Relationship based on mutual need brings only conflict. However interdependent we are
on each other, we are using each other for a purpose, for an end. With an end in view,
relationship is not. You may use me and I may use you. In this usage, we lose contact. A
society based on mutual usage is the foundation of violence. When we use another, we
have only the picture of the end to be gained. The end, the gain, prevents relationship,
communion. In the usage of another, however gratifying and comforting it may be, there
is always fear. To avoid this fear, we must possess. From this possession there arises
envy, suspicion, and constant conflict. Such a relationship can never bring about
A society whose structure is based on mere need, whether physiological or psychological,
must breed conflict, confusion and misery. Society is the projection of yourself in relation
with another, in which the need and the use are predominant. When you use another for
your need, physically or psychologically, in actuality there is no relationship at all; you
really have no contact with the other, no communion with the other. How can you have
communion with the other when the other is used as a piece of furniture, for your
convenience and comfort? So, it is essential to understand the significance of relationship
in daily life.
....What happens if you do not condemn desire, do not judge it as being good or bad, but
simply be aware of it? I wonder if you know what it means to be aware of something?
Most of us are not aware because we have become so accustomed to condemning,
judging, evaluating, identifying, choosing. Choice obviously prevents awareness because
choice is always made as a result of conflict. To be aware when you enter a room, to see
all the furniture, the carpet or its absence, and so on—just to see it, to be aware of it all
without any sense of judgment—is very difficult. Have you ever tried to look at a person,
a flower, at an idea, an emotion, without any choice, any judgment?
And if one does the same thing with desire, if one lives with it—not denying it or saying,
“What shall I do with this desire? It is so ugly, so rampant, so violent,” not giving it a
name, a symbol, not covering it with a word—then, is it any longer the cause of turmoil?
Is desire then something to be put away, destroyed? We want to destroy it because one
desire tears against another creating conflict, misery and contradiction; and one can see
how one tries to escape from this everlasting conflict. So can one be aware of the totality
of desire? What I mean by totality is not just one desire or many desires, but the total
quality of desire itself