of this accumulation, the 'I' that is looking is part of that accumulation, is it not, and isn't that the problem even attempting anything like this? No matter where I begin it's always the accumulated which is looking at the accumulation and it's a never-ending...
36:06 K:Would you say, sir, why... There are accumulations - right? Why does the mind accumulate?
36:24 Q:Because it's alive, sir.
36:27 K:Does being alive mean accumulation? Does being alive mean more and more and more furniture? Both furniture in the house and furniture - you follow? Why does one accumulate?
36:45 Q:Out of insecurity?

Q:For security?
36:47 K:No, I think this... If you'll forgive me, stick to this point - I think we'll come to it.
37:02 Q:Doesn't accumulation begin at the moment we're born? You're a baby, you're lying there, looking at the ceiling, the ceiling could be white, you know that it's white. It clicks up here somewhere, it's a long tape.
37:22 K:No, madame, ecoutez, I mean, please, listen. Why does the mind accumulate?
37:34 Q:For protection and security?
37:37 K:Go into it, sir - why do you accumulate?
37:41 Q:I don't really know what accumulation is, sir.
37:46 Q:Collecting all the things which we are 'me' - prejudices, habits, tendencies, opinions, fears. He said: conflict.
38:02 Q:When we talk about it, is that what we're seeing?
38:05 Q:What do you mean?
38:06 Q:I don't know, it seems to me that we're dealing with a picture of it and not seeing the thing at all - and that's what I'm doing now. That's what I mean by I don't know what is meant by accumulation. It triggers a few things...
38:23 K:Sir, why do you accumulate anything?
38:27 Q:I don't know.

K:No, no, no, please, sir, not a question of you don't know why. Why do you accumulate memories, knowledge?
38:36 Q:To add to the self.
38:39 K:Experiences, furniture - why?

Q:It makes you feel good.
38:47 Q:I accumulate experience because of fear. I want to continue the experience so I accumulate.
38:55 K:No, sir, look at it, sir. Why do you accumulate? You haven't answered my question.
39:02 Q:I think we hope that if we continue to accumulate things we'll be able to escape from this sometimes tawdry existence, that some day we'll reach some point where we've accumulated enough it will be understanding…
39:16 K:Or is it that you're frightened of being empty, frightened of having nothing? So I collect, collect, knowledge and - you follow? - the whole encyclopaedia of facts, of emotions, of memories, of pleasures and, you know, knowledge.
39:52 Q:In a capitalistic society you're taught to accumulate.
39:56 K:Yes, sir. I'm not talking of capitalist society or communist society - they're all...
40:00 Q:No, but this is the pattern. If you don't accumulate money then you accumulate other possessions, possessions like knowledge.
40:08 K:Wait, sir. So why do we accumulate? Is it the fear of not having, not being? So the being is identified with the accumulated things - property, money...
40:36 Q:Or the other way around. Perhaps the other way round.
40:40 K:Which is what?
40:41 Q:Accumulated things remembered give one a feeling that one is.
40:45 K:Yes, yes, we can put it that way, or the mind needs the accumulated things in order not to face its own emptiness. Because if I have no knowledge I can't quote to you books, I can't be somebody.
41:22 Q:We all have visions, some sort of state of mind.
41:25 K:Follow it, sir: why do you collect?
41:32 Q:Well, I'm talking about...
41:35 K:Leave property for the moment, shoes, and shirts, and clothes, but inwardly, why do you collect? Memories galore, experiences - and all that you call a rich life. The more experiences you have, the more knowledge, the greater the richness of living. And therefore you have more knowledge than I have, jealousy - you follow? - you are more important, and so on, so on, so on. Sir, why does the mind collect at all? If is it afraid of being empty, nothing, then accumulation becomes imperative. 'I am a Hindu' - that becomes extraordinarily important.
