eliwill/krishnamurti_discussions · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 12 1.33k
So when you have a motive will you understand attachment? The motive doesn't exist. All right, the motive doesn't exist, so you are concerned with attachment.
Why is it so difficult to be free of attachment? Sir, I am showing it to you, sir. This person why is it so difficult to be free of attachment, and we are trying to find out whether the mind can be free of attachment.
And we are saying, if there is a motive in any action, in any investigation, that action and that examination is distorted. Right? If I have a motive to be friendly with you, I am not friendly with you.
If I say, 'I love you', and I have a motive for that love, I don't love. So motive, or the examination of a cause are the same. So - please listen - can the mind be free of motive in examination, in investigation into the problem of attachment?
Say for instance, I am greatly interested in the ending of sorrow, if it is at all possible. And I have no motive, I just want to understand it, because I see human beings suffer and I want to find out, and therefore I have energy. You understand, sir?
A motive vitiates energy. The energy that I need to understand, to investigate, is wasted when there is a motive. But wanting to understand is saying, why.
Ah, no, I don't. I have no 'why', I won't... You are merely holding on to words, if I may... We will go into this in a minute, later. Now we are asking, can the mind be free of attachment?
Now to go into that you need energy. Right? All your energy you need, and if you have a motive that is a wasting of energy.
I need complete energy to understand attachment, and therefore I mustn't waste that energy in finding out the cause or the motive. Now I have got that energy because I have no motive, not the analysis of a cause. Right?
(Inaudible) There is a motive in finding out what lies beyond attachment. I don't want to find out, I am observing. I don't know what comes beyond, what lies beyond.
You follow, sir? I am just observing the map of attachment, as we did yesterday the map of fear. I just observe this map, there is no motive in it.
Now, are you like that, that you have no motive in looking at this map of attachment? Sirs, first see it verbally, if you understand the meaning of these words, then see it intellectually - you understand? - then see if you can go beyond the verbal, intellectual comprehension because the problem is that you are attached - to your wife, ideas, ideals and all the rest of it.
Now being attached, what happens? I am attached to my ideal - one is - then what takes place? I am attached to that.
Then what takes place? (Inaudible) (Repeating) Without attachment there is no sense of direction. And your attachment gives you a direction, and what is the result of that direction?
(Inaudible) One moment, one moment, one moment, please. Are you answering that gentleman's question? Ben'e.
Avanti. No, sir, the gentleman asked, attachment gives you direction, if there is no direction there is confusion, therefore you are attached. Attachment gives direction, and without direction there is confusion, so I am attached.
I am attached. Does attachment give direction to avoid confusion; or you are confused therefore you are attached? Not the other way round.
Please don't accept anything but let's look at it. The gentleman says, 'I am attached and that gives a direction to my activity, to my responsibility, to my action, and without that direction I am lost, I am confused'. So does direction give you order?
Does direction free you from confusion? Let's put it that way. (Inaudible) (Repeating) Confusion exists between two directions.
You are making it all so complicated. Be a little bit simple. Confusion brings division.
Obviously, sir. You have a direction and another has a direction - the Arabs have a direction and the Jews have a direction, and so on and so on, so on. What are all these directions bringing about in the world?
Confusion. No? So, please, one wants to understand what is the nature and structure and function of attachment.
And we are saying very simply, if you want to examine anything if you have a motive you blind yourself, you don't look clearly. That's simple, isn't it? The intention is to understand attachment, not my motive.
May I go on? (Inaudible) No, I'm using different words. Sir, please.
Sir, don't you want to understand attachment? I have a motive in being here. Yes, you have a motive, of course.
You are all here because you have a motive. That's understood. So what is your motive, why are you all here?
All right. Why are you all here? (Inaudible) You're lying down, sir, you are not paying attention.
Sorry, sorry, sir. I don't want to hear what... Why? No, you've said a lot of things.
Please, sir. (Inaudible) Afterwards. Please, will you please listen to what I have to say?
What is the motive for your being here? Look, I come here to understand what the speaker is saying, and the speaker says, don't understand what he is talking about but what he is talking about is yourself, so understand yourself. Right?
Understand yourself. And to understand yourself don't have a motive. That's all he is saying all the time, in different ways.
In the understanding of yourself you come upon this problem of attachment, and you see what attachment does - pain, suffering, a sense of loss if somebody goes away, and so on. So you are trying to understand attachment in the understanding of yourself. Now why - I am using the 'why' not for reason, cause, I am asking that as a process of investigation - why is the mind attached?
Why is your mind attached - attached to an ideal, attached to a nationality, attached to a person, attached to your experience, attached to your god, to your opinion, and so on - why does the mind cripple itself with all these attachments? There isn't an answer, I don't know. We are going to find an answer.
