I WOULD LIKE to discuss with you the problem of freedom. It is a very complex problem, needing deep study and understanding. We hear much talk about freedom, religious freedom, and the freedom to do what one would like to do. Volumes have been written on all this by scholars. But I think we can approach it very simply and directly, and perhaps that will bring us to the real solution.

I wonder if you have ever stopped to observe the marvellous glow in the west as the sun sets, with the shy young moon just over the trees? Often at that hour the river is very calm, and then everything is reflected on its surface: the bridge, the train that goes over it, the tender moon, and presently, as it grows dark, the stars. It is all very beautiful. And to observe, to watch, to give your whole attention to something beautiful, your mind must be free of preoccupations, must it not? It must not be occupied with problems, with worries, with speculations. It is only when the mind is very quiet that you can really observe, for then the mind is sensitive to extraordinary beauty; and perhaps here is a clue to our problem of freedom.

Now, what does it mean to be free? Is freedom a matter of doing what happens to suit you, going where you like, thinking what you will? This you do anyhow. Merely to have independence, does that mean freedom? Many people in the world are independent, but very few are free. Freedom implies great intelligence, does it not? To be free is to be intelligent, but intelligence does not come into being by just wishing to be free; it comes into being only when you begin to understand your whole environment, the social, religious, parental and traditional influences that are continually closing in on you. But to understand the various influences - the influence of your parents, of your government, of society, of the culture to which you belong, of your beliefs, your gods and superstitions, of the tradition to which you conform unthinkingly - to understand all these and become free from them requires deep insight; but you generally give in to them because inwardly you are frightened. You are afraid of not having a good position in life; you are afraid of what your priest will say; you are afraid of not following tradition, of not doing the right thing. But freedom is really a state of mind in which there is no fear or compulsion, no urge to be secure.

Don't most of us want to be safe? Don't we want to be told what marvellous people we are, how lovely we look, or what extraordinary intelligence we have? Otherwise we would not put letters after our names. All that kind of thing gives us self-assurance, a sense of importance. We all want to be famous people - and the moment we want to be something, we are no longer free.

Please see this, for it is the real clue to the understanding of the problem of freedom. Whether in this world of politicians, power, position and authority, or in the so-called spiritual world where you aspire to be virtuous, noble, saintly, the moment you want to be somebody you are no longer free. But the man or the woman who sees the absurdity of all these things and whose heart is therefore innocent, and therefore not moved by the desire to be somebody - such a person is free. If you understand the simplicity of it you will also see its extraordinary beauty and depth.

After all, examinations are for that purpose: to give you a position, to make you somebody. Titles, position and knowledge encourage you to be something. Have you not noticed that your parents and teachers tell you that you must amount to something in life, that you must be successful like your uncle or your grandfather? Or you try to imitate the example of some hero, to be like the Masters, the saints; so you are never free. Whether you follow the example of a Master, a saint, a teacher, a relative, or stick to a particular tradition, it all implies a demand on your part to be something; and it is only when you really understand this fact that there is freedom.

The function of education, then, is to help you from childhood not to imitate anybody, but to be yourself all the time. And this is a most difficult thing to do: whether you are ugly or beautiful, whether you are envious or jealous, always to be what you are, but understand it. To be yourself is very difficult, because you think that what you are is ignoble, and that if you could only change what you are into something noble it would be marvellous; but that never happens. Whereas, if you look at what you actually are and understand it, then in that very understanding there is a transformation. So freedom lies, not in trying to become something different, nor in doing whatever you happen to feel like doing, nor in following the authority of tradition, of your parents, of your guru, but in understanding what you are from moment to moment.

You see, you are not educated for this; your education encourages you to become something or other - but that is not the understanding of yourself. Your `self' is a very complex thing; it is not merely the entity that goes to school, that quarrels, that plays games, that is afraid, but it is also something hidden, not obvious. It is made up, not only of all the thoughts that you think, but also of all the things that have been put into your mind by other people, by books, by the newspapers, by your leaders; and it is possible to understand all that only when you don't want to be somebody, when you don't imitate, when you don't follow - which means, really, when you are in revolt against the whole tradition of trying to become something. That is the only true revolution, leading to extraordinary freedom. To cultivate this freedom is the real function of education.

Your parents, your teachers and your own desires want you to be identified with something or other in order to be happy, secure. But to be intelligent, must you not break through all the influences that enslave and crush you?

The hope of a new world is in those of you who begin to see what is false and revolt against it, not just verbally but actually. And that is why you should seek the right kind of education; for it is only when you grow in freedom that you can create a new world not based on tradition or shaped according to the idiosyncrasy of some philosopher or idealist. But there can be no freedom as long as you are merely trying to become somebody, or imitate a noble example.

Questioner: What is intelligence?

Krishnamurti: Let us go into the question very slowly, patiently, and find out. To find out is not to come to a conclusion. I don't know if you see the difference. The moment you come to a conclusion as to what intelligence is, you cease to be intelligent. That is what most of the older people have done: they have come to conclusions. Therefore they have ceased to be intelligent. So you have found out one thing right off: that an intelligent mind is one which is constantly learning, never concluding.

What is intelligence? Most people are satisfied with a definition of what intelligence is. Either they say, "That is a good explanation", or they prefer their own explanation; and a mind that is satisfied with an explanation is very superficial, therefore it is not intelligent.

You have begun to see that an intelligent mind is a mind which is not satisfied with explanations, with conclusions; nor is it a mind that believes, because belief is again another form of conclusion. An intelligent mind is an inquiring mind, a mind that is watching, learning, studying. Which means what? That there is intelligence only when there is no fear, when you are willing to rebel, to go against the whole social structure in order to find out what God is, or to discover the truth of anything.

Intelligence is not knowledge. If you could read all the books in the world it would not give you intelligence. Intelligence is something very subtle; it has no anchorage. it comes into being only when you understand the total process of the mind - not the mind according to some philosopher or teacher, but your own mind. Your mind is the result of all humanity, and when you understand it you don't have to study a single book, because the mind contains the whole knowledge of the past. So intelligence comes into being with the understanding of yourself; and you can understand yourself only in relation to the world of people, things and ideas. Intelligence is not something that you can acquire, like learning; it arises with great revolt, that is, when there is no fear - which means, really, when there is a sense of love. For when there is no fear, there is love.

If you are only interested in explanations, I am afraid you will feel that I have not answered your question. To ask what is intelligence is like asking what is life. Life is study, play, sex, work, quarrel, envy, ambition, love, beauty, truth - life is everything, is it not? But you see, most of us have not the patience earnestly and consistently to pursue this inquiry.

Questioner: Can the crude mind become sensitive?

Krishnamurti: Listen to the question, to the meaning behind the words. Can the crude mind become sensitive? If I say my mind is crude and I try to become sensitive, the very effort to become sensitive is crudity. Please see this. Don't be intrigued, but watch it. Whereas, if I recognize that I am crude without wanting to change, without trying to become sensitive, if I begin to understand what crudeness is, observe it in my life from day to day - the greedy way I eat, the roughness with which I treat people, the pride, the arrogance, the coarseness of my habits and thoughts - then that very observation transforms what is.

Similarly, if I am stupid and I say I must become intelligent, the effort to become intelligent is only a greater form of stupidity; because what is important is to understand stupidity. However much I may try to become intelligent, my stupidity will remain. I may acquire the superficial polish of learning, I may be able to quote books, repeat passages from great authors, but basically I shall still be stupid. But if I see and understand stupidity as it expresses itself in my daily life - how I behave towards my servant, how I regard my neighbour, the poor man, the rich man, the clerk - then that very awareness brings about a breaking up of stupidity. You try it. Watch yourself talking to your servant, observe the tremendous respect with which you treat a governor, and how little respect you show to the man who has nothing to give you. Then you begin to find out how stupid you are; and in understanding that stupidity there is intelligence, sensitivity. You do not have to become sensitive. The man who is trying to become something is ugly, insensitive; he is a crude person.

Questioner: How can the child find out what he is without the help of his parents and teachers?

Krishnamurti: Have I said that he can, or is this your interpretation of what I said? The child will find out about himself if the environment in which he lives helps him to do so. If the parents and teachers are really concerned that the young person should discover what he is, they won't compel him; they will create an environment in which he will come to know himself.

You have asked this question; but is it a vital problem to you? If you deeply felt that it is important for the child to find out about himself, and that he cannot do this if he is dominated by authority, would you not help to bring about the right environment? It is again the same old attitude: tell me what to do and I will do it. We don't say, "Let us work it out together". This problem of how to create an environment in which the child can have knowledge of himself is one that concerns everybody - the parents, the teachers and the children themselves. But self-knowledge cannot be imposed, understanding cannot be compelled; and if this is a vital problem to you and me, to the parent and the teacher, then together we shall create schools of the right kind.

Questioner: The children tell me that they have seen in the villages some weird phenomena, like obsession, and that they are afraid of ghosts, spirits, and so on. They also ask about death. What is one to say to all this?

Krishnamurti: In due course we shall inquire into what death is. But you see, fear is an extraordinary thing. You children have been told about ghosts by your parents, by older people, otherwise you would probably not see ghosts. Somebody has told you about obsession. You are too young to know about these things. It is not your own experience, it is the reflection of what older people have told you. And the older people themselves often know nothing about all this. They have merely read about it in some book, and think they have understood it. That brings up quite a different question: is there an experience which is uncontaminated by the past? If an experience is contaminated by the past it is merely a continuity of the past, and therefore not an original experience.

What is important is that those of you who are dealing with children should not impose upon them your own fallacies, your own notions about ghosts, your own particular ideas and experiences. This is a very difficult thing to avoid, because older people talk a great deal about all these inessential things that have no importance in life; so gradually they communicate to the children their own anxieties, fears and superstitions, and the children naturally repeat what they have heard. It is important that the older people, who generally know nothing about these things for themselves, do not talk about them in front of children, but instead help to create an atmosphere in which the children can grow in freedom and without fear.


PERHAPS SOME of you do not wholly understand all that I have been saying about freedom; but, as I have pointed out, it is very important to be exposed to new ideas, to something to which you may not be accustomed. It is good to see what is beautiful, but you must also observe the ugly things of life, you must be awake to everything. Similarly, you must be exposed to things which you perhaps don't quite understand, for the more you think and ponder over these matters which may be somewhat difficult for you, the greater will be your capacity to live richly.