42:59 Q:Sir, I think you also accumulate because in your relationship to people and with your society, a person that doesn't have a certain cleverness can't relate very well. In other words - I know that sounds bad when it comes out, even as I hear myself - but you accumulate a certain amount of knowledge so that you can deal with confusion. Except that it's part of the confusion then. [Laughter] We know of no other state.
43:53 K:Sir, have you tried not to accumulate? I know it's the tradition, it's the habit, it is the cultural, social, etc., etc., to accumulate. Have you ever tried not to accumulate, and gone into it and see what happens if you don't accumulate? Would you be an idiot? Would you lose social contact? Would you lose relationship? So, the mind that is frightened accumulates. And that mind says, 'I must see this whole thing in a flash.' Right? This whole content of the unconscious in a flash. I haven't time to examine it, analyse it bit by bit because I'll be dead by the end of forty years. It may take a hundred years whereas some accident will come along, disease, and I'll be finished - there's the end of it. So the mind being frightened of this emptiness pours in, allows itself to be influenced, to be imprinted upon. And the more it is imprinted, the more clever it is, the more profitable, and so on, so on. Now, one sees this very clearly in oneself. And which is important now, which has become the factual? The accumulation or the understanding of the nature of emptiness? If I am accumulating, if the mind is accumulating, then the quality of the mind which is empty cannot be seen. And if the mind says, 'I must understand the emptiness,' it will be a collective emptiness. I don't know...
47:08 Q:It's again accumulation.

K:Accumulation. That's another thing it is going to acquire.
47:14 Q:A dada.
47:17 K:It's another thing that it's going to collect and use. So, see, sir, what is taking place. So, the mind realises any movement out of fear, conscious or unconscious, is not only a separative process but also accumulative process in order to protect itself. Therefore the mind's concern is then not be bothered by the collective at all. I don't know if you are... Not to be concerned with the collection you have, because what you have is very tawdry anyhow. Even though it is unconscious and all the holy hocus-pocus of the unconscious it is tawdry, it is very trivial. So the mind now is not concerned with the trivial. And to come to that, the mind must have gone through great deal of discipline, great deal of order, an inward quality which isn't disturbed by circumstances, environment, and so on. Then what is the relationship - sorry to go on, you don't mind? - what is the relationship between this understanding, not of what one has collected and why it has been collected, what is the energy that collects it, which is fear, and so on, so on, but can the mind function out of emptiness? I don't know if I am making myself clear. I have functioned, the mind has functioned through collected memories - right? - through accumulation. And one sees such action must sustain fear and contradiction, because you have collected much more than I have, you're much more brilliant, much more active, much more - all the rest of it. I am not, so there's competition, comparison, fear. Right? So I'm asking myself, asking a question, which is, is the mind which doesn't accumulate at all, because it sees the futility of accumulation, the truth of accumulation, or the falseness of accumulation, can such a mind function at all?
51:39 Q:I see that I function far more intelligently.
51:42 K:I don't know, sir. Go into it, go into it. Don't say anything, find out. Find out why you accumulate. Now, isn't that order? A mind freed from every form of inward accumulation. And therefore it'll affect the outer. Can such a mind function in this world, earn a livelihood - follow it all, sir - go to the office?
53:25 Q:What replaces this accumulation? What is there instead?
53:35 K:What is there instead if there is no accumulation? The open skies.
53:46 Q:I understand, but...
53:49 K:No, madame, this is - you know what we are talking about? - this is real meditation. To empty... the mind emptying itself of everything that it has accumulated. Try it. Do it and you'll see what is involved in it. All your images, of the husband, the wife, the society, the image of utopia - you follow?
54:38 Q:At the beginning you asked, sir: when there is that order is there something else? What then?
54:46 K:I'm doing it, sir. We're doing it. I'm coming to that slowly.
54:52 Q:Is that order enough?
55:01 K:You understand, sir? Can the mind function from nothingness?
55:16 Q:But so often the functioning is accumulated knowledge, like language, telephoning...
