Renée Weber: My question has to do with the sense of 'all or nothing' ( 'make it or break it'?) in your Teachings . Take, for example ( holistic) education. You seem to say that a teacher who isn't free from fear, sorrow and all the human problems, cannot really be a genuine teacher. That leaves the ( casual reader with the ) impression that one is either perfect or useless.

Krishnamurti: I think there must be an (intellectual ?) misunderstanding here because if one (assumes) that until one is perfect and is not free from certain ( undesirable?) states of mind, one cannot teach, that would be an impossible situation, wouldnt it?

RW: Yes.

K: So is it possible for the (holistically friendly?) educator to say, I am not free, you are not free, we all have various forms of conditioning, let's talk about (openly ) it and see if we can get free of it. That way you can break it up.

RW: But don't you think the educator has at least to understand the (unconditioning?) process better than the student?

K: Perhaps he has studied ( the Book of Oneself?) a little more. But in communicating with the student, or in communicating with himself, the educator realizes that he is both ( in the position of) the teacher and ( and in that of ) the student – he is both educating and being educated.

RW: You are saying that he is open (minded) he is learning and teaching at the same time.

K: Thats a really 'good' ( student friendly?) educator, not one who just says, 'I know and I'll tell you all about it'.

RW: Which means that such a person has to be free from psychological flaws such as 'pride'.

K: Those are obvious things. But even if as educator I am arrogant or ambitious, in talking with the students I also can learn that I am arrogant and that the student is also arrogant in his way, and in an open discussion , if one is honest and really self-critical, self-aware, there are tremendous possibilities.

RW: So, you are saying that this process can take place between teacher and student even though neither of them is perfect?

K: I wouldn't even use that word 'perfection' , but if we could establish a relationship with the student or with other people in which an open dialogue takes place, a free, self-critical, self-aware dialogue of questioning, doubting, inquiring, then we are both learning, are both 'communing' with each other's point of view, and sharing with each other's difficulties. So in that way, if one really wants to go very deeply into the matter, you help each other (by sharing insight ) .

RW: But suppose somebody says: that raises a (natural authority) problem because the student feel that the teacher doesn't know any more than he does, it may undercut his trust.

K: I would tell him, Look, I have studied a bit more than you have. But it doesn't mean I am something extraordinary.

RW: So you feel that if the teacher just very honestly speaks of his strengths and the weaknesses: 'I know more, but I don't know everything'.

K: I haven't studied Plato at all, but you have. So you say, look, I know a little more, naturally, otherwise I wouldn't be your Professor.

RW: Exactly, otherwise our relationship would be dishonest.

K: So, let's discuss together all these ( very basic) things: what life is about, what existence is for, whether there is justice at all in the world, and so on.

RW: I think that under these circumstances, caring and self-critical adults would feel that they can teach others. Whereas if they have to be perfection itself, then who could do it?

K: But there are very few people who are honest with themselves, aware of what they think, and so on. I mean one has to be tremendously honest in all this.

RW: So, what makes one person capable of that ( inner honesty) and not another?

K: Thats a fact (of life) , some people are ( profoundly earnest & ) serious, and some others are not.

RW: What ( inner) qualities does it take for a person to be very honest with himself ?

K: Not to be afraid of discovering what you ( really) are, not to be ashamed, or frightened to discover. Being able to say simply, 'This is what I am' – psychologically identified with a lot of nice sounding words, with other people's ( great?) ideas, ( opportunistically?) dependent on the (socio- economical) pressures, and so on. Unless one is self-aware and self-critical you end up like a...

RW: So it takes the awareness and courage to say it.

K: I ( personally?) don't like to use the word 'courage' . A man ( of moral integrity) who is really serious , is naturally fearless, he will say, all right, if I lose ( this lousy?) job... I lose my job .

RW: Don't you think that many people fear that if I look all this straight in the face, even for myself, it will make the problem worse, not better?

K: It would bring about much more uncertainty.