I don't know if any of you have noticed, early in the morning, the sunlight on the waters. How extraordinarily soft is the light, and how the dark waters dance, with the morning star over the trees, the only star in the sky. Do you ever notice any of that? Or are you so busy, so occupied with the daily routine, that you forget or have never known the rich beauty of this earth - this earth on which all of us have to live? Whether we call ourselves communists or capitalists, Hindus or Buddhists, Moslems or Christians, whether we are blind, lame, or well and happy, this earth is ours. Do you understand? It is our earth, not somebody else's; it is not only the rich man's earth, it does not belong exclusively to the powerful rulers, to the nobles of the land, but it is our earth, yours and mine. We are nobodies, yet we also live on this earth, and we all have to live together. It is the world of the poor as well as of the rich, of the unlettered as well as of the learned; it is our world, and I think it is very important to feel this and to love the earth, not just occasionally on a peaceful morning, but all the time. We can feel that it is our world and love it only when we understand what freedom is.

There is no such thing as freedom at the present time, we don't know what it means. We would like to be free but, if you notice, everybody - the teacher, the parent, the lawyer, the policeman, the soldier, the politician, the business man - is doing something in his own little corner to prevent that freedom. To be free is not merely to do what you like, or to break away from outward circumstances which bind you, but to understand the whole problem of dependence. Do you know what dependence is? You depend on your parent, don't you? You depend on your teachers, you depend on the cook, on the postman, on the man who brings you milk, and so on. That kind of dependence one can understand fairly easily. But there is a far deeper kind of dependence which one must understand before one can be free: the dependence on another for one's happiness. do you know what it means to depend on somebody for your happiness? It is not the mere physical dependence on another which is so binding, but the inward, psychological dependence from which you derive so-called happiness; for when you depend on somebody in that way, you become a slave. If, as you grow older, you depend emotionally on your parents, on your wife or husband, on a guru, or on some idea, there is already the beginning of bondage. We don't understand this - although most of us, especially when we are young, want to be free.

To be free we have to revolt against all inward dependence, and we cannot revolt if we don't understand why we are dependent. Until we understand and really break away from all inward dependence we can never be free, for only in that understanding can there be freedom. But freedom is not a mere reaction. Do you know what a reaction is? If I say something that hurts you, if I call you an ugly name and you get angry with me, that is a reaction - a reaction born of dependence; and independence is a further reaction. But freedom is not a reaction, and until we understand reaction and go beyond it, we are never free.

Do you know what it means to love somebody? Do you know what it means to love a tree, or a bird, or a pet animal, so that you take care of it, feed it, cherish it, though it may give you nothing in return though it may not offer you shade, or follow you, or depend on you? Most of us don't love in that way, we don't know what that means at all because our love is always hedged about with anxiety, jealousy, fear - which implies that we depend inwardly on another, we want to be loved. We don't just love and leave it there, but we ask something in return; and in that very asking we become dependent.

So freedom and love go together. Love is not a reaction. If I love you because you love me, that is mere trade, a thing to be bought in the market; it is not love. To love is not to ask anything in return, not even to feel that you are giving something - and it is only such love that can know freedom. But, you see, you are not educated for this. You are educated in mathematics, in chemistry, geography, history, and there it ends, because your parents' only concern is to help you get a good job and be successful in life. If they have money they may send you abroad, but like the rest of the world their whole purpose is that you should be rich and have a respectable position in society; and the higher you climb the more misery you cause for others, because to get there you have to compete, be ruthless. So parents send their children to schools where there is ambition, competition, where there is no love at all, and that is why a society such as ours is continually decaying, in constant strife; and though the politicians, the judges, the so-called nobles of the land talk about peace, it does not mean a thing.

Now, you and I have to understand this whole problem of freedom. We must find out for ourselves what it means to love; because if we don't love we can never be thoughtful, attentive; we can never be considerate. Do you know what it means to be considerate? When you see a sharp stone on a path trodden by many bare feet, you remove it, not because you have been asked, but because you feel for another - it does not matter who he is, and you may never meet him. To plant a tree and cherish it, to look at the river and enjoy the fullness of the earth, to observe a bird on the wing and see the beauty of its flight, to have sensitivity and be open to this extraordinary movement called life - for all this there must be freedom; and to be free you must love. Without love there is no freedom; without love, freedom is merely an idea which has no value at all. So it is only for those who understand and break away from inner dependence, and who therefore know what love is, that there can be freedom; and it is they alone who will bring about a new civilization, a different world.

Questioner: What is the origin of desire, and how can I get rid of it?

Krishnamurti: It is a young man who is asking this question; and why should he get rid of desire? Do you understand? He is a young man, full of life, vitality; why should he get rid of desire? He has been told that to be free of desire is one of the greatest virtues, and that through freedom from desire he will realize God, or whatever that ultimate something may be called; so he asks, "What is the origin of desire, and how can I get rid of it?" But the very urge to get rid of desire is still part of desire, is it not? It is really prompted by fear.

What is the origin, the source, the beginning of desire? You see something attractive, and you want it. You see a car, or a boat, and you want to possess it; or you want to achieve the position of a rich man, or become a sannyasi. This is the origin of desire: seeing, contacting, from which there is sensation, and from sensation there is desire. Now, recognizing that desire brings conflict, you ask, "How can I be free of desire?" So what you really want is not freedom from desire, but freedom from the worry, the anxiety, the pain which desire causes. You want freedom from the bitter fruits of desire, not from desire itself, and this is a very important thing to understand. If you could strip desire of pain, of suffering, of struggle, of all the anxieties and fears that go with it, so that only the pleasure remained, would you then want to be free of desire?

As long as there is the desire to gain, to achieve, to become, at whatever level, there is inevitably anxiety, sorrow, fear. The ambition to be rich, to be this or that, drops away only when we see the rottenness, the corruptive nature of ambition itself. The moment we see that the desire for power in any form - for the power of a prime minister, of a judge, of a priest, of a guru - is fundamentally evil, we no longer have the desire to be powerful. But we don't see that ambition is corrupting, that the desire for power is evil; on the contrary, we say that we shall use power for good - which is all nonsense. A wrong means can never be used towards a right end. If the means is evil, the end will also be evil. Good is not the opposite of evil; it comes into being only when that which is evil has utterly ceased.

So, if we don't understand the whole significance of desire, with its results, its by-products, merely to try to get rid of desire has no meaning.

Questioner: How can we be free of dependence as long as we are living in society?

Krishnamurti: Do you know what society is? Society is the relationship between man and man, is it not? Don't complicate it, don't quote a lot of books; think very simply about it and you will see that society is the relationship between you and me and others. Human relationship makes society; and our present society is built upon a relationship of acquisitiveness, is it not? Most of us want money, power, property, authority; at one level or another we want position, prestige, and so we have built an acquisitive society. As long as we are acquisitive, as long as we want position prestige, power and all the rest of it, we belong to this society and are therefore dependent on it. But if one does not want any of these things and remains simply what one is with great humility, then one is out of it; one revolts against it and breaks with this society.

Unfortunately, education at present is aimed at making you conform, fit into and adjust yourself to this acquisitive society. That is all your parents, your teachers and your books are concerned with. As long as you conform, as long as you are ambitious, acquisitive, corrupting and destroying others in the pursuit of position and power, you are considered a respectable citizen. You are educated to fit into society; but that is not education, it is merely a process which conditions you to conform to a pattern. The real function of education is not to turn you out to be a clerk, or a judge, or a prime minister, but to help you understand the whole structure of this rotten society and allow you to grow in freedom, so that you will break away and create a different society, a new world. There must be those who are in revolt, not partially but totally in revolt against the old, for it is only such people who can create a new world - a world not based on acquisitiveness, on power and prestige.

I can hear the older people saying, "It can never be done. Human nature is what it is, and you are talking nonsense". But we have never thought about unconditioning the adult mind, and not conditioning the child. Surely, education is both curative and preventive. You older students are already shaped, already conditioned, already ambitious; you want to be successful like your father, like the governor, or somebody else. So the real function of education is not only to help you uncondition yourself, but also to understand this whole process of living from day to day so that you can grow in freedom and create a new world - a world that must be totally different from the present one. Unfortunately, neither your parents, nor your teachers, nor the public in general are interested in this. That is why education must be a process of educating the educator as well as the student.

Questioner: Why do men fight?

Krishnamurti: Why do young boys fight? You sometimes fight with your brother, or with the other boys here, don't you? Why? You fight over a toy. Perhaps another boy has taken your ball, or your book, and therefore you fight. Grown-up people fight for exactly the same reason, only their toys are position, wealth and power. If you want power and I also want power, we fight, and that is why nations go to war. It is as simple as that, only philosophers, politicians and the so-called religious people complicate it. You know, it is a great art to have an abundance of knowledge and experience - to know the richness of life, the beauty of existence, the struggles, the miseries, the laughter, the tears - and yet keep your mind very simple; and you can have a simple mind only when you know how to love.

Questioner: What is jealousy?

Krishnamurti: Jealousy implies dissatisfaction with what you are and envy of others, does it not? To be discontented with what you are is the very beginning of envy. You want to be like somebody else who has more knowledge, or is more beautiful, or who has a bigger house, more power, a better position than you have. You want to be more virtuous, you want to know how to meditate better, you want to reach God, you want to be something different from what you are; therefore you are envious, jealous. To understand what you are is immensely difficult, because it requires complete freedom from all desire to change what you are into something else. The desire to change yourself breeds envy, jealousy; whereas, in the understanding of what you are, there is a transformation of what you are. But, you see, your whole education urges you to try to be different from what you are. When you are jealous you are told, "Now, don't be jealous, it is a terrible thing". So you strive not to be jealous; but that very striving is part of jealousy, because you want to be different.

You know, a lovely rose is a lovely rose; but we human beings have been given the capacity to think, and we think wrongly. To know how to think requires a great deal of penetration, understanding, but to know what to think is comparatively easy. Our present education consists in telling us what to think, it does not teach us how to think, how to penetrate, explore; and it is only when the teacher as well as the student knows how to think that the school is worthy of its name.

Questioner: Why am I never satisfied with anything?

Krishnamurti: A little girl is asking this question, and I am sure she has not been prompted. At her tender age she wants to know why she is never satisfied. What do you grown-up people say? It is your doing; you have brought into existence this world in which a little girl asks why she is never satisfied with anything. You are supposed to be educators, but you don't see the tragedy of this. You meditate, but you are dull, weary, inwardly dead.

Why are human beings never satisfied? Is it not because they are seeking happiness, and they think that through constant change they will be happy? They move from one job to another, from one relationship to another, from one religion or ideology to another, thinking that through this constant movement of change they will find happiness; or else they choose some backwater of life and stagnate there. Surely, contentment is something entirely different. It comes into being only when you see yourself as you are without any desire to change, without any condemnation or comparison - which does not mean that you merely accept what you see and go to sleep. But when the mind is no longer comparing, judging, evaluating, and is therefore capable of seeing what is from moment to moment without wanting to change it - in that very perception is the eternal.

Questioner: Why must we read?