55:22 K:Yes, sir, of course, sir, I need that. I need the technological knowledge, that's understood, otherwise I wouldn't be able to go to my home, I wouldn't be able to write, I wouldn't be able to talk, I wouldn't be able to do a thing. But I'm asking whether the mind, which is the result of centuries of accumulation... Accumulation means time. Accumulation means knowledge. Accumulation means the past. And the quality of the mind that is the result of accumulation has no quality at all. I don't know if... It is repeating and therefore no quality. Now, seeing all this, what then? Because man has searched - we are using the word - searched and run after God. And without finding... without seeking for that something to happen, not the image of God, your God, my God, Christ, Buddha - you follow? - wiping all that out completely from one's vision, from one's mind and therefore not seeking, not asserting, not dividing. Without the touch of that something supreme this has no meaning. Putting the house in order - every cook does it - has no meaning. Now, so, please, shall we go on? How is this touch of something that is... to happen? Or there is no supreme, there is nothing there. I don't know if you are following all this.
58:40 K:After all, can we say the search after God is to give meaning to life? Because we say, 'Well, what is this life?' - transient, frightfully boring, repetitive, destructive, conflict, jealousy, anger, brutality, immense sorrow - which has no meaning. Therefore we must find something much more, something supreme. And this has been the pattern of most religions. You may spit on religious organisations, churches, and temples, and mosques, but the feeling. That feeling is used by the communists to, you know, to sustain superstition and encourage church and then, you know all the business, we don't have to go into all that. So there it is. One has order. That's absolutely imperative because otherwise life is a battle and there is no peace in it. And having order of the highest quality - not the order of the housewife - having order, then the mind is asking: is that all? And knows that to seek something is its own image.
1:01:30 Q:That's disorder.

K:Yes, it's order and then disorder. Now, it has understood that - understood in the sense not verbally but actually seen, and not seek. Then what? A mind that has done this has become extraordinarily sensitive, highly educated, in the right sense, sensitive, orderly - that quality. And then it says, 'What?' It is still on a very low level. It may be aristocratic and not bourgeois but it is still a very small affair. So the mind says, not seeking, what does it do?
1:03:06 Q:It's quiet.
1:03:11 K:Be quiet. And then what, sir?
1:03:15 Q:Well, I find that… [inaudible]
1:03:17 K:Look, sir, to be quiet... You know, I used to walk in Delhi, New Delhi, in a garden, and a poor man used to come on a bicycle every day at that hour when the sun was setting. He used to come on the bicycle, put the bicycle against a tree, sit cross-legged and go completely quiet. His body was completely still. And I watched him every day - I used to walk there every day. And he was probably a clerk of some government department, a horror, but this quietness to him was the very essence of life. He wouldn't miss a day. I walked every day there and he was there every day - Sunday, Saturday, doesn't matter - to him that was - you follow? - bliss. But inwardly he remains a clerk. Sorry, I'm not being snobbish. He remains Khrushchev, if you don't like a clerk [laughs] - he remains that - or Kosygin, or whatever, he remains that. And he was very quiet. No, sir, quietness isn't good enough. Go on, sirs. Because quietness, silence, the meditative mind, the religious quality of the mind, the order - you follow? - discipline, inward vitality, integrity, wholeness, excellence.
1:05:51 Q:The quiet mind becomes a very sensitive receiver.
1:05:55 K:Now wait a minute, sir. Agreed, one must have that. Not 'agreed' - it's like must have food to have energy, physical energy. You must have this to have energy. Then what? How do you receive something that is not of the mind? How does that mind which is not... which has the quality, which has finesse, which is very, very, very sensitive, alert, watchful - you can't come to that without all the other. You can't jump into it. So, being there, as it were, in this quality of mind, then how does that super-something come? Call it divine or supreme, the unnameable, whatever - because without that, this has very little meaning.
1:07:32 Q:There's no sense of separateness.