RW: That's it, and therefore... ?

K: Face that uncertainty rather than saying, well, it will bring me greater problems, so I won't do anything which is really ( leading to ) a senseless (& mediocre?) existence.

RW: Well, I have heard people say that this alternative will disintegrate me, I won't be able to function as a sane person.

K: What you call 'sanity' may be ( from the holistic point of view ) 'insanity'. What is going on in the ( modern) world is quite insane. If you want to fit into that insanity, all right, be one of the insane. But suppose you don't want to be insane, then you say, sorry, I'm against the current or not going along with it.

RW: This brings up a second question that puzzles and confuses most people, including me : you talk about a certain state of (inner) integration, of sanity, or of 'being a light to oneself', and several of us have said, yes, I have tasted that from time to time, I know a little bit of that. But then it seems to disappear or 'leak away', it gets thinner.

K: It 'slips away'.

RW: And your (standard) answer has been, if it ever slips away then you have never experienced it in the first place, because it is not the kind of thing that can come and go. Could you clarify that? It has confused people and made them very unhappy.

K: What is the problem? I have experienced something, a state of total clarity or a sense of wholeness, a holistic way of living, I have had a glimpse of it, it may have lasted a day, or a week but it has gone. And it has left a ( holistical ) remembrance, and I would like to live with it all the time, have it as part of my life, or find a way of remaining with it. So the question is: that state (of inner freedom & clarity ?) , that ( Magic?) 'thing' that happens so rarely in a human life, was that asked for, or it come naturally, unexpectedly, without any preparation ? It came naturally when 'you' ( the self-conscious entity?) were not (there) , when you had no problems, it just came . And now it has gone and you are back in your old state of mind and you want it back. You want to see if you cant somehow remain with it all the time.

RW: Yes, and it seems the best way to cope with this (unsettled) situation is to feel that everything comes out intelligently...

K: Yes, it happened spontaneously when you were not (obsessed with?) thinking about yourself. Then you say, I could see in that state everything very clearly. There were no problems I couldn't tackle, there was no resistance, no hindrance, nothing.

RW: That's right.

K: The ( gist of the?) question really is this: that ( time-free?) state of mind, or whatever you like to call it took place when the self-consciousness was not (at work ?) , when the (personal) problems, ambitions, greed and so on, were temporarily in abeyance. That was when it happened.

RW: You said 'temporarily in abeyance'. That means it just moved into the background, it left the centre of the stage.

K: 'Perhaps', I am saying.

RW: Or did it just dissolve?

K: No, of course not. If it dissolved the other thing would never survive.

RW: Exactly, so somehow it was pushed. ..

K: No, it 'happened'. You are walking down a lane full of trees and beauty, you are looking at all the beauty of it and you suddenly say, 'by Jove, look at that'. At that moment your self (centred consciousness) , with all its problems, is not. And when it goes (slips away?) you are back to your old self. The question then is not how to get that state of mind back, but rather : it possible to be free of the self?

RW: All right. So can we go back to that state for a minute. In that state...

K: That state ( of selflessness?) brought about a feeling that you saw everything very clearly.

RW: Yes. Now what brings it on and what makes it go again?

K: What brings it on? That's very simple. When there is no self.

RW: But what triggers that (selfless state?) ? Why is there suddenly no self?

K: Because you are no more concerned with your problems, you are looking at those orange trees, at the beauty of those flowers. For a single second 'you' are not.

RW: And the next second you are back.

K: Then you say, now I am back, for Gods sake I wish I had that. One doesn't realize that the (subliminally selfish?) demand for it...

RW: ... blocks it.

K: That's why I said one requires a great deal of simple humility and honesty in this, not all the (vain) arrogance of knowledge that denies (shuts out?) the other.

RW: But do you think that if one has had a glimpse of this, is it helpful (for their inner developpment?) or not?

K: It is not something (really?) mysterious, not something that you have to go through a lot of 'process' to have.