I can't just say, 'I don't know', and just leave it. I must find an answer. In words.
In reality, not in words, sir, don't go back to all that, because just verbal explanation is nothing. So I want to understand whether the mind can be free from attachment. And I ask why is the mind attached, what is behind this attachment?
(Inaudible) Yes, you need security, therefore you are attached. Oh, lord! Yes.
I am attached because I'm lonely. So you are attached because you are lonely, is that it? That is one of the reasons, isn't it?
Please, let's go into this. Are you tired this morning? Psychological conditioning by the society.
That is one of the reasons, psychological conditioning by the society. The society is what we have made of it, what human beings have made of it. And we are part of that mankind that has made the society, we are part of it, therefore that society is me.
I am not separate from that society; or the culture, the education, the religion, is me. I have created that. So I see one of the reasons of attachment is this sense of desperate loneliness.
Right? Loneliness. No, no, don't just brush it aside.
You people are too clever. (Inaudible) We are coming to that, sir. First look at the reason.
Just look at it. And then we'll come to the root of it. We have to use our minds, we have got to use our reason and go beyond reason.
We can't just say reason doesn't count. (Inaudible) (Repeating) Is life worth living if you are not attached to worthwhile things. Oh, for god's sake!
You see you are really not interested to investigate, or understand and see if the mind can be free from attachment. Look, my son is dead. I have been attached to him.
I have put all my energies, my hopes, my intentions, the desire for immortality in that son, and he is dead, and I go through suffering. I don't talk about reason, worthwhile this and worthwhile that, I want to find out. And I see where there is attachment there is suffering.
Right? - whether to furniture or to god, or to worthwhile values. Right?
Then I ask myself, is it possible for the mind to be free from suffering and therefore not attached? You understand? May I go on?
I can go on but you have got to live it, you have got to see it. My son is dead and I have been terribly attached to him. And when he is gone I feel very lonely, and I escape from that loneliness in order not to suffer - I go off climbing the mountains, reading books, and churches and drugs, and sex, and everything in order to escape from that suffering.
And that's what mankind has done - spread a vast net of escapes and in that net we are caught - intellectual, emotional, sentimental, romantic, illusory net. Now I see that net has no value at all because it hasn't solved the problem that my son is dead and I am suffering. Escape festers that suffering.
Right? Right, sir? And also I see in attachment there is fear, in attachment there is jealousy, there is bitterness, there is anger, hatred.
Haven't you noticed all this? No? And I also see that mankind has made an opposite, that is, be detached.
Now please follow this - is there an opposite at all to attachment? There is an opposite with man and woman, darkness and light, I am not talking of that, for the moment. Is there an opposite to attachment?
(Inaudible) (Repeating) There has to be an opposite otherwise it wouldn't exist. Aristotle. He is quoting Aristotle.
Aristotle apparently, according to him, has said, opposite must exist, otherwise 'what is' is non-existent. Listen to it carefully, please. The opposite must exist otherwise 'what is' is non-existent.
I am attached, and the opposite is detachment, and if there is no opposite there is no attachment. I am afraid even Aristotle can be mistaken! (Laughter) (Inaudible) We are going into it, sir, don't.
We are examining it, please, have some patience. I am asking, is there an opposite to attachment, or has the mind invented the opposite because it does not know what to do with 'what is'? I am attached, I don't know what to do with it, I am caught in it, I am in despair with it, and I say to myself, 'I will be detached from this', that is the opposite.
Right? And I am questioning, why does the opposite exist at all? Because I have only 'what is' - right?
- why should I have an opposite? Why should I have a duality in this? It may be because I do not know how to resolve this problem, therefore I say the opposite, by going for that, struggling to be detached, may help me to be detached from attachment.
Therefore I say to myself, I'll forget the detachment, it is not a fact. The fact is I am attached. Right?
That is the only fact. Detachment is a verbal non-fact. So I have to deal with 'what is', not with 'what should be'.
(Inaudible) No, sir, I'm not saying... first, please, I am saying something very simple, sir. The fact is attachment, that is what is going on. Detachment is a non-fact, it is something I have invented in order to get away from the fact.
Let me put it another way. Man is violent, man is violent, human beings are violent, and we have non-violence, the opposite. The opposite is not a reality, what is reality is violence.
Now if I know how to deal with the actual then I won't go to fiction. I will deal with 'what is'. Because if I have an opposite there is conflict between the two.
Oh sir, come on! I am not always violent. Oh, no, of course not.
Sir man is not constantly violent, of course he is not constantly violent. There are occasions when he is quiet. Why isn't there peace?
I never talked about peace, I am talking about attachment. That's the only thing I have to face - attachment. And in that observing attachment, in being aware of attachment, I find that there is sorrow, bitterness, anger, jealousy, annoyance, hatred, violence, all that.