Krishnamurti: Why must you read? Just listen quietly. You never ask why you must play, why you must eat, why you must look at the river, why you are cruel - do you? You rebel and ask why you must do something only when you don't like to do it. But reading, playing, laughing, being cruel, being good, seeing the river, the clouds - all this is part of life; and if you don't know how to read, if you don't know how to walk, if you are unable to appreciate the beauty of a leaf, you are not living. You must understand the whole of life, not just one little part of it. That is why you must read, that is why you must look at the skies, that is why you must sing, and dance, and write poems, and suffer, and understand; for all that is life.

Questioner: What is shyness?

Krishnamurti: Don't you feel shy when you meet a stranger? Didn't you feel shy when you asked that question? Wouldn't you feel shy if you had to be on this platform, as I am, and sit here talking? Don't you feel shy, don't you feel a bit awkward and want to stand still when you suddenly come upon a lovely tree, or a delicate flower, or a bird sitting on its nest? You see, it is good to be shy. But for most of us shyness implies self-consciousness. When we meet a big man, if there is such a person, we become conscious of ourselves. We think, "How important he is, so well known, and I am nobody; so we feel shy, which is to be conscious of oneself. But there is a different kind of shyness, which is really to be tender, and in that there is no self-consciousness.



May we continue where we left off last Sunday? We were talking about right kind of relationship. Most of our relationship, in that relationship there is a great deal of conflict, struggle, lack of understanding each other and so on. We went into it very carefully. If you do not mind, we won't go into it again today. That's where we left off last Sunday when we met here. We pointed out how important it is to have right kind of relationship: man, woman, or with people who are far away from us. Because life is a relationship, is a movement in relationship; and apparently we have never been able to solve the problem of not having conflict in relationship. And we went carefully into that problem. And this morning we ought to talk about two things, order and fear.

What is order? That word has a great deal of significance; order from a general, to his soldiers, order, ecclesiastic order, monastic order, order in one's house, order in a garden and so on. That word has extraordinary meaning. We have tried to establish order in society, by laws, by authority, by policemen and so on. Society, the thing in which we are caught, is created by each one of us, by our parents, past generations, and that society is in disorder, confused, that society has almost become immoral, that society is breeding wars, enormous sums are spent on armaments. In that society there is division, conflict; there is the totalitarian society, and the so-called democratic society; whether it is the totalitarian or democratic it is still disorder, confusion, each individual asserting himself aggressively against others, and so there is general disorder. That disorder is created by all of us because we live in disorder. Our house is in disorder, not the physical house, but the psychological house, which is our consciousness is in disarray, disturbed, broken up; contradictory.

If one may point out, this is not an entertainment, intellectual or otherwise. We are talking about human problems. And this is - if I may again point out - this is not a lecture, a lecture being giving certain information, having a discourse on a particular subject, with a view either to convince, or to do some kind of propaganda, and so on. This is not a lecture in that sense; but together we are investigating, we are exploring into the question of order and disorder. Our minds are in disorder; can such a mind create order, bring about order? That's the first problem we have to face. Most of us, in our daily life, are in confusion, uncertain, contradictory; psychologically deeply wounded; psychologically having no right relationship with another; and in that relationship there is contradiction, disorder, disharmony, and so our life, probably from the moment we are born till we die, we live in disorder. One wonders if one is aware of it.

We went into the question of what is aware, to be aware, to be conscious, to recognize the fact that one is in disorder. If one is at all aware of that fact, and if one is, do we escape from it, seeking a solution, or accept a pattern of order, a design of order and therefore conform to a particular norm. Are we aware of all these psychological movements born out of disorder? And how does this disorder come about? Why, after so many millennia upon millennia, we live psychologically in disorder, and therefore outwardly in disorder. Outwardly our disorder is expressed in multiple forms, as nationality, division among people, religious divisions; wars and so on.

So, we are asking is it possible to be free of this disorder, the ending of, disorder and therefore the very ending is order. Order is virtue. You cannot possibly discipline the mind to become orderly. Because the entity who desires order, that entity himself is the result of confusion, and therefore whatever order it creates must bring about disorder. I hope we are all serious this morning, as we have pointed out over and over again, this is a serious affair. Life is becoming so terribly dangerous, uncertain; it's an actuality. And any serious person concerned with the whole problem of living must question all of this: how disorder come about, what is the root of it? When we ask a question of this kind, you are asking the question, not the speaker. You are asking the question of yourself. And trying to find out the root of this disorder. Is it desire? Is it, the very nature and the structure of thought itself disorder? That is, thought itself is disorder. We are asking that question. Does disorder arise out of desire? Does disorder arise out of the very act of thinking? That is, is thought the source of disorder? Probably most of us have not even asked such a question. We accept and live in disorder; we say that is our conditioning, and we must accept that conditioning. And so we become used to disorder, accept it and try to modify it. But we never ask of ourselves why we live in disorder psychologically, inwardly, within the skin, as it were, and what is the root of it, the very substance that brings about disorder? Is it desire? Desire in itself is contradictory: wanting one thing and resisting something else. Desire for happiness and doing everything that brings about unhappiness. Pursuing pleasure, the desire for pleasure and that very desire creates disharmony.

So we are asking seriously, is desire itself the root, the origin, the beginning of disorder? And then, if it is, we are not saying it is, because we are enquiring; we are going deeply into this very, very complex problem of desire. Desire has great energy, drive; desire for so many things; for power, position; for wealth, for freedom, for heaven; desire to live happily, comfortably, and this desire accumulates itself into will. Will is the essence of desire. So we must enquire, what is desire, which may bring about disorder. We desire to have food, that is quite natural. We desire to have a house, a shelter, that's also quite natural; to be clothed, that is quite natural. But are psychological desires, for power, position, to become something beyond what one actually is, to achieve some idealistic state. There are so many kinds of desire, contradicting each other, and sometimes working together. So we should very carefully go into the question of why and what is the origin of desire. And whether it brings about disorder.

Please, we are not telling you what desire is, with which you agree or disagree; we are having a conversation together, we are as two friends talking over together the very, very complex problem of desire. So you are enquiring, not the speaker. The speaker is only verbalizing, putting into words the enquiry which you are making. And if your brain is not active, merely listening to what is being said, then, it's a verbal communication which has very little meaning. Explanations are not the actuality. The speaker may explain very carefully, as we go into it in detail, but those explanations are verbal, have no meaning. But the verbal explanations are means of your own discovery which the speaker is putting into words, I hope this is perfectly clear, that the speaker is not conveying certain ideas, certain conclusions, but rather together we are observing the whole movement of desire, the nature of it, the inwardness of it, the origin of the beginning of desire.

In all religions throughout the world, organized religions, the accepted authoritarian orthodox religions, they have all said, suppress or transmute desire; identify your desire with that which is great, with that which is the saviour, with that which is something you want to achieve, identify yourself with it. And so gradually suppress any contradictory, any sensual desires. This has been the edict of all religions; monasteries are based on it, the monks pursue it; and the Asiatic monks, the sannyasis, do it in their own way. So desire has been condemned. We are not condemning it. We are not saying it must be suppressed or transmuted, or play around with it. We are together going into this very complex problem, observing, without motive, that is the whole point, without motive, just what is desire, which drives most of us, both commercially and psychologically. Please, don't wait for me to think it out, to explain, if you are serious, you are going to go into this. Because we have to find out, if we can, whether it is possible to live an orderly, sane, rational, a holy life; not this conflicting, destructive, warlike existence.

So what is desire? Why has it such enormous power in our lives? As we said, order is virtue. To become virtuous is desire; to have values established is a form of desire. You may have values, patterns, ideas, and so on, but if we do not understand the very movement of desire, whether it's contradictory, whether it's the origin of disorder, we must enquire very, very deeply what is desire. Is not desire born out of sensation? Sensory responses are part of desire. Sensation, that is, through observation, through optical perception, seeing, then contact, then sensation. Right? One sees a beautiful house, a lovely garden; and that very seeing brings about a sensation; from that sensation there is a desire to own that house. Right? That is, the seeing, then the contact, then from that physical contact, sensation. This is obvious. Right? Can we go on from there? You see a woman or a man who is nice, nice-looking; especially as it is advertised in this country; and there is the very seeing, then the contact, then the sensation. Then - please watch carefully yourself - then thought creates the image; then when though creates the image, then desire arises. Right? That is, one sees a shirt, a robe in the window of a shop; goes inside, touches the material; then the very contact of it creates a sensation; then thought says, how nice that shirt or robe would look on me. At that moment desire begins. Have you understood this?

Have we understood this clearly; that thought with its image creates desire when there is sensation. Right, sir? Are we together in this? And, if this is clear - don't please accept what the speaker is saying, it may totally be wrong - but carefully look at this movement of desire, so that you yourself discover for yourself the whole nature of desire; how it begins, and whether disciplining desire is not the very act of confusion, disorder. Do you understand all this? Because in this there is the entity who controls desire, the entity who is separate from desire. Is desire itself not the observer, who wishes to change what he observes? I wonder if you see all this? May I go on with this? Please sirs, don't look at me. That's not important. Find out for yourself the actuality of the beginning of desire; not how to discipline desire; we'll come to that presently. But we are just observing the whole movement of desire - the seeing, the contact, then the sensation, then thought creating the image which is the beginning of desire. I see your beautiful shirt, good material, well-made; then, if you'll allow me to touch it, there is a certain sensation out of my sensory responses. Then I want that shirt; thought says, how nice it would look on me, that shirt. That thought creating the image of me in that shirt is the beginning of desire. Clear?

Now, the question is, if that is so, which is logically so, there is no question of refuting that, that is a fact, not because the speaker says so, it is so. If you observe it, it's the movement. And then the question arises, why does thought interfere with sensation? You follow? I see you have got a marvellous car, that I think, I am quite sure will appeal to all of you; a highly polished car. You see it on the road as you pass by, look at it, go round it, touch it; there is that sensation out of it. Then you imagine you sitting in the car and driving it. Then the imagination is the action of desire. Right? Is this clear? Now the question is, is it possible for thought not to interfere with its imagination? See the car, the sensation, and not allow thought creating the image of you being in there. You understand? That requires intense alertness, watchfulness. So there is no discipline, to control desire, but on the contrary, the intelligent observation of desire is in itself an act which frees the mind from the urgency of desire.