1:07:34 K:Yes, sir, without that this has very little meaning. To become a very normal, healthy, sane human being is all right, is excellent. When we are not sane, not healthy, not balanced, to be balanced, to be healthy, to be whole, sane, is marvellous. But that isn't enough.
1:08:05 Q:How can one who has never experienced...
1:08:07 K:No, no, that's a wrong question, sir. [Laughter] You see, the moment you use the word 'experience' there must be an experiencer, therefore division, therefore conflict. Which means seeking. After all, when you want experience... when you are seeking you want experience. Either you get it through chemicals, drugs, and marijuana, pot, and grass, and all the rest of it, or inwardly invoke that experience. And all that's too immature. Wipe it all out. [Laughs]
1:09:04 Q:I don't know if you can do anything at all.
1:09:09 K:No, no. We have finished with that - you can't do anything. You as the observer, the censor, the experiencer, if you do anything you belong to disorder. That's simple. That's clear. No, sir, we can say it's clear because one has done it - otherwise it's not clear. Please, I'm not trying to impress you. You understand? So what then?
1:09:47 Q:The mind is completely empty and becomes completely receptive and open to the whole universe.
1:09:54 K:You understand, sir, the question? You understand the question? You can have a perfect house, well proportioned, beautiful space, lovely furniture, everything is spotless and fairly comfortable - what? So man says there must be something more. So he runs after it. And now the man says that's no good either. That's finished. I won't seek. It is not a determination; he sees the futility of seeking. Then is he to wait for that supreme touch? Then is he to meditate? Not about the supreme stuff, but to meditate to keep the mind completely empty of everything that it's accumulated, and therefore no accumulation ever. Try it, do it, sirs, you'll see the beauty of this. Is love accumulation, a collection of memories, a collection of images, sex or otherwise? And also one notices, if there is no love, in the right... love in the proper sense in which there is no jealousy, no antagonism - clean - pleasure doesn't touch it enjoyment, joy or... part of love, not pleasure. Have all that. Must have all that. Without love you can't do a thing. So having all that, how does that thing happen? Right, sirs? Because if that doesn't happen, creativeness is merely something you put in the museum. The cook baking bread is also creative. So everything becomes very small, tawdry, limited, futile, meaningless without the other. Now, how does the other happen? Go on, sirs. Waiting is impossible. If the mind waits...
1:15:24 Q:It is seeking if it is waiting. Waiting is seeking.
1:15:28 K:Waiting, expecting, hoping - then it becomes a tawdry little mind.
1:15:47 Q:So to wait is insufficient and to do anything is insufficient. I don't see any alternative.
1:15:58 K:Then what do you mean, alternative? Between what?
1:16:01 Q:What else is there, between waiting…
1:16:06 K:You don't wait.

Q:No, that would be…
1:16:09 K:Ah, no, see the danger of waiting, what is involved in waiting. Waiting means expecting, hoping. Then you are lost, then you invent something. The mind will cunningly invent a loophole through which it has discovered God.
1:16:37 Q:What else is there?
1:16:40 K:The moment you say, 'What else is there?' there is nothing. Has the mind come to this point? So that it is free of the past, free of... You know, sir, what all this means? Work. Not in order to receive that. Any of that is a bargaining then. I think then... you see, sirs, then the other seeks such a mind out. Right?
1:18:13 Q:I didn't hear you, sorry.
1:18:17 K:The other seeks such a mind out. You don't have to run after God - God runs after you. [Laughs] Yes, sir!
1:19:13 Q:I have a question I'd like to find an answer to, and that's: why do I call me 'me'? Why do I call this 'me'? And why do I want to defend it? Because that's what goes on when I go back outside.
1:19:29 K:Probably it's habit. You know, sir, this is all habit.
1:19:34 Q:Why? I have to see it for myself, why.
1:19:40 K:No, sir, we are conditioned by the verb 'to be' - that's why. The verb has conditioned us, the verb 'to be.' Right, sir?
1:20:15 We'd better stop - don't you? - and go on tomorrow.