That is the only thing I have, not the opposite. That we must be very clear. If I say there is the opposite of attachment, then that opposite creates a division between attachment and detachment, and therefore there is a conflict where there is division.
I find that my son is dead, and in that there is sorrow, that sorrow is the outcome of my loneliness, my loss, my sense of lack of companionship, and so on. And from that suffering I try to escape, and if there is no escape I become bitter, angry, furious, cynical. Right?
That is the problem. Now what is the mind to do? It has no opposites.
It is the action of thought. Don't go after thought, sir. Let's look at it differently.
To say to myself, 'That is the action of thought', doesn't help me to overcome my suffering. That's mere rationalisation. I suffer.
Now just a minute. Can the mind not suffer - not become brutal, I don't mean build a wall round itself so that it doesn't suffer. Attachment, loss, suffering, and that suffering arises when I have felt lonely, and I have filled that loneliness with my son.
Right? And when that son goes I am at a loss, and the sense of loss makes me suffer. Don't give me reasons, I know all the reasons.
Then I say to myself, attachment has brought this about. I know nothing about detachment. You all may do, but I know nothing about detachment, and I say to myself, what am I to do?
I won't escape because that's futile. What is the mind to do? Go on sir.
Adopt another child. Sir, you people are not serious, for god's sake! To adopt another child, who also may die, or get crippled, or become insane, or a crooked politician, or become a guru - the same thing!
(Laughter) If you are serious sir, please give some attention to this. So the mind says, what is it to do? No escape, no opposite - you see what has happened?
Escape is a wastage of energy. Right? The opposite is a wastage of energy because it creates a conflict.
And the mind needs all its energy to understand and go beyond suffering. Right? So no escape.
Can the mind remain with that suffering without any movement of escape or duality or trying to find the rationale of it? You understand my question? I suffer.
My son is dead, I suffer. Can I remain with that suffering without any movement of escape? Because any form of escape - the worship of a god, going to church, reading a novel, trying to say, 'Yes, my son will live next life, and I'll meet him next life', or 'He will be resurrected and I will be also resurrected and shall meet in the clouds' - all those are escapes and wastage of energy.
Right? And what am I to do? I'll show you, right?
I have no escapes. Can the mind - please listen - remain with the fact? Now what is the fact?
Please listen carefully. The fact of suffering - is it the word has created the feeling, or is it an actual suffering? You have understood?
Is the mind facing suffering? Or does it face what it calls suffering because of a word called 'suffering'? You understand sir?
The word is not the thing, the description is not the described. And is suffering a word or a reality? So I must find out whether the mind is caught in words.
The words may be an escape. So I have to find out whether the mind is capable of being free from the word and therefore capable of looking at 'what is' without the word. This is not an intellectual game.
Because words play an extraordinarily important part in our life - Christian, immediately you have an image; German, communism, a black man - you follow? These are words. And we think by using these words we have understood.
So can your mind be free of the word? Free of the word 'suffering' as well as violence? Right?
That requires attention. You understand sir, it isn't just a plaything. Then if it is accurate, not the word that is stimulating the feeling, then can the mind remain with that fact of that feeling and not move away from it?
When it remains with that feeling you have a tremendous energy, haven't you? - which has been dissipated. And when you have that energy then what is suffering?
Is there suffering? You know the word 'suffering' has its root in passion. If you look into a dictionary you will find it comes from the word 'passion', not the passions which Christians have made, but the actual word of it, the meaning, the semantic meaning.
Now when you remain with suffering, when the mind remains totally, completely without a movement, when the mind remains with the fact and not with the word, with the fact of that feeling of great sorrow without any escape, out of that comes passion. And without that passion you can't do a thing. Sir, let's look at it differently.
We have all been hurt - haven't you? - hurt, from childhood. Our education is a series of hurts, and can the mind look at those hurts, because one hurt is as many other hurts, there is only therefore one hurt, not the multiplication of hurts, that one hurt is good enough.
Can the mind look at that hurt without a single saying, 'I want to hit back, I want to build a wall round myself to isolate myself in order not to be ever hurt' - remain with that fact, not with the word. Then you will see that you have great energy to go beyond it. It doesn't then exist at all.
Do do it please. Is there a passion which is not suffering? Yes, is there a passion which is not suffering.
Yes. Is there a passion which is not the outcome of suffering? There is lust, there is the intensification of pleasure, which you may call passion, but that is not passion.
Suppose one takes great pleasure in doing something - climbing a mountain, achieving, fulfilling your talent - great pleasure - that's not passion, is it? Because passion goes with compassion - compassion means, passion for all. You understand sir?
Compassion is that. That compassion is different from taking a great intense pleasure in doing something, or fulfilling your particular little talent. Now is your mind free from attachment?

