K: How does this happen? Why has man not come to this? Why has he fought
pain with a dualistic movement? Why has he never understood or delved into
pain without the dualistic movement? What happens when there is no movement
away from pain—not what happens to the dissolution of pain, but what happens
to the mechanism that operates? It is simple. Pain is the movement away. There
is no pain where there is only listening. There is pain only when I move from the
fact and say: This is pleasurable, this is not pleasurable. My son dies. That is an
absolute, irrevocable fact. Why is there pain?
P: Because I loved him.
K: Look what has already happened unconsciously. I loved him. He has gone.
The pain is the remembrance of my love for him. And he is no more. But the
absolute fact is that he is gone. Remain with that fact. There is pain only when I
say that he is no more, which is when the thinker comes into being and says: My
son is no longer there; he was my companion, and all the rest of it.
S: It is not merely the memory of my son who is dead which is pain. There is
loneliness now.
K: My son is dead. That is a fact. Then there is the thought of loneliness. Then
there is my identification with him. All that is a process of thought and the
thinker. But I have only one fact—my son is gone. Loneliness, the lack of
companionship, despair, are all the result of thought, which creates duality, a
movement away from ‘what is’. It does not need strength or determination not to
move. The determination is dualistic.
There is only one thing: the fact and my movement away from the fact, away
from ‘what is’. It is this which breeds bitterness, callousness, lack of love,
indifference—which are all the product of thinking. The fact is my son is gone.
The non-perception of ‘what is’ breeds the thinker, which is dualistic action.
When the mind falls again into the trap of dualistic action, that is ‘what is’.
Remain with that, for any movement away from that is another dualistic action.
The mind is always dealing with ‘what is’ as noise-no-noise. And ‘what is’, the
fact, needs no transformation because it is already ‘the beyond’. Anger is ‘what
is’. The dualistic movement of non-anger is away from ‘what is’. The movement
from ‘what is’ is no longer anger. Therefore, once the mind has perceived, once it
has had non-dualistic perception, it does not act from memory when anger arises
again. The next time anger arises, that is ‘what is’. The mind is always dealing
with ‘what is’. Therefore, the dualistic concept is totally wrong; it is fallacious.
P: This is tremendous action. The dualistic action is non-action.
K: You have to be simple. It is the mind that is not clever, that is not cunning,
that is not trying to find substitutes for dualistic action, that can understand. Our
minds are not simple enough. Though we all talk of simplicity, that simplicity is
of the loincloth.