RW: I understand that, but you have agreed it is rare.

K: Because human beings are so terribly selfish, concerned with themselves in so many different ways.

RW: Yes, subtly or obviously.

K: Yes, the subtle ways become a little more difficult to see, but it is still the same ( self-interest?) thing.

RW: All right, lets say that if you have had a glimpse of that state of being...

K: A state in which the self was ( temporarily) absent. The self means ( thinking about one's continuity in?) time, or the accumulation of personal memories, problems and all the terrible things by which the self (centred consciousness ) makes itself manifest- power, position, dependence on people. When for a single second that ( pro-active personal interface?) is not ('on'?) , the other is. The 'Other' is not (really?) somehing extraordinary.

RW: It is not exotic, romantic. Yes, but then the question that keeps coming up, is why does it come and go? Why is that state a way of life for some people ( like you) and for others it is a very sporadic, occasional glimpse?

K: It is very simple. The one with whom It ( the Other ?) 'remains' is unselfish. You seem not to give importance to this 'selfless' state of mind .

RW: What does that mean?

K: Not to be selfish with all its complexities.

RW: 0K, but what does it mean 'not to be selfish'?

K: To be concerned with oneself in many different ways , gross or most refined ways, hiding ( one's central self-interest?) under every kind of ( politically correct?) cover (masks) - you can see it blatantly (in... others?) .

RW: I understand. But what about the people who are not intellectuals, not 'meditators', just simple people who don't ( have time to ) think much about themselves — that's not what you mean ( by selflessness ) either.

K: Of course not. First of all: ( the self-centred) thinking is common to all mankind. It is shared by everyone. By top scientists as well as the poorest, uneducated, unsophisticated human being — he thinks ( of himself ) too — it is shared by all human beings.

RW: Yes.

K: It is shared by all human beings, so it is not my individual(istic) thinking. Thinking is shared by you, by me, by her, by that person.

RW: You feel it is shared as a collective process?

K: Not collective, it is simply 'shared' as the sunlight is shared by all human beings, it is not my sunlight.

RW: Is it so 'analogous'?

K: Of course.

RW: Somebody could say: but I only know my thoughts, and I dont know your thoughts, I don't know his thoughts.

K: The expression of thinking may vary, the scientist would put it in the most complicated scientific way and the poor villager, the poor uneducated man says, 'I want this'. But thinking is shared by all human beings.

RW: As a ( mental) function, yes.

K: And you may express it differently because you have read Plato ( & other famous thinkers?) and I havent. So I may put it in simpler language.

RW: But we were pursuing how the 'selfishness' of most human beings...

K: I am showing it to you. ( The faculty of) thinking is shared by all of us, it is not yours or mine.

RW: You are saying that the activity of thinking itself, which is shared, is the central thing, whereas we usually focus on its outcome and content.

K: Being an artist I feel myself better than others, and so on. So I never see ( the holistic fact?) that my thinking is the same as yours. Just see the beauty of the idea that we all share the sun, the sunlight. But the moment I identify myself with my ( material condition or?) expression then the (sense of my) difference arises. So 'identification' is one of the main factors of selfishness. And the ( time binding ) attachment to that identification, and holding on to your ( personal) opinions.

RW: Lets say— for example, that one may think that people who believe in something are gullible and stupid and my superiority is there, 'I believe in nothing'.

K: The moment you identify with your ( sense of) superiority, there you are. But ( 'selfishness' is so extraordinarily clever in its own way, it can hide behind the most brutal things and the most subtle forms of expression, producing constant refinement of the self, making itself more and more ( subliminally?) selfish.

RW: And the 'selfless' self being the most dangerous. Because it really fools itself (along with many others)

K: Right. That's why I said that a great sense of humility and honesty (& integrity?) is needed. When one wants this ( insightful?) way of life, one has to live very honestly, scrupulously, and if you are honest (true to yourself?) you are naturally very clear in your humility . Then this doesn't require evolution.