So when you have a motive will you understand attachment? The motive doesn't exist. All right, the motive doesn't exist, so you are concerned with attachment.

Why is it so difficult to be free of attachment? Sir, I am showing it to you, sir. This person why is it so difficult to be free of attachment, and we are trying to find out whether the mind can be free of attachment.

And we are saying, if there is a motive in any action, in any investigation, that action and that examination is distorted. Right? If I have a motive to be friendly with you, I am not friendly with you.

If I say, 'I love you', and I have a motive for that love, I don't love. So motive, or the examination of a cause are the same. So - please listen - can the mind be free of motive in examination, in investigation into the problem of attachment?

Say for instance, I am greatly interested in the ending of sorrow, if it is at all possible. And I have no motive, I just want to understand it, because I see human beings suffer and I want to find out, and therefore I have energy. You understand, sir?

A motive vitiates energy. The energy that I need to understand, to investigate, is wasted when there is a motive. But wanting to understand is saying, why.

Ah, no, I don't. I have no 'why', I won't... You are merely holding on to words, if I may... We will go into this in a minute, later. Now we are asking, can the mind be free of attachment?

Now to go into that you need energy. Right? All your energy you need, and if you have a motive that is a wasting of energy.

I need complete energy to understand attachment, and therefore I mustn't waste that energy in finding out the cause or the motive. Now I have got that energy because I have no motive, not the analysis of a cause. Right?

(Inaudible) There is a motive in finding out what lies beyond attachment. I don't want to find out, I am observing. I don't know what comes beyond, what lies beyond.

You follow, sir? I am just observing the map of attachment, as we did yesterday the map of fear. I just observe this map, there is no motive in it.

Now, are you like that, that you have no motive in looking at this map of attachment? Sirs, first see it verbally, if you understand the meaning of these words, then see it intellectually - you understand? - then see if you can go beyond the verbal, intellectual comprehension because the problem is that you are attached - to your wife, ideas, ideals and all the rest of it.