I hope you understand all this; because we have got to talk about something much more complex. If this is understood, then we should go on to ask, what is fear? What is the origin of fear, whether the mind, psychological state, can ever be free totally, completely from fear. Not say, it is possible or it is not possible. If you say either one or the other, that conditions your own state of enquiry. But, if there is the intelligent demand whether the mind, whether the human being, his psyche, his consciousness, can ever be free, completely, not partially, not one day free of fear, the next day full of fear; but the entire movement of fear, conscious as well as deeply rooted fear; whether it is possible for the human mind to be utterly free of it? Because fear is one of the factors of disorder; not only desire, but also fear. Most human beings are afraid; either physical fears or psychological, complicated fears. Fears of not fulfilling, fears of not becoming, fears in their relationship, fears of not having jobs, especially now, in this country you have lO million people unemployed; fear of darkness, fear of death, fear of the very act of living. There are so many, many forms of fear. Naturally, as one observes fear, the state of fear as one goes into it, one can see how fear creates disorder: fear of being secure and not being secure; fear of the past, fear of the present, fear of the future; which we all know. Most of us have experienced some kind of fear, urgently, very deeply, or superficially. When one is afraid, the whole psychological state becomes tightened, strained, you know all that. And where there is fear there is darkness and escape from that darkness. Then the escape becomes far more important than the fear itself. But fear always remains.

So one asks, why human beings, who have lived on this earth for million of years, who are technologically intelligent, why they have not applied their intelligence to be free from this very complex problem of fear. That may be one of the reasons for war, for killing each other. And religions throughout the world have not solved the problem; nor the gurus, nor the saviours; nor ideals. So if this is very clear: no outside agency, however elevated, however made popular by propaganda; no outside agency can ever possibly solve this problem of human fear.

So we must find out - again, if one may repeat, you are enquiring, you are investigating, you are delving into the whole problem of fear; the speaker may only explain, but the explanation has no value unless you yourself go deeply into this question. And perhaps we have so accepted the pattern of fear we don't want even to move away from it. So, what is fear? What are the contributory factors that bring about fear? Like many small streams, rivulets that make the tremendous volume of a river; so what are the small streams that bring about fear? That have such tremendous vitality of fear. Is one of the causes of fear comparison? Comparing oneself with somebody else, psychologically. Obviously it is. So, can one live a life comparing yourself with nobody? You understand what I am saying? When you compare yourself with another, ideologically, psychologically or even physically, there is the striving to become that; and there is the fear that you may not. it is the desire to fulfil and you may not be able to fulfil. You understand? Where there is comparison there must be fear.

And so one enquires, asks whether it is possible to live without a single comparison, never comparing, whether you are beautiful or ugly, fair or not fair, physically, psychologically, approximating yourself to some ideal, to some pattern of values, there is this constant comparison going on. We are asking, is that one of the causes of fear? Obviously. And where there is comparison there must be conformity, there must be imitation, inwardly. So we are asking, is comparison, conformity, imitation, are they contributory causes of fear? And can one live without comparing, imitating, conforming psychologically? Obviously, one can. If those are the contributory factors of fear, and you are concerned with the ending of fear, then inwardly there is no comparison; which means there is no becoming. Right? Comparison entails - the very meaning of the comparison is to become that which you think is better, or higher, nobler and so on. So, comparison, imitation, conformity, which is becoming, is that one of the factors of fear? We are not saying it is. But you have to discover it for yourself. Then if those are the factors, then if the mind is seeing those factors as bringing about fear, the very perception of those ends the contributory causes. Where there is a cause, there is an end. I hope you understand this. If there is physically a cause which gives you a tummy ache, there is an ending of that tummy ache by discovering what's the cause of the pain. Similarly, where here is a cause there is an ending of that cause.

And, is time a factor of fear? That is, time as of the things or incidents or happenings that have taken place in the past, or that might happen in the future, and the present. Time is a movement; physically from here to that place; from one point to another point, a movement from one point to another point requires time. To learn a language requires time. To learn any form of technique requires time. But when we think about the future, what might happen - I have a job, I might lose it; my wife might run away, leave me - future, so is time - we are talking of not physical time, sunrise, sunset, movement of the watch, clock, chronological time, but we are talking about psychological time. I am, I shall be; and I might not be. So, is time a factor of fear? Not how to stop time, you can't stop time, but to observe it first - we will go into it - but first observe the fact that one of the factors of fear is time. Let's say I'm afraid of death. That's in the future; so is time a factor of fear? Obviously it is. Then is thought a factor of fear? Do you understand all this? We said there are various contributory causes of fear, comparison, imitation, identification. And this act of becoming something else - I am this, I must be that; and I may not be that ever. And is time a factor in the movement of fear? Obviously it is. There is a distance between now, the living, and the dying, a distance from this point to that point; to move from this point to that point is fear. Right? Time is fear.

So next we are asking, is thought fear? It's very important to find out. Is thought the root of fear? Time is the root of fear, obviously, as comparison and so on. And is thought also the root of fear? So, time and thought, are they not together? Are you following all this? Is this getting too complicated? Are you getting tired? It's up to you. We are not trying to convince you of anything. We are not trying to ask you to follow the speaker. The speaker is you; the speaker is only pointing out the nature of fear. If you don't see it for yourself, either your mind is dull; because you have drunk too much last night, smoked too much, indulged in various forms of entertainment, sexual or otherwise; so your mind, your capacity, your energy is lacking, and therefore you'll just listen, as a form of verbal entertainment, which will not affect you life. But if you are serious, if your brain is active, not just romantically watching the trees and you know, playing with words. If you are really demanding to find out then you have to apply. Application means looking at it actually now. Probably sitting here quietly under the trees you may not be afraid. But fear is going on unconsciously, deeply, whether you are aware of it or not now.

So we have said time, becoming, comparison, with all the implications of that are the factors of fear. And we are asking now whether thought itself is not one of the factors or perhaps the very major factor of fear. What is then thought? Thought compares; thought imitates; thought says, I am this, I must be that. I must fulfil, I must identify myself, I must be something. It's all the movement of thought. And thought itself may be disorder. We are enquiring, please, go into it. We are not denying thought. We are not trying to point out that thought must be controlled. See that thought may be one of the, probably the major factor of fear. I was last healthy last year, and I am not this year but I hope to be in perfect health next year. There is in that movement the thinking about the pain of last year, hoping not to be this in the future, is the movement of fear; thought. Right? So what is thought? Not, can thought ever not stop and let nature take its own course, but we are enquiring into what is thought, what is thinking? There are several factors in that too. Just look at it simply. When you are asked your name, you respond immediately. Why? Because you have repeated your name so often there is no thinking about it. You may have thought about it at one time, but the constant repetition of your name is without thinking. If you are asked a complicated question, then you are searching, thought is looking all over the place, enquiring till it finds an answer. And when you are asked a very, very complex, or a question of which you ave never even thought about, you say, I don't know. Right? Very few people say, I don't know. You understand? That requires a great sense of humility not to know, which we'll go into some other time, that's not important now.

So what is thinking? Thought has created the extraordinary beautiful pictures, paintings, out of stone created something exquisite; the Pieta of Michelangelo, the great cathedrals. And also it created the submarines, the missiles, the atom bomb; thought has created the war, the wars, nationalities; thought has created all the rituals, religious rituals, thought has invented the saviour; whether the Hindu saviour or the Christian saviour. So thought has done the most extraordinary things. The computer, which may take the place of human brain, and what's going to happen to your brain when the computer does it? Which is again a different matter.

So we must find out what is thinking. And whether that thought itself may be the origin of disorder and fear. We give such extraordinary importance, to thought, to the intellectuals, to the scientists, to the people who create marvellous technological things. But those very people who have invented all this, the great scientists, they themselves live in disorder. They have never possibly enquired into why thought is given such an extraordinarily important place. Why thought may be in itself the origin of disorder and fear. We are going to enquire. You are going to enquire, not the speaker. He may explain - I must repeat this over and over again, he may repeat but if you yourself don't apply, go into it, your sitting there listening to the speaker is utterly meaningless. It is a waste of time and your energy. From the ancient of days man has experienced an accident, a sensation, a danger, a pleasure, and this experience has left knowledge. He derives from that experience knowledge. Right? That knowledge is stored in the brain as memory. And from that memory thought arises. Right? So, thought is limited because experience is limited, knowledge is limited. So thought is limited. Thought is a material process; because experience is a material process; there is an accident in a car, and that experience is remembered, which is knowledge, the remembrance of it is pain, which is thought. Right? So thought is a movement, from experience, knowledge, memory, thought. Again there is no question of anybody disputing that fact. If you have no experience, if you have no knowledge, no memory, then you are not thinking, you are just in a state of amnesia. But we are supposed to be thinking human beings.

So, knowledge is always limited about anything. That is so. Thought has created the things in the cathedral, in the church, the rituals; and yet thought worships them. You follow all this? Thought has created all the things that you call religious activity, thought has invented it. And then thought says, you must worship it. So one asks, thought is never sacred. It can never be sacred. But we have made certain things of thought sacred. Like god is an invention of thought. I know you won't like this, but there it is.

And so, is thought the beginning, the origin of fear? Thinking about the future, thinking about some happiness which I have not; thinking about death; thinking I might become that, paralysed; all the rest of it. I might have cancer. So thought, time, are the same. Time and thought are the same. And the contributory causes of all this is thought. Now the question then is, if thought is the origin of all fear, and therefore all disorder, if thought is the origin of disorder, fear, then what is one to do? You cannot stop thinking. thinking has its place. When you leave here you go to your house, that movement from here to there is an action of time and thought. Thought and knowledge are necessary when you are writing a letter, speaking a language, driving a car, any technological business and so on, thought and knowledge are absolutely necessary. But we are asking: the accumulation of knowledge about the psyche, about yourself, and thinking from that knowledge, is that necessary? You understand this question? Please give your thought a little bit, attention a little bit. Is it necessary to record psychological events? The insult, the flattery, the hurts, the contents of your consciousness, which is nationality, fear, belief, faith, rituals, habits, you know, the content of your consciousness, which is the psyche, which is you.

Can there be no psychological recording? Please ask yourself this question. Perhaps you have never asked it; because we record. We record an insult, we record a flattery. We record the hurts that one has received from childhood; you record your pleasurable activities; you record your fears. So is it possible for a brain to record what is necessary, that is, learning a language, doing business, being a good carpenter and so on, engineer and so on, there you need to record everything very clearly, scientifically, and so on. But is it necessary to record psychological events; do you understand? That is, to carry psychological burdens all your life, psychological problems all your life; the conflict, the misery, the confusion, the agony, the loneliness, the despair. Is it necessary to carry all that? Which are the activity of thought. To find that out, whether it is possible not to record at all psychologically, that means to have no problem - you understand sir? Fear is a problem to us. Order is a problem to us. Not to be something is a problem, our life is a bundle of problems, both psychosomatic, physical, psychological, the whole thing, living is a problem to us. Which is the recording of everything, pleasure, pain, the loneliness, the fears and so on. We are asking can the brain not record the incidents of fear? That is to be aware of the whole pattern of fear, which is very complex, as we pointed out, it is very complex and intricate and one has to observe it very subtly, sensitively.