RW: How does that relate to confidence or lack of confidence, this absolute honesty with oneself ?

K: Why should we have ( self-) confidence?

RW: Lets say 'trust in your own awareness'.

K: Why should you have it?

RW: I think that people who don't have it are the most self-centred, they are always feeling insecure, worrying all the time.

K: Most people are neurotic.... So living without identifying with your experience, your knowledge, or the expression of your creation by hand or mind. That is why the 'other' thing becomes so rare.

RW: Do you think anybody does it at all?

K: I hope so.

RW: I mean, it certainly is a very difficult thing to understand for most people.

K: Because they don't apply it.

RW: Some may want to. Now why don't they 'do it'?

K: They don't ( really) want it. If they want it, they will do it.

RW: That is a difficult step to follow. Lets say, many of the people who are seriously interested in these ideas …

K: But they don't 'want' it.

RW: ... but for years they try.

K: No, you can't 'try' this. Its like a man 'trying' not to be violent.

RW: So, you are saying they don't really want to. And your ( holistic?) 'proof' is ''If they really wanted to they would do it''.

K: Of course, they wanted to go to the Moon, and they did it.

RW: But that's easier.

K: No, that also requires a great deal of energy.

RW: But its something outside myself.

K: Even there you have to have energy, coordination, cooperation, efficiency and all that. Now if you ( would) apply all that to yourself and say, look, I really want this thing, to live a life without any conflict, of course you can do it (sooner or later?)

RW: Can I go back to the example of the Moon landing? I can apply energy, passion, effort to something external to me, but here it is my very 'self' I am working on, and it is a kind of dying to the 'self'.

K: We said at the beginning of this conversation that there must be a certain quality of honesty, quality of learning, which is humility...Either you are honest or you are not. You can see it.

RW: You mean when you are (really honest to yourself?) , you know it directly.

R: Quite. Look, its simple. When I know I am ambitious, and I (try to) pretend not to be ambitious; when I want to be the head of something, and talk about how absurd power is. It's so simple all this; when I want to dominate people and at the same time say I am democratic. It becomes so childish.

RW: So, you're saying that if one really were serious and wanted to do it, it would happen ?*

K: Of course.

RW: You see, it sounds so(ooo) simple and people have heard you say that and they have tried and it doesn't happen!

K: You can't 'try it'. You don't 'try' not to put your hand in the fire! You know fire burns and you don't go into it.

RW: But is it so 'analogous'?

K: It is. You realize that this complex way of (self-centred ) living creates problem after problem, that in solving one (personal or social?) problem you have ten other (new?) problems. That happens in this country politically, and it is happening all over the world. When I realize that way of living is meaningless and that its basis is our deep, unexplored selfishness ... I realize that, and say: do I want to live that way? Most people do because that is the easiest way — you run with the (winners') pack. And if you dont, you say, sorry, I don't want any of that.

RW: All right, suppose you are at that point, then what is the next step? What has changed?

K: What has changed is my whole ( dualistic) way of looking at life, not my profession, (an economic or social) function that I carry out. But the function doesn't give me a ( priviledged) status.

RW: You are saying that there is not necessarily a change from an external point of view, it is how I relate myself to everything, how I view the world.

K: Not how 'you' relate. The moment you say 'how I relate', then you are emphasizing the self.

RW: How would you put it ?

K: Why is it that we want ( self-) identification? The name, the form.

RW: The name, the form, I have to know what house to go to at night, which children to feed...

K: Look at it much more deeply. Why do I want to know who my great-great-grandfather was? Who cares? What matters is what I am now. Who cares whether somebody is a prince or a queen? All that is (spiritually wise?) so childish.

RW : That's easier to see. But my question is: there those few who say they want the 'other' (dimension of Consciousness?) , still they don't do it. Why can't they do it?

K: Its not ( due to ) a lack of (good?) will because ( goodwill) will has nothing to do with it. I desire to be non-violent, but ( in the meanwhile ) I am still (enjoying the rewaring aspects of being?) violent.