Now being attached, what happens? I am attached to my ideal - one is - then what takes place? I am attached to that.

Then what takes place? (Inaudible) (Repeating) Without attachment there is no sense of direction. And your attachment gives you a direction, and what is the result of that direction?

(Inaudible) One moment, one moment, one moment, please. Are you answering that gentleman's question? Ben'e.

Avanti. No, sir, the gentleman asked, attachment gives you direction, if there is no direction there is confusion, therefore you are attached. Attachment gives direction, and without direction there is confusion, so I am attached.

I am attached. Does attachment give direction to avoid confusion; or you are confused therefore you are attached? Not the other way round.

Please don't accept anything but let's look at it. The gentleman says, 'I am attached and that gives a direction to my activity, to my responsibility, to my action, and without that direction I am lost, I am confused'. So does direction give you order?

Does direction free you from confusion? Let's put it that way. (Inaudible) (Repeating) Confusion exists between two directions.

You are making it all so complicated. Be a little bit simple. Confusion brings division.

Obviously, sir. You have a direction and another has a direction - the Arabs have a direction and the Jews have a direction, and so on and so on, so on. What are all these directions bringing about in the world?

Confusion. No? So, please, one wants to understand what is the nature and structure and function of attachment.

And we are saying very simply, if you want to examine anything if you have a motive you blind yourself, you don't look clearly. That's simple, isn't it? The intention is to understand attachment, not my motive.

May I go on? (Inaudible) No, I'm using different words. Sir, please.

Sir, don't you want to understand attachment? I have a motive in being here. Yes, you have a motive, of course.

You are all here because you have a motive. That's understood. So what is your motive, why are you all here?

All right. Why are you all here? (Inaudible) You're lying down, sir, you are not paying attention.

Sorry, sorry, sir. I don't want to hear what... Why? No, you've said a lot of things.

Please, sir. (Inaudible) Afterwards. Please, will you please listen to what I have to say?

What is the motive for your being here? Look, I come here to understand what the speaker is saying, and the speaker says, don't understand what he is talking about but what he is talking about is yourself, so understand yourself. Right?

Understand yourself. And to understand yourself don't have a motive. That's all he is saying all the time, in different ways.

In the understanding of yourself you come upon this problem of attachment, and you see what attachment does - pain, suffering, a sense of loss if somebody goes away, and so on. So you are trying to understand attachment in the understanding of yourself. Now why - I am using the 'why' not for reason, cause, I am asking that as a process of investigation - why is the mind attached?

Why is your mind attached - attached to an ideal, attached to a nationality, attached to a person, attached to your experience, attached to your god, to your opinion, and so on - why does the mind cripple itself with all these attachments? There isn't an answer, I don't know. We are going to find an answer.

I can't just say, 'I don't know', and just leave it. I must find an answer. In words.

In reality, not in words, sir, don't go back to all that, because just verbal explanation is nothing. So I want to understand whether the mind can be free from attachment. And I ask why is the mind attached, what is behind this attachment?

(Inaudible) Yes, you need security, therefore you are attached. Oh, lord! Yes.

I am attached because I'm lonely. So you are attached because you are lonely, is that it? That is one of the reasons, isn't it?

Please, let's go into this. Are you tired this morning? Psychological conditioning by the society.

That is one of the reasons, psychological conditioning by the society. The society is what we have made of it, what human beings have made of it. And we are part of that mankind that has made the society, we are part of it, therefore that society is me.

I am not separate from that society; or the culture, the education, the religion, is me. I have created that. So I see one of the reasons of attachment is this sense of desperate loneliness.

Right? Loneliness. No, no, don't just brush it aside.

You people are too clever. (Inaudible) We are coming to that, sir. First look at the reason.

Just look at it. And then we'll come to the root of it. We have to use our minds, we have got to use our reason and go beyond reason.

We can't just say reason doesn't count. (Inaudible) (Repeating) Is life worth living if you are not attached to worthwhile things. Oh, for god's sake!

You see you are really not interested to investigate, or understand and see if the mind can be free from attachment. Look, my son is dead. I have been attached to him.