Then if you observe it carefully, is the observer different from that which he observes? What he observes is himself, the observer is the observed. Where there is a division between the observer and the observed, there is conflict. Now, is the observer which is the past accumulation of knowledge observing the present fear ,there is a division, and then the past tries to overcome the present, control it. Whereas the thing that is observed is the observer. When that is absolutely clear conflict ceases. Therefore where there is the observation of fear as me, I am fear, obviously, there is no division between me and fear, I am totally fear, not that there is part of me which is not fear, I am that. And when there is total perception of that, which means giving all your energy to that there is the complete cessation of fear. There is the total ending of psychological fears completely - not for a day; but that which is ended has a new beginning.


May we continue from where we left off yesterday? We were talking about disorder and the causes of disorder and the very detrimental, destructive nature of fear. We went into it very carefully yesterday, step by step, and that it is possible to be totally free psychologically of the burden of fear. And we also slightly touched upon the subject of conflict, human conflict. If I may suggest, this is not an entertainment, a Sunday morning outing because you have nothing else better to do. Nor is it an intellectual amusement. Life has become, has always been, very, very serious. Serious in the sense that one has to respond fully to all the things that are happening around us; the dreadful wars that are going on; the religious divisions; the various types of gurus with their peculiar entertainment. And as this is a serious gathering, one hopes, it becomes rather necessary that one must exercise one's own brain, one's own capacity, one's own energy, not stimulated by others or by these talks, but rather, as we are together examining the present state of human affairs, it becomes necessary that this gathering should not be treated as a lecture; a lecture being to inform or to have a discussion, transmitting ideas, certain judgments and evaluations. So this is not a lecture, as we have been pointing out over and over again here. The speaker is merely acting as a mirror in which one sees one's own condition, one's own fears, anxieties, loneliness, and the agony of life; with its occasional flare of joy.

So we talked about yesterday morning, fear, disorder, and the other mornings we talked about how human beings are hurt from childhood and that hurt they carry on throughout life. And that it is possible to be free of all those hurts. And also we talked about relationship, human relationship. Why, in that relationship there is so much conflict. And whether it is possible to live a life, not only in all these matters, but essentially, deeply to live without conflict.

Why do human beings, after so many millennia, so astonishingly intelligent in one direction, technological direction, why human beings do not apply that quality of intelligence to their own lives and see whether it is possible to live without conflict. What are the causes of human conflict? Why does one live a daily life, in our relationship, in our actions, why there is such conflict, struggle, such pain? Please, as we pointed out, you are asking this question, not the speaker. The speaker is only putting into words the state of one's own mind, the state of one's own life; the enormous contradictions, saying one thing, doing another; thinking one thing, and acting quite differently. Why human beings after so many centuries, having acquired information outwardly about almost anything, inwardly, psychologically, they have not investigated into their own problems, into their own travail, into their own anxieties, pain, grief? Is it that we have always looked to authority, to somebody to tell us what to do? There is in this country, as one has observed, specialists of various types; religious, psychological, and so on. They are telling us what to do, what to think. And we are gradually becoming dependent upon them; and so losing our own capacity, our own intrinsic energy of intelligence to explore and discover the causes of our conflicts, struggle, pain, and so on.

And this morning we ought to talk over together the cause of conflict. The are various types of conflict, both outward and inward. The inward conflicts express themselves in the outward conflicts, you cannot have in a society, an orderly society unless we human beings live an orderly life, sane, rational, healthy, holy life. And so we ought to, together to think why we have all become like this, what we are.

As we have been pointing out in previous talks, our consciousness with its content, the content being hurts, beliefs, conclusions, judgments, evaluations, fears, pleasures, various types of acquisitive attachments; fear of death, seeking something beyond the ordinary events of life; that is the content of our consciousness. That's what we are. We, or the I, is not different from the content. I think that should be made clear. I may be that one is so conditioned to analysis, we want to find out why we human beings live as we do, and so we begin to analyze, try to discover the various causes for this unfortunate troublesome existence. But we have never enquired who is the analyzer and the analyzed. Is the analyzer different from the analyzed, and can the analyzer merely verbally find the cause and the analyzer then dissipate the cause? And we have done this for thousands of years. We know the causes. Most intelligent people, most people who are aware of their own turmoil, they can easily through analysis find out the cause, or the causes. And so, we have separated the analyzer, who is investigating the consciousness of himself. I hope this is clear. My consciousness and yours is its content. Without the content there is no consciousness as we know it. The content of one's consciousness, one wants to investigate, one wants to look, one wants to find out why that consciousness is in conflict, in contradiction, so one separates oneself from the thing that is being examined. Please follow this, if you will, a little bit. Thought separates itself as the analyzer; that analyzer tries to examine, analyze, that confusion, that turmoil, that loneliness, that despair, and then begins to discover the cause. Then he tries to dissipate the cause, hoping thereby to wipe away the effects of the cause. So there is this division, as the analyzer and the analyzed, and hence wherever there is psychological division in oneself there must be conflict. This is a law, as gravity, that wherever inwardly there is a contradiction, a division, a separation from the analyzer and the analyzed as the observer and the observed, there must be conflict; as the Arab and the Jew, the Hindu and the Muslim; the ideological differences of the capitalist society and the totalitarian society; there must be conflict. And that conflict brings about this division, brings about the feeling of not being whole, because in us, in ourself there is the division.

So is it possible to realize, not intellectually, but actually see the fact, as one sees a fact of pain; as one has this pain of a toothache and so on, actually realize, see, perceive, that where there is psychological division there must be, inevitably, logically, conflict. And this conflict denies the feeling of being whole. That is, the feeling of whole is the freedom from error; to err, you understand the word, error. So, feeling whole, the feeling of being whole, means not inwardly fragmented, broken up as we are. That is, all problems, psychological problems, are interrelated; the hurt, the lack of order, disorder, the conflict in relationship, all these problems are interrelated. We treat them as separate. And the perception, or the seeing logically, truthfully that all problems, psychological problems, whatever they be, are interrelated, you cannot take one problem separately from other problems. And to perceive the feeling of the whole movement of problems is one problem. A problem means, according to the dictionary, something thrown at you; that's the meaning of a problem. Something thrown at you which is a challenge; that's the meaning of that word, 'problem' means that. It's a challenge, something put before you. You have to meet it rightly. But we meet every problem as though it were separate, to be resolved, unrelated to other problems, as we do in life; religion, which is no religion at all as it is now, is separate from your intellectual, technological life. If you are a great surgeon, you are not concerned about your daily life, what you are inwardly; you are concerned about your technique, about your method of operation and so on and so on.

So we live a life, both outwardly and inwardly, with a sense of fragmentation; which means we never feel the wholeness of life. That life is a movement, not your life and other people's life, life as a whole is one. It's not American life, or Indian life, or a Buddhist life, or a Muslim life, it is life, to be lived on this earth sanely, rationally, not divided as nations; which is a tribal adoration of an idea. That's what is happening in South Atlantic, this tribal war that is going on.

So, we all want to be safe; that is natural. Physically, we want to be safe; to have a house, a shelter, clothing, food. That's natural, healthy, sane, rational, for all of us; not for only for the affluent people. There is a great deal of poverty throughout the world, even in this country. This poverty, this lack of relationship to the whole of the world, is brought about by national divisions, religious divisions, economic divisions. There is no feeling of global relationship. Please listen to all this. And our outward problems will never be solved, never, unless we have this global relationship. That is why it is important to understand very carefully that our consciousness, which is with all the beliefs, dogmas, judgments, loneliness, despair, anxiety, fears, hurts, is common to all mankind; to all mankind, whether they live in Russia, China, or in this country. And because it is common to all mankind, you are mankind. You are not a separate individual. This is hard to realize. Because you suffer, so does a man in the Far East; there he is uncertain, confused, trodden down, and you too, you are confused, uncertain, seeking security, safety; this is the problem of all human beings. And so it is hard to realize, to see the fact, because we are so conditioned to individuality, to see the actual fact that we are like the rest, we are the humanity, we are the whole of humanity. And therefore our actions then will be a global relationship in which national divisions, religious divisions do not exist.

So we should consider this morning whether it is possible for a human mind to be safe, safe from error. Do you understand my question? Human beings have sought security; not only physically through family, group, community, nationality, and so on, but also tried to find safety, to be safe in ideas, collective ideas, collective group, having the same conclusions, same beliefs, same frontiers. Man has sought his safety in isolation. That's what each one of us is doing. We want to be safe in ourselves, separate from the rest of mankind. Safe means to have this feeling of wholeness, of being whole, then you are completely safe. But you cannot be whole or have that extraordinary feeling of total completeness if there is any sense of fragmentation. Now, this statement from the speaker may be false. One must doubt; question. It may be his own peculiar invention or illusion. But, having heard it, one must find out if it is possible or not possible to live a life which is whole, therefore safe. That means you, who have listened to this statement, you have to apply your mind, not agree. You have to question, you have to question your life, your existence, your whole activity, find out for oneself whether it is possible to be totally safe. You cannot possibly be safe in isolation; it doesn't matter whoever says it, it is a law. And so what happens if you cannot be safe in isolation, why is the world divided up like this? The British, the Argentine, the French, the Russian, you follow? And religiously, too; those who are Christians, and the Christianity broken up in their beliefs thousands of different beliefs in Christianity; the same thing in India, all over the world is the same phenomena.

So, we are asking, when one realizes this fact, can one live in the modern world, do your business, whatever one does, with a sense of feeling of being whole not fragmented. Specialization is one of the factors of fragmentation. One has to have specialists; doctors, carpenters, the postman, and so on. But psychologically, inwardly, what is the need to be a specialist? You are following all this? We are human beings.

So, we ought to discuss also the nature of pleasure, as we talked about fear. And also we should go into the question of suffering, whether it is possible for us as human beings who have lived on this earth for so many millennia, whether it is possible to end our sorrow. Please, as we have pointed out, this is a serious question. It's not just a Sunday morning sermon. Thank god we are not in a church or a cathedral, you are under lovely trees. We ought to be serious enough to enquire into all these matters. So we are going to enquire first why man has pursued pleasure at any price, why it has become such an important thing in life. When you emphasize one thing, you deny the others. You are merely pursuing pleasure, pleasure in so many forms; pleasure of possession; pleasure in attachment; pleasure in becoming something; pleasure in having knowledge; pleasure in having a piece of earth; pleasure in feeling that you have achieved something, you have been able to have a very good body; pleasure in drink - you know, so many forms of pleasure. Not only sexual remembrance of pleasure, but the pleasure of seeking, finding, achieving, being somebody. So why has pleasure become so extraordinarily important in life?