RW: But when you said that ''if people were serious in really 'wanting' that, they would do it''. You don't mean ( good ) will or desire?

K: I say that 'it is possible' because I live that way for myself. And you, say, show me 'how'. I've shown ( the rationale of?) it to you but as your intention ( is or?) may be very superficial, you are satisfied with mere description, analysis, definition, and make an ideal out of it and say: now, how am I to carry out that ideal?

RW: Yes, that's the wrong way.

K: You are gone (off the tangent?) you are 'finished' (better luck next time?) .

RW: All right, but suppose that I am serious. I say I would like to live in an intelligent way without the 'self'. What do I do next?

K: It is what 'you don't do', because ( the approach by the ) negation (of the false ) is the most positive thing. So what is it that I don't need to do?

RW: Allright, what is it that we' don't need to do'?

K: To make an effort. Effort means ( a subliminal form of self-) achievement. Suppose I recognize that there is a possibility of living that way, and I make a (mental) effort to 'achieve' it. The 'maker of the effort' is still ( there and in full control?).

RW: That's clear. But there is a 'paradox' because at the same time you have said that the person has to be very serious about this, and consider that is the most important thing there is.

K: It is so. ( for a person seriously asking:) is it possible to live in this world without a single problem, without a single conflict? And ( our human) problems and conflicts will exist as long as human beings are 'selfish' - in the deepest and in the superficial sense. Now if you say that to me, I say, 'Look, I am such a serious human being, I see all the rubbish that is going on in the world and so I put that aside, I am out of it completely- psychologically speaking , I am out of it, ( a negation ) which has already made me different. I am out of that current (of personal & collective self-interest?)

RW: Out of that current?

K: Yes, out of that ( strong psychical?) current, to which probably ninety-nine per cent belong. I don't think in that way, I don't look at life in that ( self-centred) way. So (the next instrospective step is:) what are the things that makes the 'self' so important? What are the things that are unnecessary?

RW: What I can 'let go', as you said earlier ?

K: (For starters, my personal ?) 'attachments' ( within the known) . And (just) that implies a tremendous lot, ( to follow up all?) the implications of it. To be 'unattached' ( free of one's psycho-attachments?) means to have an extraordinarily quick mind...

RW: You are saying that this ('attached' existence?) is the difficult way to live.

K: This is the most impractical way.

RW: And yet this is what we (generally) choose. That is what you are saying ?

K: Yes, that's the only question (that has to be seriouslydealt with ?) . Why do people want to live that ( hedonistic?) way, night after night, entertainment, whether religious, political, sport, and ( video-game?) wars? Why do they want to live that way? Partly because it is ( pretty safe, comfortable &?) traditional.

RW: Because we are 'used to it' ( got attached to this way of life?) ; it seems easier.

K: Yes, and living that way you don't have to 'think' ( responsibly ?) .

RW: Yes, it's less demanding, even if it is more painful (on the long term?) .

K: Of course. Less demanding (now?) , but painful (later?) with all the (accumulated frustrations & ) misery. And they want all this, all the colleges, all the universities, everything goes along with this.

RW: Yes, although I suppose that what you have brought out with that 'other' state of being …

K: You see, you say, 'other state of being'. It is not 'being'.

RW: But what is it?

K: You see it cannot be ( properly?) described verbally . ( For one thing) 'being' implies 'becoming'.

RW: I don't think of it that way. 'Being' is not becoming, being is just dwelling in the moment.

K: All right, wait a moment. 'Being' means what? An acorn is an acorn, it doesn't pretend to become an apple. It 'is'. Right?

RW: Yes.

K: Who can say, 'it is', and nothing else? You understand?

RW: Not really ...

K: You see, we are used to this perpetual, contradictory (thought-time) movement, moving forward or backward, it is a constant ( mental) movement (of becoming something or other) . So nobody in that state of movement can say, 'It Is'. Only when that movement stops can you say, 'It Is'.