I have put all my energies, my hopes, my intentions, the desire for immortality in that son, and he is dead, and I go through suffering. I don't talk about reason, worthwhile this and worthwhile that, I want to find out. And I see where there is attachment there is suffering.

Right? - whether to furniture or to god, or to worthwhile values. Right?

Then I ask myself, is it possible for the mind to be free from suffering and therefore not attached? You understand? May I go on?

I can go on but you have got to live it, you have got to see it. My son is dead and I have been terribly attached to him. And when he is gone I feel very lonely, and I escape from that loneliness in order not to suffer - I go off climbing the mountains, reading books, and churches and drugs, and sex, and everything in order to escape from that suffering.

And that's what mankind has done - spread a vast net of escapes and in that net we are caught - intellectual, emotional, sentimental, romantic, illusory net. Now I see that net has no value at all because it hasn't solved the problem that my son is dead and I am suffering. Escape festers that suffering.

Right? Right, sir? And also I see in attachment there is fear, in attachment there is jealousy, there is bitterness, there is anger, hatred.

Haven't you noticed all this? No? And I also see that mankind has made an opposite, that is, be detached.

Now please follow this - is there an opposite at all to attachment? There is an opposite with man and woman, darkness and light, I am not talking of that, for the moment. Is there an opposite to attachment?

(Inaudible) (Repeating) There has to be an opposite otherwise it wouldn't exist. Aristotle. He is quoting Aristotle.

Aristotle apparently, according to him, has said, opposite must exist, otherwise 'what is' is non-existent. Listen to it carefully, please. The opposite must exist otherwise 'what is' is non-existent.

I am attached, and the opposite is detachment, and if there is no opposite there is no attachment. I am afraid even Aristotle can be mistaken! (Laughter) (Inaudible) We are going into it, sir, don't.

We are examining it, please, have some patience. I am asking, is there an opposite to attachment, or has the mind invented the opposite because it does not know what to do with 'what is'? I am attached, I don't know what to do with it, I am caught in it, I am in despair with it, and I say to myself, 'I will be detached from this', that is the opposite.

Right? And I am questioning, why does the opposite exist at all? Because I have only 'what is' - right?

- why should I have an opposite? Why should I have a duality in this? It may be because I do not know how to resolve this problem, therefore I say the opposite, by going for that, struggling to be detached, may help me to be detached from attachment.

Therefore I say to myself, I'll forget the detachment, it is not a fact. The fact is I am attached. Right?

That is the only fact. Detachment is a verbal non-fact. So I have to deal with 'what is', not with 'what should be'.

(Inaudible) No, sir, I'm not saying... first, please, I am saying something very simple, sir. The fact is attachment, that is what is going on. Detachment is a non-fact, it is something I have invented in order to get away from the fact.

Let me put it another way. Man is violent, man is violent, human beings are violent, and we have non-violence, the opposite. The opposite is not a reality, what is reality is violence.

Now if I know how to deal with the actual then I won't go to fiction. I will deal with 'what is'. Because if I have an opposite there is conflict between the two.

Oh sir, come on! I am not always violent. Oh, no, of course not.

Sir man is not constantly violent, of course he is not constantly violent. There are occasions when he is quiet. Why isn't there peace?

I never talked about peace, I am talking about attachment. That's the only thing I have to face - attachment. And in that observing attachment, in being aware of attachment, I find that there is sorrow, bitterness, anger, jealousy, annoyance, hatred, violence, all that.

That is the only thing I have, not the opposite. That we must be very clear. If I say there is the opposite of attachment, then that opposite creates a division between attachment and detachment, and therefore there is a conflict where there is division.

I find that my son is dead, and in that there is sorrow, that sorrow is the outcome of my loneliness, my loss, my sense of lack of companionship, and so on. And from that suffering I try to escape, and if there is no escape I become bitter, angry, furious, cynical. Right?

That is the problem. Now what is the mind to do? It has no opposites.

It is the action of thought. Don't go after thought, sir. Let's look at it differently.

To say to myself, 'That is the action of thought', doesn't help me to overcome my suffering. That's mere rationalisation. I suffer.