What is pleasure? As we examined very carefully into the nature of fear, went into it in great detail, we should also regard, examine pleasure. What is pleasure? Please, you answer the question, not the speaker. Is it a remembrance? Pleasure in prayer, pleasure in worship I don't know what you pray to, what you worship, but it's a pleasure. Is it a remembrance of things that are past, over? Or, is it something in the future? Thinking about that which might give you pleasure. Or, the remembering of something which gave you a delight yesterday. Does pleasure as fear exist now, in that sense of having pleasure at the moment? It's like a man saying, I am happy. The moment he says that, he is not. It's only the remembrance of being happy at one time, or yesterday; that remembrance is the pleasure and the pursuit of that remembrance in action. I hope you are following all this. So, is pleasure a matter of time? Is pleasure an action of thought? As fear, we said yesterday, and we have said this often before, time and thought are the root of fear. Time and thought are the root of pleasure. We want to deny fear, but pursue pleasure. They are two sides of the same coin. You cannot be free from fear is you do not understand the nature of pleasure. When you look at that mountain, though it is a cloudy morning, when you look at these marvellous old trees, and the blue sky, it gives you a delight. It is a marvellous thing to look at nature and the mountains and the rivers and the animals; wild, not kept in the zoo. It gives you a sense of extraordinary width and beauty. You remember that, then that remembrance insists and pursues, demanding more of the same thing. So thought and time are the factors of fear, and pleasure. We are not denying or asserting or suppressing fear, but to observe it, to see what is implied in it, to be totally acquainted with it.

Then one can ask, what is love? You understand, this is very serious, all these questions, human questions which affect our daily life. Is love pleasure? Man has reduced it to that. Is love pleasure? Is love desire? Love of country, love of a person, love of a poem, love of a painting, love of the country; love of acquiring a great deal of knowledge. So what is love? Love of god; it's so easy to love god. We don't know what that is, but we have invented it, and so we love it. You understand? What we invent, we love. So what is love? Negation is the most positive action. To negate that which is false, totally negate that which is false is the most positive action. To negate, for instance, the whole concept of nationalism, or a saviour, or some external agency to reform us, to change us, to bring about a different society; to negate the outward agency of any kind is the most positive action. So to negate totally that which is not love. That is, to negate jealousy, to negate totally every for of antagonism, to put aside competition; to deny the solitude, the sense of separate entity - and you are not a separate entity, you are related, you are the mankind.

So to deny that which is false is the truth. To deny all illusions is to live in reality. So can one deny, put aside, negate that which is not love. Attachment is not love; see the consequences of attachment; attachment to an idea; to a belief, to a conclusion, to a piece of earth, as my country; attachment to a person. What is involved in this attachment? Suppose I am attached to my wife. What are the consequences of attachment? Enquire, please, for yourself. I am attached to my wife, or the wife is attached to me. And the consequences are fear; the loss. If I am attached to a belief, the same thing, fear of losing that belief. If I am attached to some experience, I hold on to that and I battle, resist any form of enquiry by you to doubt it. I daren't doubt it, because I feel without it I am nothing. So, is it possible to have a relationship with a man, woman, or anything, anything, without any sense of attachment? With my wife, if I told her, "Darling, I am not attached to you," what would she say? She would throw something at me, probably. (Laughter) You laugh, but you have not applied, you don't face the facts; that attachment denies totally love. You will say, I understand it logically, intellectually, but I have not this feeling that I must be free from it; because that's one of the factors of conflict. Where there is conflict, there is not only division, there cannot be love. If I love the thing called god which man has invented, there is conflict, because I want his forgiveness, his prayer. You follow?

So love cannot exist where there is antagonism, competition, attachment, conflict, possession. Now can the mind, can a human being negate all that, and live with a man or a woman in society? You have heard this statement; either it is true or utterly meaningless. If it is meaningless, then it has no value. But if you have heard it and find it has value in the sense that it can be applied, why is it that human beings, knowing all this, don't apply? Why is it that human beings never change radically? Nothing outside will make you change. No gods, no gurus, no Masters, no saviours, no authority. There is a mutation in that conditioning, only when you yourself see the truth of it. That means you yourself have to think clearly, objectively, not personally. That means to have this extraordinary sense of the feeling of being whole. Not fragmented, means to be safe, free from all error. And when the mind is in that state, there is love. It's not whether you love your wife or don't love somebody else, love is love. Please see all this. It's not, can I love one person and not love another? It's like the perfume of a flower; when the perfume is there, it is not only for the one who is nearest to the flower, but the flower itself is a beauty of life, to be looked at, admired, smelled by anyone who wants to. This is not a romantic statement where you can kind of admire and smile and say, I wish I had it. Because without that perfume of love, life has no meaning. You may be a marvellous professor, great scientist, and so on; without that life has lost its vitality, its depth, its beauty.

And also we should talk about what is beauty. What is the quality of mind that has beauty? Is it the face, well covered up, all kinds of cosmetics, lovely hair, properly shaped eyes, and so on? Is beauty in the painting of a great master; is there beauty in a lovely poem? What is beauty? Because if you have not that quality of that sense of depth and the clarity which beauty brings about, love has no meaning either, because they two go together. So one has to enquire very carefully, and if you are serious, deeply, what is beauty. Can beauty exist where the mind is in conflict? Where you have problems, one or many, can beauty exist? Or, beauty is there when you are not there. Have you ever looked at a great mountain, the majesty, the dignity, the immovability of that mountain when you look at it? For a moment, the majesty of it drives away all your problems - for a second. That is, at that moment, you, with all your problems, are not there. And you say, what a marvellous thing that is. There, the outward greatness drives away the pettiness of yourself. Then that feeling of immensity, magnitude, that great wordless state puts away the little problems of life. Like a child with a toy, the toy takes the child over; for a moment the child has forgotten; or is absorbed by the toy. And we are also absorbed by something; escape from ourselves. Which is to absorbed. You are being absorbed now by the talk. So for the moment you are quiet and so on. So when you with your problems, with your anxieties, with your loneliness, with your attachments, are not there then beauty is. And where there is beauty, and love, life becomes an extraordinary movement.

I think we had better stop now. We'll discuss next Saturday the ending of sorrow, what death means, what is meditation, if there is at all something that is utterly beyond all words, beyond all time, and that which is sacred. We'll talk about it Saturday and Sunday. May we get up?


Commentaries on Living Series I Chapter 67 'Desire and Conflict'

IT WAS A pleasant group; most of them were eager, and there were a few who listened to refute. Listening is an art not easily come by, but in it there is beauty and great understanding. We listen with the various depths of our being, but our listening is always with a preconception or from a particular point of view. We do not listen simply; there is always the intervening screen of our own thoughts, conclusions and prejudices. We listen with pleasure or resistance, with grasping or rejection, but there is no listening. To listen there must be an inward quietness, a freedom from the strain of acquiring, a relaxed attention. This alert yet passive state is able to hear what is beyond the verbal conclusion. Words confuse, they are only the outward means of communication; but to commune beyond the noise of words, there must be in listening an alert passivity. Those who love may listen; but it is extremely rare to find a listener. Most of us are after results, achieving goals, we are forever overcoming and conquering, and so there is no listening. It is only in listening that one hears the song of the words.

"Is it possible to be free of all desire? Without desire, is there life? Is not desire life itself? To seek to be free of desire is to invite death, is it not?"

What is desire? When are we aware of it? When do we say we desire? Desire is not an abstraction, it exists only in relationship. Desire arises in conflict, in relationship. Without contact, there is no desire. Contact may be at any level, but without it there is no sensation, no response, no desire. We know the process of desire, the way it comes into being: perception, contact, sensation, desire. But when are we aware of desire? When do I say I have a desire? Only when there is the disturbance of pleasure or of pain. It is when there is an awareness of conflict, of disturbance, that there is the cognizance of desire. Desire is the inadequate response to challenge. The perception of a beautiful car gives rise to the disturbance of pleasure. This disturbance is the consciousness of desire; The focusing of disturbance, caused by pain or by pleasure, is self-consciousness. Self-consciousness is desire. We are conscious when there is the disturbance of inadequate response to challenge. Conflict is self-consciousness. Can there be freedom from this disturbance, from the conflict of desire?

"Do you mean freedom from the conflict of desire, or from desire itself?"

Are conflict and desire two separate states? If they are, our inquiry must lead to illusion. If there were no disturbance of pleasure or pain, of wanting, seeking, fulfilling, either negatively or positively, would there be desire? And do we want to get rid of disturbance? If we can understand this, then we may be able to grasp the significance of desire. Conflict is self-consciousness; the focusing of attention through disturbance is desire. Is it that you want to get rid of the conflicting element is desire, and keep the pleasurable element? Both pleasure and conflict are disturbing, are they not? Or do you think pleasure does not disturb?

"Pleasure is not disturbing."

Is that true? Have you never noticed the pain of pleasure? Is not the craving for pleasure ever on the increase, ever demanding more and more? Is not the craving for more as disturbing as the urgency of avoidance? Both bring about conflict. We want to keep the pleasurable desire, and avoid the painful; but if we look closely, both are disturbing. But do you want to be free from disturbance?

"If we have no desire we will die; if we have no conflict we will go to sleep."

Are you speaking from experience, or have you merely an idea about it? We are imagining what it would be like to have no conflict and so are preventing the experiencing of whatever that state is in which all conflict has ceased. Our problem is, what causes conflict? Can we not see a beautiful or an ugly thing without conflict coming into being? Can we not observe, listen without self-consciousness? Can we not live without disturbance? Can we not be without desire? Surely, we must understand the disturbance, and not seek a way of overcoming or exalting desire. Conflict must be understood, not ennobled or suppressed.

What causes conflict? Conflict arises when the response is not adequate to the challenge; and this conflict is the focusing of consciousness as the self. The self, the consciousness focused through conflict, is experience. Experience is response to a stimulus or challenge; without terming or naming, there is no experience. Naming is out of the storehouse, memory; and this naming is the process of verbalizing, the making of symbols, images, words, which strengthens memory. Consciousness, the focusing of the self through conflict, is the total process of experience, of naming, of recording.

"In this process, what is it that gives rise to conflict? Can we be free from conflict? And what is beyond conflict?" It is naming that gives rise to conflict, is it not? You approach the challenge, at whatever level, with a record, with an idea, with a conclusion, with prejudice; that is, you name the experience. This terming gives quality to experience, the quality arising out of naming. Naming is the recording of memory. The past meets the new; challenge is met by memory, the past. The responses of the past cannot understand the living, the new, the challenge; the responses of the past are inadequate, and from this arises conflict, which is self-consciousness. Conflict ceases when there is no process of naming. You can watch in yourself how the naming is almost simultaneous with the response. The interval between response and naming is experiencing. Experiencing, in which there is neither the experiencer nor the experienced, is beyond conflict. Conflict is the focusing of the self, and with the cessation of conflict there is the ending of all thought and the beginning of the inexhaustible.