RW: Exactly. But that's living in (a dimension of 'being') that is timeless.

K: Don't bring in the 'timeless' — it becomes too complicated.

RW: When you are in it, It just 'is'. And then you don't ( need to ) say it. I realize that. But this question is the one we started out with: at times some people have an inkling, a glimpse of That and they are therefore aware to some degree of a difference.

K: No, they want that so that they can live ( the same old way, only?) better. Look, don't most ( average hedonistic?) people, having had great delight in something, once it's gone remember it and say, please …

RW: They like to have it back.

K: Keep it at that level. Look at everything, the cinema, television, sex this is the way they all want it (to continue for ever after?) . And I say, all right, have it your way, but that way is ( sooner or later) going to destroy you, Iit is going to destroy the Earth, through pollution, and so on, all for your movement. And I say, I am sorry, you are all rather odd, neurotic people; I don't want to join you.

RW: You ( probably) bring that ( diversionist?) example up because our problem is turning something into an object of desire - whether that is a peaceful state of being or an object or a sexual experience. ..

K: The moment you desire you belong ( become psychologically addicted?) to that which is desired.

RW: Yes. You've made that ( thing desired) into an 'object' and 'I' am here and 'it' is there and... 'I' want 'it'.

K: Suppose you slap me, I slap you (back) . But if I say, all right, I don't want to be slapped, I don't want to slap you, leave me alone, just carry on, if you want to go that way, carry on. Do you see what takes place? ( Inwardly) you leave that current (of violence & selfisness ?) . Then they say, by Jove, he is a very strange man. Either he is mentally ( impaired?) or he is a hero or ( maybe he is ) a Saint ( a Holy person) and then...we will 'worship' him, which becomes another form of ( sophisticated ?) entertainment! This is what is ( actually) happening. So the man ( who stepped out of the Stream of Selfishness?) says, please don't do any of these things. If you want to come ( to the 'other' dimension of Consciousness?) the Door is open, but you must ( be ready, willing & able to ? ) come through the Door, I'm not going to push you through the door, you must come, its up to your (free will?) . The ( spiritual?) food is ( in) there, but if you are not hungry... all right.

RW: But they are 'hungry'.

K: I know, of course they are hungry, poor chaps, but they fall into all kinds of ( cleverly engineered?) 'traps'. You have had in this country Catholic gurus, Protestant gurus and Hindu gurus, Buddhist gurus, every type of guru has come here.

RW: Atheist gurus...

K: And atheist gurus. And I say, sorry, you can keep them all. I think it is so terribly simple that we 'miss' it. Our minds are so ( knowledgeably) complicated, so clever, so cunning — we are used to that.

RW: But is it really so 'simple'?

K: It's not.

RW: But you said it is 'so simple' that we miss it.

K: Of course.

RW: What is 'so simple' ? Just to let go of the ( emphasis on ?) self (interest ) and to stop identifying?

K: Yes, that's the beginning of it.

RW: But that takes overcoming centuries of (psychological) conditioning! How can that (reversal ) be so 'simple'?

K: Conditioning is ( encripted in ) the everyday movement of our thought. So ( the 'simplicity' refers ?) to be(coming objectively?) aware of this whole movement of (our self-centred) thought, not to say, how am I to 'step out' of it — just to be ( responsibly?) aware of this.

RW: Krishnaji, I would like to ask you something ( of a more personal nature?) . For all the people — that includes me — who have come many times to hear you, the ( second wind?) question that comes up over and over again is: 'Why is it so ( simple &) clear to one person and however hard he's trying to explain or to clarify it to others, they say ' I just can't do it !' So, are you still saying it can be done by everybody?

K: I say that if one (person) can do it, everybody can do it (now or later?) .

RW: But if that were so, wouldn't everybody ('Just) do it'?