Now just a minute. Can the mind not suffer - not become brutal, I don't mean build a wall round itself so that it doesn't suffer. Attachment, loss, suffering, and that suffering arises when I have felt lonely, and I have filled that loneliness with my son.

Right? And when that son goes I am at a loss, and the sense of loss makes me suffer. Don't give me reasons, I know all the reasons.

Then I say to myself, attachment has brought this about. I know nothing about detachment. You all may do, but I know nothing about detachment, and I say to myself, what am I to do?

I won't escape because that's futile. What is the mind to do? Go on sir.

Adopt another child. Sir, you people are not serious, for god's sake! To adopt another child, who also may die, or get crippled, or become insane, or a crooked politician, or become a guru - the same thing!

(Laughter) If you are serious sir, please give some attention to this. So the mind says, what is it to do? No escape, no opposite - you see what has happened?

Escape is a wastage of energy. Right? The opposite is a wastage of energy because it creates a conflict.

And the mind needs all its energy to understand and go beyond suffering. Right? So no escape.

Can the mind remain with that suffering without any movement of escape or duality or trying to find the rationale of it? You understand my question? I suffer.

My son is dead, I suffer. Can I remain with that suffering without any movement of escape? Because any form of escape - the worship of a god, going to church, reading a novel, trying to say, 'Yes, my son will live next life, and I'll meet him next life', or 'He will be resurrected and I will be also resurrected and shall meet in the clouds' - all those are escapes and wastage of energy.

Right? And what am I to do? I'll show you, right?

I have no escapes. Can the mind - please listen - remain with the fact? Now what is the fact?

Please listen carefully. The fact of suffering - is it the word has created the feeling, or is it an actual suffering? You have understood?

Is the mind facing suffering? Or does it face what it calls suffering because of a word called 'suffering'? You understand sir?

The word is not the thing, the description is not the described. And is suffering a word or a reality? So I must find out whether the mind is caught in words.

The words may be an escape. So I have to find out whether the mind is capable of being free from the word and therefore capable of looking at 'what is' without the word. This is not an intellectual game.

Because words play an extraordinarily important part in our life - Christian, immediately you have an image; German, communism, a black man - you follow? These are words. And we think by using these words we have understood.

So can your mind be free of the word? Free of the word 'suffering' as well as violence? Right?

That requires attention. You understand sir, it isn't just a plaything. Then if it is accurate, not the word that is stimulating the feeling, then can the mind remain with that fact of that feeling and not move away from it?

When it remains with that feeling you have a tremendous energy, haven't you? - which has been dissipated. And when you have that energy then what is suffering?

Is there suffering? You know the word 'suffering' has its root in passion. If you look into a dictionary you will find it comes from the word 'passion', not the passions which Christians have made, but the actual word of it, the meaning, the semantic meaning.

Now when you remain with suffering, when the mind remains totally, completely without a movement, when the mind remains with the fact and not with the word, with the fact of that feeling of great sorrow without any escape, out of that comes passion. And without that passion you can't do a thing. Sir, let's look at it differently.

We have all been hurt - haven't you? - hurt, from childhood. Our education is a series of hurts, and can the mind look at those hurts, because one hurt is as many other hurts, there is only therefore one hurt, not the multiplication of hurts, that one hurt is good enough.

Can the mind look at that hurt without a single saying, 'I want to hit back, I want to build a wall round myself to isolate myself in order not to be ever hurt' - remain with that fact, not with the word. Then you will see that you have great energy to go beyond it. It doesn't then exist at all.

Do do it please. Is there a passion which is not suffering? Yes, is there a passion which is not suffering.

Yes. Is there a passion which is not the outcome of suffering? There is lust, there is the intensification of pleasure, which you may call passion, but that is not passion.

Suppose one takes great pleasure in doing something - climbing a mountain, achieving, fulfilling your talent - great pleasure - that's not passion, is it? Because passion goes with compassion - compassion means, passion for all. You understand sir?

Compassion is that. That compassion is different from taking a great intense pleasure in doing something, or fulfilling your particular little talent. Now is your mind free from attachment?