Commentaries on Living Series I Chapter 68 'Action Without Purpose'

HE BELONGED TO various and widely different organizations, and was active in them all. He wrote and talked, collected money, organized. He was aggressive, insistent and effective. He was a very useful person, much in demand, and was forever going up and down the land. He had been through the political agitations, had gone to prison, followed the leaders, and now he was becoming an important person in his own right. He was all for the immediate carrying out of great schemes; and like all these educated people, he was versed in philosophy. He said he was a man of action, and not a contemplative; he used a Sanskrit phrase which was intended to convey a whole philosophy of action. The very assertion that he was a man of action implied that he was one of the essential elements of life - perhaps not he personally, but the type. He had classified himself and thereby blocked the understanding of himself.

Labels seem to give satisfaction. We kept the category to which we are supposed to belong as a satisfying explanation of life. We are worshippers of words and labels; we never seem to go beyond the symbol, to comprehend the worth of the symbol. By calling ourselves this or that, we ensure ourselves against further disturbance, and settle back. One of the curses of ideologies and organized beliefs is the comfort, the deadly gratification they offer. They put us to sleep, and in the sleep we dream, and the dream becomes action. How easily we are distracted! And most of us want to be distracted; most of us are tired out with incessant conflict, and distractions become a necessity, they become more important than what is. We can play with distractions, but not with what is; distractions are illusions, and there is a perverse delight in them.

What is action? What is the process of action? Why do we act? Mere activity is not action, surely; to keep busy is not action, is it? The housewife is busy, and would you call that action?

"No, of course not. She is only concerned with everyday, petty affairs. A man of action is occupied with larger problems and responsibilities. Occupation with wider and deeper issues may be called action, not only political but spiritual. It demands capacity, efficiency, organized efforts a sustained drive towards a purpose. Such a man is not a contemplative, a mystic, a hermit, he is a man of action."

Occupation with wider issues you would call action. What are wider issues? Are they separate from everyday existence? Is action apart from the total process of life? Is there action when there is no integration of all the many layers of existence? Without understanding and so integrating the total process of life, is not action mere destructive activity? Man is a total process, and action must be the outcome of this totality.

"But that would imply not only inaction, but indefinite postponement. There is an urgency of action, and it is no good philosophizing about it."

We are not philosophizing, but only wondering if your so-called action is not doing infinite harm. Reform always needs further reform. Partial action is no action at all, it brings about disintegration. If you will have the patience, we can find now, not in the future, that action which is total, integrated.

Can purposive action be called action? To have a purpose, an ideal, and work towards it - is that action? When action is for a result, is it action?

"How else can you act?"

You call action that which has a result, an end in view, do you not? You plan the end, or you have an idea, a belief, and work towards it. Working towards an object, an end, a goal, factual or psychological, is what is generally called action. This process can be understood in relation to some physical fact, such as building a bridge; but is it as easily understood with regard to psychological purposes? Surely, we are talking of the psychological purpose, the ideology, the ideal, or the belief towards which you are working. Would you call action this working towards a psychological purpose?

"Action without a purpose is no action at all, it is death. Inaction is death."

Inaction is not the opposite of action, it is quite a different state, but for the moment that is irrelevant; we may discuss that later, but let us come back to our point. Working towards an end, an ideal, is generally called action, is it not? But how does the ideal come into being?, Is it entirely different from what is). Is antithesis different and apart from thesis? Is the ideal of non-violence wholly other than violence? Is not the ideal self-projected? Is it not homemade? In acting towards a purpose, an ideal, you are pursuing a self-projection, are you not?

"Is the ideal a self-projection?"

You are this, and you want to become that. Surely, that is the outcome of your thought. It may not be the outcome of your own thought, but it is born of thought, is it not? Thought projects the ideal; the ideal is part of thought. The ideal is not something beyond thought; it is thought itself.

"What's wrong with thought? Why shouldn't thought create the ideal?"

You are this, which does not satisfy, so you want to be that. If there were an understanding of this, would that come into being? Because you do not understand this, you create that, hoping through that to understand or to escape from this. Thought creates the ideal as well as the problem; the ideal is a self-projection, and your working towards that self-projection is what you call action, action with a purpose. So your action is within the limits of your own projection, whether God or the State. This movement within your own bounds is the activity of the dog chasing its tail; and is that action?

"But is it possible to act without a purpose?"

Of course it is. If you see the truth of action with a purpose, then there is just action. Such action is the only effective action, it is the only radical revolution.

"You mean action without the self, don't you?"

Yes, action without the idea. The idea is the self identified with God or with the State. Such identified action only creates more conflict, more confusion and misery. But it is hard for the man of so-called action to put aside the idea. Without the ideology he feels lost, and he is; so he is not a man of action, but a man caught in his own self-projections whose activities are the glorification of himself. His activities contribute to separation, to disintegration.

"Then what is one to do?"

Understand what your activity is, and only then is there action.


The Urgency of Change 'Love and Sex'

Questioner: I'm a married man with several children. I've lived rather a dissipated life in search of pleasure, but a fairly civilized life too, and I've made a success of it financially. But now I'm middle-aged and am feeling concerned, not only about my family but also about the way the world is going. I'm not given to brutality or violent feelings, and I have always considered that forgiveness and compassion are the most important things in life. Without these man becomes subhuman. So if I may I should like to ask you what love is. Is there really such a thing? Compassion must be part of it, but I always feel that love is something much vaster, and if we could explore it together perhaps I should then make my life into something worthwhile before it is too late. I have really come to ask this one thing - what is love?

Krishnamurti: Before we begin to go into this we must be very clear that the word is not the thing, the description is not the described, because any amount of explanation, however subtle and clever, will not open the heart to the immensity of love. This we must understand, and not merely stick to words: words are useful for communication, but in talking about something that is really non-verbal we must establish a communion between us, so that both of us feel and realize the same thing at the same time, with a fullness of mind and heart. Otherwise we will be playing with words. How can one approach this really very subtle thing that cannot be touched by the mind? We must go rather hesitatingly. Shall we first see what it is not, and then perhaps we may be able to see what it is? Through negation we may come upon the positive, but merely to pursue the positive leads to assumptions and conclusions which bring about division. You are asking what love is. We are saying we may come upon it when we know what it is not. Anything that brings about a division, a separation, is not love, for in that there is conflict, strife and brutality.

Questioner: What do you mean by a division, a separation that brings about strife - what do you mean by it?

Krishnamurti: Thought in its very nature is divisive. It is thought that seeks pleasure and holds it. It is thought that cultivates desire.

Questioner: Will you go into desire a bit more?

Krishnamurti: There is the seeing of a house, the sensation that it is lovely, then there is the desire to own it and to have pleasure from it, then there is the effort to get it. All this constitutes the centre, and this centre is the cause of division. This centre is the feeling of a "me", which is the cause of division, because this very feeling of "me`' is the feeling of separation. People have called this the ego and all kinds of other names - the "lower self" as opposed to some idea of a "higher self" - but there is no need to be complicated about it; it is very simple. Where there is the centre, which is the feeling of "me", which in its activities isolates itself, there is division and resistance. And all this is the process of thought. So when you ask what is love, it is not of this centre. Love is not pleasure and pain, nor hate nor violence in any form. Questioner: Therefore in this love you speak of there can be no sex because there cannot be desire?

Krishnamurti: Don't, please, come to any conclusion. We are investigating, exploring. Any conclusion or assumption prevents further enquiry. To answer this question we have also to look at the energy of thought. Thought, as we have said, sustains pleasure by thinking about something that has been pleasurable, cultivating the image, the picture. Thought engenders pleasure. Thinking about the sexual act becomes lust, which is entirely different from the act of sex. What most people are concerned with is the passion of lust. Craving before and after sex is lust. This craving is thought. Thought is not love.

Questioner: Can there be sex without this desire of thought?

Krishnamurti: You have to find out for yourself. Sex plays an extraordinarily important part in our lives because it is perhaps the only deep, firsthand experience we have. Intellectually and emotionally we conform, imitate, follow, obey. There is pain and strife in all our relationships, except in the act of sex. This act, being so different and beautiful, we become addicted to, so it in turn becomes a bondage. The bondage is the demand for its continuation - again the action of the centre which is divisive. One is so hedged about - intellectually, in the family, in the community, through social morality, through religious sanctions - so hedged about that there is only this one relationship left in which there is freedom and intensity. Therefore we give tremendous importance to it. But if there were freedom all around then this would not be such a craving and such a problem. We make it a problem because we can't get enough of it, or because we feel guilty at having got it, or because in getting it we break the rules which society has laid down. It is the old society which calls the new society permissive because for the new society sex is a part of life. In freeing the mind from the bondage of imitation, authority, conformity and religious prescriptions, sex has its own place, but it won't be all-consuming. From this one can see that freedom is essential for love - not the freedom of revolt, not the freedom of doing what one likes nor of indulging openly or secretly one's cravings, but rather the freedom which comes in the understanding of this whole structure and nature of the centre. Then freedom is love.

Questioner: So freedom is not licence?

Krishnamurti: No. Licence is bondage. Love is not hate, nor jealousy, nor ambition, nor the competitive spirit with its fear of failure. It is not the love of god nor the love of man - which again is a division. Love is not of the one or of the many. When there is love it is personal and impersonal, with and without an object. It is like the perfume of a flower; one or many can smell it: what matters is the perfume, not to whom it belongs.

Questioner: Where does forgiveness come in all this?

Krishnamurti: When there is love there can be no forgiveness. Forgiveness comes only after you have accumulated rancour; forgiveness is resentment. Where there is no wound there is no need for healing. It is inattention that breeds resentment and hate, and you become aware of them and then forgive. Forgiveness encourages division. When you are conscious that you are forgiving, then you are sinning. When you are conscious that you are tolerant, then you are intolerant. When you are conscious that you are silent, then there is no silence. When you deliberately set about to love, then you are violent. As long as there is an observer who says, "I am" or "I am not", love cannot be.

Questioner: What place has fear in love?

Krishnamurti: How can you ask such a question? Where one is, the other is not. When there is love you can do what you will.

The Urgency of Change 'Perception'

Questioner: You use different words for perception. You sometimes say "perception", but also "observe", "see", "understand", "be aware of". I suppose you use all these words to mean the same thing: to see clearly, completely, wholly. Can one see anything totally? We're not talking of physical or technical things, but psychologically can you perceive or understand anything totally? Isn't there always something concealed so that you only see partially? I'd be most obliged if you could go into this matter rather extensively. I feel this is an important question because it may perhaps be a clue to a great many things in life. If I could understand myself totally then perhaps I would have all my problems solved and be a happy superhuman being. When I talk about it I feel rather excited at the possibility of going beyond my little world with its problems and agonies. So what do you mean by perceiving, seeing? Can one see oneself completely?