K: Please 'listen' ( 'read the small print'?) . First of all, we are so heavily conditioned as Christians, as Buddhists and so on, and this conditioning implies (earnestly going) into the whole ('psychological' package) of it. Now, if I am also ambitious to become the Principal of a ( K?) school or to become President of this or that , do you think I am going to give that up for something that sounds...

RW: ... vague ?

K: Not 'vague', very clear! And I understand it intellectually, but it is something that may be rather difficult (to achieve) , and I may even ( miss the opportunity?) to become a School Principal or a 'President' (of Something)

RW: That's true.

K: So I prefer the 'President' (or 'Principal' option) to this!

RW: On the other hand, if I don't really think that being President will bring me more 'happiness', and if I am convinced this ( inward search) will bring me greater happiness, why would I not make the trade ?

K: Because there's no guarantee (whatsoever )

RW: Exactly, I'll have to let go of that and jump into the Unknown.

K: Ah, no. ( Just to see that ) this ( 'President' option?) is false! Therefore leave it.

RW: But with no guarantee (for an 'alternative' reward?)

K: Of course. Otherwise its like giving up something in order to get something (better) .

RW: Exactly. But most people are ( subliminally) afraid they'll 'fall between the cracks' and be left with nothing. I'll give this up, but if ( there's no guarantee that ) I will understand or realize the 'other'.....I will have nothing.

K: So I'll give this up if you 'guarantee' me the other. All the religious structures have been based on that.

RW: So you have answered the question really. You have said, if people were completely serious and meant it, they could do it too, they could understand ( and transcend all ) that (old conditioning) .

K: Its so 'simple' ! But you won't 'enter the water', you are frightened already (or evaluating the odds?) , you won't move. But if he says, I'll guarantee you won't sink because you have got this that and the other, then you'll...

RW: And he can't say that, it's impossible to say it ?

K: It would be 'sacrilegious' (a Karmic mistake?) to say that.

RW: I know. That would be impossible, and that's the problem.

K: That's how all the gurus make (their pocket?) money! All the churches in the world have made money that way.

RW: You say its 'so simple' and that we have cluttered up our intellect, but even the simple (minded) farmer who doesn't clutter up his intellect cannot do it either.

K: Of course not, because he is 'dull' ( inwardly inert ?) , the opposite of the other ( mentally hyperactive?) .

RW: Exactly

K: ( So, here's the 'fine print':) It requires a good ( harmoniously integrated body & ?) mind, it requires clear (non-personal) perception of seeing things 'as they are'.

RW: A good mind but one not cluttered with content.

K: With concepts. After all, there is no ( spiritual?) Justice in the world : you are clever, I am not. You were born rich, I was born in a hovel. You have every opportunity, I haven't. You have got a good brain and I haven't. You are ( born?) free, I am not. Its so clear, there isn't Justice.

RW: Therefore what? Mother Nature has distributed things unequally?

K: First see that there is no ( ideal) Justice, right?

RW: There is no equality, I would put it that way.

K: No, no Justice.

RW: All right, in that sense. What follows?

K: What follows is what happens to me when I see that there is no justice in the world ? Either I become bitter, angry, violent...

RW: Or depressed ?

K: Of course, depressed. But if I don't do any of those things I am not even looking for ( a non-existing) 'equality'. Then I am a free man.

RW: That step is not clear.

K: As long as I am comparing ( the 'psychological benefits' of our unequal opportunities ?) I am caught in the ( thought& time ) trap. So I dont compare. Personally, I've never compared. It may sound odd, but its a fact.

RW. Do you think though if you were a farmer with six children to feed, and you saw the landlord riding around, that you wouldn't compare?

K: Of course, I would feel angry.

RW: It would be natural.

K: It would be rancour because I'd want to be like him.

RW: Or you may just want to feed your children and...

K: Yes, and all the rest of it follows. But if there is no feeling of comparison — ah, that is a different way of living!

RW: That's very interesting. Thank you very much.

Sign in to recommend