strings: Now, if you seek permanent gratification, calling it God, or truth, or what you will—the name does not matter  surely you must understand, must you not? , the thing you are seeking. When you say, "I am seeking permanent happiness'?—God, or truth, or what you like must you not also understand the thing that is searching, the searcher, the seeker? Because there may be no such thing as permanent security, permanent happiness. rl'ruth may be something entirely different; and I think it is utterly different from what you can see, conceive, formulate. Therefore, before we seek something permanent, is it not obviously necessary to understand the seeker? Is the seeker different from the thing he seeks? When you say, "I am seeking happiness'  the seeker different from the object of his search? Is the thinker different from the thought? Are they not a joint phenomenon, rather than separate processes? Therefore it is essential, is it not? , to understand the seeker, before you try to find out what it is he is seeking.