Krishnamurti: We always look at things partially. Firstly because we are inattentive and secondly because we look at things from prejudices, from verbal and psychological images about what we see. So we never see anything completely. Even to look objectively at nature is quite arduous. To look at a flower without any image, without any botanical knowledge - just to observe it - becomes quite difficult because our mind is wandering, uninterested. And even if it is interested it looks at the flower with certain appreciations and verbal descriptions which seem to give the observer a feeling that he has really looked at it. Deliberate looking is not looking. So we really never look at the flower. We look at it through the image. Perhaps it is fairly easy to look at something that doesn't deeply touch us, as when we go to the cinema and see something which stirs us for the moment but which we soon forget. But to observe ourselves without the image - which is the past, our accumulated experience and knowledge - happens very rarely. We have an image about ourselves. We think we ought to be this and not that. We have built a previous idea about ourselves and through it we look at ourselves. We think we are noble or ignoble and seeing what we actually are either depresses us or frightens us. So we cannot look at ourselves; and when we do, it is partial~ observation, and anything that is partial or incomplete doesn't bring understanding. It is only when we can look at ourselves totally that there is a possibility of being free from what we observe. Our perception is not only with the eyes, with the senses, but also with the mind, and obviously the mind is heavily conditioned. So intellectual perception is only partial perception, yet perceiving with the intellect seems to satisfy most of us, and we think we understand. A fragmentary understanding is the most dangerous and destructive thing. And that is exactly what is happening all over the world. The politician, the priest, the businessman, the technician; even the artist - all of them see only partially. And therefore they are really very destructive people. As they play a great part in the world their partial perception becomes the accepted norm, and man is caught in this. Each of us is at the same time the priest, the politician, the businessman, the artist, and many other fragmentary entities. And each of us is Questioner: I see this clearly. I'm using the word see intellectually, of course.

Krishnamurti: If you see this totally, not intellectually or verbally or emotionally, then you will act and live quite a different kind of life. When you see a dangerous precipice or are faced by a dangerous animal there is no partial understanding or partial action; there is complete action.

Questioner: But we are not faced with such dangerous crises every moment of our lives.

Krishnamurti: We are faced with such dangerous crises all the time. You have become accustomed to them, or are indifferent to them, or you leave it to others to solve the problems; and these others are equally blind and lopsided.

Questioner: But how am I to be aware of these crises all the time, and why do you say there is a crisis all the time?

Krishnamurti: The whole of life is in each moment. Each moment is a challenge. To meet this challenge inadequately is a crisis in living. We don't want to see that these are crises, and we shut our eyes to escape from them. So we become blinder, and the crises augment.

Questioner: But how am I to perceive totally? I'm beginning to understand that I see only partially, and also to understand the importance of looking at myself and the world with complete perception, but there is so much going on in me that it is difficult to decide what to look at. My mind is like a great cage full of restless monkeys.

Krishnamurti: If you see one movement totally, in that totality every other movement is included. If you understand one problem completely, then you understand all human problems, for they are all interrelated. So the question is: can one understand, or perceive, or see, one problem so completely that in the very understanding of it one has understood the rest? This problem must be seen while it is happening, not after or before, as memory or as an example. For instance, it is no good now for us to go into anger or fear; the thing to do is to observe them as they arise. Perception is instantaneous: you understand something instantly or not at all: seeing, hearing, understanding are instantaneous. Listening and looking have duration.

Questioner: My problem goes on. It exists in a span of time. You are saying that seeing is instantaneous and therefore out of time. What gives jealousy or any other habit, or any other problem, duration?

Krishnamurti: Don't they go on because you have not looked at them with sensitivity, choiceless awareness, intelligence? You have looked partially and therefore allowed them to continue. And in addition, wanting to get rid of them is another problem with duration. The incapacity to deal with something makes of it a problem with duration, and gives it life.

Questioner: But how am I to see that whole thing instantly? How am I to understand so that it never comes back?

Krishnamurti: Are you laying emphasis on never or on understanding? If you lay emphasis on never it means you want to escape from it permanently, and this means the creation of a second problem. So we have only one question, which is how to see the problem so completely that one is free of it. Perception can only be out of silence, not out of a chattering mind. The chattering may be the wanting to get rid of it, reduce it, escape from it, suppress it or find a substitute for it, but it is only a quiet mind that sees.

Questioner: How am I to have a quiet mind?

Krishnamurti: You don't see the truth that only a quiet mind sees. How to get a quiet mind doesn't arise. It is the truth that the mind must be quiet, and seeing the truth of this frees the mind from chattering. Perception, which is intelligence, is then operating, not the assumption that you must be silent in order to see. Assumption can also operate but that is a partial, fragmentary operation. There is no relationship between the partial and the total; the partial cannot grow into the total. Therefore seeing is of the greatest importance. Seeing is attention, and it is only inattention that gives rise to a problem.

Questioner: How can I be attentive all the time? It's impossible!

Krishnamurti: That's quite right, it is impossible. But to be aware of your inattention is of the greatest importance, not how to be attentive all the time. It is greed that asks the question, "How can I be attentive all the time?" One gets lost in the practice of being attentive. The practice of being attentive is inattention. You cannot practice to be beautiful, or to love. When hate ceases the other is. Hate can cease only when you give your whole attention to it, when you learn and do not accumulate knowledge about it. Begin very simply.

Questioner: What is the point of your talking if there is nothing we can practise after having heard you?

Krishnamurti: The hearing is of the greatest importance, not what you practise afterwards. The hearing is the instantaneous action. The practice gives duration to problems. Practice is total inattention. Never practise: you can only practise mistakes. Learning is always new.



Question: What is simplicity? Does it imply seeing very clearly the essentials and discarding everything else?

Krishnamurti: Let us see what simplicity is not. Don't say - "That is negation" or "Tell us something positive". That is immature, thoughtless reaction. Those people who offer you the `positive' are exploiters; they have something to give you which you want and through which they exploit you. We are doing nothing of that kind. We are trying to find out the truth of simplicity. Therefore you must discard, put ideas behind and observe anew. The man who has much is afraid of revolution, inwardly and outwardly. Let us find out what is not simplicity. A complicated mind is not simple, is it? A clever mind is not simple; a mind that has an end in view for which it is working, a reward, a fear, is not a simple mind, is it? A mind that is burdened with knowledge is not a simple mind; a mind that is crippled with beliefs is not a simple mind, is it? A mind that has identified itself with something greater and is striving to keep that identity, is not a simple mind, is it? We think it is simple to have only one or two loincloths, we want the outward show of simplicity and we are easily deceived by that. That is why the man who is very rich worships the man who has renounced.

What is simplicity? Can simplicity be the discarding of non-essentials and the pursuing of essentials - which means a process of choice? Does it not mean choice - choosing essentials and discarding non-essentials? What is this process of choosing? What is the entity that chooses? Mind, is it not? It does not matter what you call it. You say, `I will choose this, which is the essential'. How do you know what is the essential? Either you have a pattern of what other people have said or your own experience says that something is the essential. Can you rely on your experience? When you choose, your choice is based on desire, is it not? What you call `the essential' is that which gives you satisfaction. So you are back again in the same process, are you not? Can a confused mind choose? If it does, the choice must also be confused.

Therefore the choice between the essential and the non-essential is not simplicity. It is a conflict. A mind in conflict, in confusion, can never be simple. When you discard, when you really observe and see all these false things, the tricks of the mind, when you look at it and are aware of it, then you will know for yourself what simplicity is. A mind which is bound by belief is never a simple mind. A mind that is crippled with knowledge is not simple. A mind that is distracted by God, by women, by music, is not a simple mind. A mind caught in the routine of the office, of rituals, of prayers, such a mind is not simple. Simplicity is action, without idea. But that is a very rare thing; that means creativeness. So long as there is not creation, we are centres of mischief, misery and destruction. Simplicity is not a thing which you can pursue and experience. Simplicity comes, as a flower opens at the right moment, when each one understands the whole process of existence and relationship. Because we have never thought about it, observed it, we are not aware of it; we value all the outer forms of few possessions but those are not simplicity. Simplicity is not to be found; it does not lie as a choice between the essential and the non-essential. It comes into being only when the self is not; when the mind is not caught in speculations, conclusions, beliefs, ideations. Such a free mind only can find truth. Such a mind alone can receive that which is immeasurable, which is unnameable; and that is simplicity.


Question: How is one who is superficial to become serious?

Krishnamurti: First of all, we must be aware that we are superficial, must we not? What does it mean to be superficial? Essentially, to be dependent, does it not? To depend on stimulation, to depend on challenge, to depend on another, to depend psychologically on certain values, certain experiences, certain memories - does not all that make for superficiality? When I depend on going to church every morning or every week in order to be uplifted, in order to be helped, does that not make me superficial? If I have to perform certain rituals to maintain my sense of integrity or to regain a feeling which I may once have had, does that not make me superficial? Does it not make me superficial when I give myself over to a country, to a plan or to a particular political group? Surely this whole process of dependence is an evasion of myself; this identification with the greater is the denial of what I am. But I cannot deny what I am; I must understand what I am and not try to identify myself with the universe, with God, with a particular political party or what you will. All this leads to shallow thinking and from shallow thinking there is activity which is everlastingly mischievous, whether on a worldwide scale, or on the individual scale.

First of all, do we recognize that we are doing these things? We do not; we justify them. We say, "What shall I do if I don't do these things? I'll be worse off; my mind will go to pieces. Now, at least, I am struggling towards something better." The more we struggle the more superficial we are. I have to see that first, have I not? That is one of the most difficult things; to see what I am, to acknowledge that I am stupid, that I am shallow, that I am narrow, that I am jealous. If I see what I am, if I recognize it, then with that I can start. Surely, a shallow mind is a mind that escapes from what is; not to escape requires arduous investigation, the denial of inertia. The moment I know I am shallow, there is already a process of deepening - if I don't do anything about the shallowness. If the mind says, "I am petty, and I am going to go into it, I am going to understand the whole of this pettiness, this narrowing influence", then there is a possibility of transformation; but a petty mind, acknowledging that it is petty and trying to be non-petty by reading, by meeting people, by travelling, by being incessantly active like a monkey, is still a petty mind.

Again, you see, there is a real revolution only if we approach this problem rightly. The right approach to the problem gives an extraordinary confidence which I assure you moves mountains - the mountains of one's own prejudices, conditionings. Being aware of a shallow mind, do not try to become deep. A shallow mind can never know great depths. It can have plenty of knowledge, information, it can repeat words - you know the whole paraphernalia of a superficial mind that is active. But if you know that you are superficial, shallow, if you are aware of the shallowness and observe all its activities without judging, without condemnation, then you will soon see that the shallow thing has disappeared entirely, without your action upon it. That requires patience, watchfulness, not an eager desire for a result, for achievement. It is only a shallow mind that wants an achievement, a result.

The more you are aware of this whole process, the more you will discover the activities of the mind but you must observe them without trying to put an end to them, because the moment you seek an end, you are again caught in the duality of the `me' and the `not-me' - which continues the problem.